Medium....gifted or coldreading?

Saw the whole Derren Brown show when it was on TV a few years back. He does a great job of highlighting how many people are taken in by charlatans. I remember being at such a gathering myself, and saw so many of these techniques being used and so many people being taken in by it.

p.s. in the whole show, he even does a performance himself using cold reading techniques, and the audience are taken in by it. It may even be on Channel 4 catch up still. (4OD)

"Derren Brown Investigates: The Man Who Contacts The Dead"

Doesn't look like it's available to watch though. 🙁

Thanks...I wish more gullible people (i.e. those recently bereaved and seeking solace via a spiritualist church) could know about this cold reading. It is disgraceful preying on such defenceless people.

It is absolutely true that there are con artists and charlatans out there who pretend to be Mediums. Usually for money. It is also true that there are those who can and do contact ones who have "passed" on.
Most people who want to contact "deceased" relatives are because of their very circumstances venerable to fraudsters.
In my opinion if anyone wants to attempt this type of contact they should seek help from a recognised organisation such as a Spiritual church. Their members are more likely to be honest and reputable.

I have known people who have passed themselves off as Mediums and I have also known "contacts " who have passed themselves off as something they were not.

One has to be sensible when delving into this sort of thing. A golden rule that seems to be applicable is that any "contact" should really be expressing love. There should be no attempt to influence the recipient's way of life.

All the contacts that the Medium has "brought through" for me have been deceased family members and they have only ever offered love. Many other people's contacts that I have "witnessed" seem to be directed at love, and reassuring the recipients that all is well, and for them not to be worrying about the person who has "passed" on.

I watched Derren Brown's performance of psychic surgery on one of his show's . (on t.v.)

Perhaps he needs to go see the psychic surgeon I went to see in order to gets some kind of balanced perspective lols .

What I noticed was that it was mainly to discredit psychic surgery rather than show how something legit can be faked .

Same goes for cold reading etc ..

x daz x

I think the problem that Derren Brown and other sceptics have is that, whilst there are claims that some of these people are genuine, none have been able (or willing even) to demonstrate their abilities in controlled circumstances.

I think the problem that Derren Brown and other sceptics have is that, whilst there are claims that some of these people are genuine, none have been able (or willing even) to demonstrate their abilities in controlled circumstances.

I trust you mean mediumship and not psychic surgery!?

Well, perhaps both, I don't follow it all.

Derren Brown did an excellent fake psychic surgery on his show, looked just like he was cutting the lad open and removing an organ. Easy to be convinced that it's real when it's not.

Well, perhaps both, I don't follow it all.

Derren Brown did an excellent fake psychic surgery on his show, looked just like he was cutting the lad open and removing an organ. Easy to be convinced that it's real when it's not.

Well I guess whoever is on the operating table might know the difference although the power of placebo can be pretty powerful!

I think the problem that Derren Brown and other sceptics have is that, whilst there are claims that some of these people are genuine, none have been able (or willing even) to demonstrate their abilities in controlled circumstances.

I think that one of the main problems is that the "human" cannot control all the circumstances. Even referring to the Bible it appears that even Jesus could not always guarantee results.

It is said that he had poor healing results in his home town because many people did not have faith in him. There has to be confidence in the process. A disbeliever's thoughts can upset the process. Even as has been suggested by Quantum theorist from as far away as across the galaxy.

It is highly probable that if a program was advertised on TV as a demonstration that disenchanted viewers could effect the results. Funnily enough it appears that they could not effect the result once it has been observed.

I think that one of the main problems is that the "human" cannot control all the circumstances. Even referring to the Bible it appears that even Jesus could not always guarantee results.

It is said that he had poor healing results in his home town because many people did not have faith in him. There has to be confidence in the process. A disbeliever's thoughts can upset the process. Even as has been suggested by Quantum theorist from as far away as across the galaxy.C

It is highly probable that if a program was advertised on TV as a demonstration that disenchanted viewers could effect the results. Funnily enough it appears that they could not effect the result once it has been observed.

I don't really understand your example re. the TV programme ad. Can you describe what took place in more detail please? Viewing something on TV and supposedly affecting its results/outcome seems fraught with complications, e.g. how it can be measured and what are the other influencing factors.

I'm more interested in who these quantum theorists are who are far away across the galaxy. 😀

I don't really understand your example re. the TV programme ad. Can you describe what took place in more detail please? Viewing something on TV and supposedly affecting its results/outcome seems fraught with complications, e.g. how it can be measured and what are the other influencing factors.

Quantum research seems to suggest that observation can effect the result of a thought associated experiment. So if different people are observing an experiment or demonstration the outcome can be effected. If all the people expect a certain result it is more likely to happen. If all the people disbelieve then the results can change.

Thought has an effect. There are some who desire public demonstrations of skills such as Mediumship and "spiritual" healing, but it is doubtful if it would be conclusive or acceptable to the public in general.

I never actually said that a TV program had taken place I said that I doubted its validity if one actually did take place,

Quantum research seems to suggest that observation can effect the result of a thought associated experiment. So if different people are observing an experiment or demonstration the outcome can be effected. If all the people expect a certain result it is more likely to happen. If all the people disbelieve then the results can change.

Thought has an effect. There are some who desire public demonstrations of skills such as Mediumship and "spiritual" healing, but it is doubtful if it would be conclusive or acceptable to the public in general.

I never actually said that a TV program had taken place I said that I doubted its validity if one actually did take place,

Ah OK ... you were theorising then. Yes I am familiar with quantum physics.

Ah OK ... you were theorising then. Yes I am familiar with quantum physics.

Not too sure all quantum research can be classed as just theory.
Professor Higg's discovery of the "Higgs Boson" at the Cerne collider last year earned him a Nobel prize..

His discovery is regarded as the answerer as to how a non mass particle can acquire mass...... Some may translate this as thought creating effect.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in science. It is not "just theory". It summarizes a hypothesis that has been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence supports the hypothesis, it becomes a theory and is accepted as a valid explanation. This is quite different from the common usage of 'something someone made up'.

Not too sure all quantum research can be classed as just theory.
Professor Higg's discovery of the "Higgs Boson" at the Cerne collider last year earned him a Nobel prize..

His discovery is regarded as the answerer as to how a non mass particle can acquire mass...... Some may translate this as thought creating effect.

In the realm of metaphysics, thought creating effect is known as cosmic ordering or manifestation.

"Theory" has a specific meaning in science. It is not "just theory". It summarizes a hypothesis that has been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence supports the hypothesis, it becomes a theory and is accepted as a valid explanation. This is quite different from the common usage of 'something someone made up'.

I wonder how string theory fits into this. From what I can gather it is a product of mathematical evaluation. If that is true then it must be repeatable, yet is string theory fully accepted.

As a probability it certainly seems to explain how an energy is the fundamental building blocks of the body and by extension could align itself to homeopathy and many of the claims of resonance effects.

Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss quantum theories?

String theory is just one of many theories that could explain the building blocks of the universe, if they could just incorporate all the uncertain parts of the theory and the other bits that are missing. Other theories cover some of those other parts, but then miss out on stuff in string theory.
So, although most of these theories have come about through mathematical processes, a lot of them involve the creation of new mathematical concepts or ideas to cover the bits that are missing, and that still leaves things that need to be explained before the theory becomes a fact. Unfortunately, with every theory created there's numerous more come out of it that still require proving first.

Just to say...I don't mind that this thread has meandered into quantum physics.

Just to say...I don't mind that this thread has meandered into quantum physics.

Probably my fault, its just that for me Quantum seems to be moving towards the scientific way of understanding metaphysics, and the relationship between Spiritual (non matter) and matter.

Probably my fault, its just that for me Quantum seems to be moving towards the scientific way of understanding metaphysics, and the relationship between Spiritual (non matter) and matter.

Yes I totally agree. I am up to speed on this! It's an interesting time but I have heard it said that new agers have got quantum physics wrong, i.e. with the law of attraction (what you focus on, you get more of). However, many have successfully used cosmic ordering/manifestation so it is not so easily dismissed. Also it is said to be an old 'secret' i.e. not a recent phenomenon.

Probably my fault, its just that for me Quantum seems to be moving towards the scientific way of understanding metaphysics, and the relationship between Spiritual (non matter) and matter.

I read this a lot from New Age people. Not at all from quantum scientists - funny, that.

Giles, it's not unfortunate, it's part of scientific process. And most scientific theories never become 'fact' (i.e. a scientific law). This is because of the way scientific process is structured. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' and with a 'high probability of being right' are the best (not a good word really, given that it isn't a failing) that can be achieved.

I said "unfortunate" because science has been striving to reach that unified theory of everything. In doing so, different scientists have gone down different theoretical routes, each one generating more questions than get answered, and thus creating more and more divergence than actually getting towards their goal of unifying them all.
I've got a good book (a science book - not new age) that talks about this issue... just can't remember which one it is at the moment, out of the few hundred books I've got. 🙂
It's essentially (one part of) science saying that with the current scientific method they will never reach a unified theory, partially because their continued need to create new maths to 'explain' or 'fill in' the missing pieces of a theory just leave them with more maths that needs to be proven.

Saying that, I do think there's a lot to be said for the potential relationship between quantum theories and 'new age' theories, it's just that there's often too many 'new agers' out there who claim things are quantum without actually understanding quantum theories themselves (or they just mislabel their therapies etc. because it sounds 'cool' to use the word 'quantum', as if it is something proven), and there are too many scientists out there who are unwilling to even consider the possibility that some of the phenomena we experience may actually be able to be explained by quantum principles, however the explanations of those phenomena are using a different terminology, even though they're really talking about the same thing.

I said "unfortunate" because science has been striving to reach that unified theory of everything. In doing so, different scientists have gone down different theoretical routes, each one generating more questions than get answered, and thus creating more and more divergence than actually getting towards their goal of unifying them all.
I've got a good book (a science book - not new age) that talks about this issue... just can't remember which one it is at the moment, out of the few hundred books I've got. 🙂
It's essentially (one part of) science saying that with the current scientific method they will never reach a unified theory, partially because their continued need to create new maths to 'explain' or 'fill in' the missing pieces of a theory just leave them with more maths that needs to be proven.

Saying that, I do think there's a lot to be said for the potential relationship between quantum theories and 'new age' theories, it's just that there's often too many 'new agers' out there who claim things are quantum without actually understanding quantum theories themselves (or they just mislabel their therapies etc. because it sounds 'cool' to use the word 'quantum', as if it is something proven), and there are too many scientists out there who are unwilling to even consider the possibility that some of the phenomena we experience may actually be able to be explained by quantum principles, however the explanations of those phenomena are using a different terminology, even though they're really talking about the same thing.

I would agree

Do we need a unified theory of everything? I can see why purely theoretical scientists might. Many other people only want it if it accords with what they already think. And the rest aren't that bothered.

Well, everyone's always looking for "the answer" to everything, so if science can come up with a unified theory of everything (something that isn't just "42") then they'll be jumping for joy as they'll have 'proven' everything in existence, or so they'll say, and then they'll be able to disprove things that clearly go against it and we can all become robots.... erm... perhaps I digress a little. 😀

If they really did, then there'd be no more need for proving or disproving - anyone who wanted to continue to investigate would be ostracized. Until the evidence against was overwhelming in which case either the whole cycle would start up again or the investigators would meet with nasty accidents (since everything has a political side).

Actually, science done well should work from the other end. Not coming up with an hypothesis then trying to prove it, but coming up with an hypothesis and then trying to disprove it. But researchers are human, of course, and have human biases that make this difficult.

For example - to get back to the main thread topic - if an investigator believes wholeheartedly in the validity of mediumship, s/he is likely to see evidence of it working. If s/he categorically disbelieves in it, s/he is likely to remain unconvinced no matter how compelling the evidence might be to others.

Which is one reason that the scientific process includes peer reviews and encourages others to attempt to duplicate the results. Doesn't always happen.