Marcel Cairo and Alex Tsakiris team up again. . .

Definitely worth tuning in to, and calling in to the show. This time Alex is interviewing Marcel. Call in with your tough questions!

Tuesday August 28, 4PM PDT / 7PM EDT.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, the show will not be aired live because of scheduling conflicts. So you can't call in. Darn! However you can certainly email Marcel or Alex with your questions this weekend before they record the show.

Great interview with Deborah Blum

The Daily Grail has an extremely informative interview with Ghost Hunters author and Pulitzer prize-winning author Deborah Blum. Here are a few extracts:

TDG: . . .I'm interested to know why you concentrated on the 'William James era' of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). Were you lead into the topic accidentally when originally researching James, or is there something about this period of psychical research which made it stand out to you as a writer?

DB: First by accident, then by plan. I was researching the history of psychology for an earlier book (on the science of affection) and I stumbled across some references to William James losing his mind and getting caught up in spiritualism. Other psychologists were just furious with him, angry enough, that I began to wonder why.

As it turned out, they were angry because he was such a leader in the field, they were afraid he would lead the field astray. And was what led me to concentrate on the Victorian period. Because it turned out to be the one time when some of the best scientists in the world - James, Charles Richet and John Strutt (both Nobel Prize winners), Oliver Lodge, a pioneer in wireless communication - were willing to risk their careers to explore supernatural science.

They were so smart, such good researchers, I wanted to know what they found. . .

DB: Here's the blessing and curse of mainstream science. It's the most powerful investigative tool ever invented. It has succeeded by following a very strict set of rules for "proof" of a phenomenon. That phenomenon, for instance, must be predictable, testable, replicable, confirmable. An example of this is the freezing temperature of water (phase change from liquid to solid at 32 degrees fahrenheit.) I can predict this and I (and you and the entire population of the world) can repeat and confirm it ad infinitum.

So far, paranormal phenomena don't follow those rules. They're not predictable in any consistent sense, and rarely perfectly replicable. So - and this William James complained about bitterly - mainstream science has responded by declaring them nonsense and the scientists who pursue them as pseudo-scientists. The problem with that is that our scientific rules may prevent us from trying new approaches, considering alternative ways to measure reality - in other words, box us into a very limited world.

Bottom line, science plays it safe and ruthlessly defends its limits. Totally human and - here's the scandalous part - punishes those who try to make the universe a little more open. . .

TDG: A number of those 'skeptical' reviews of Ghost Hunters have suggested that your 'balanced position' shows that you did not read up on the techniques of fraudulent mediumship, and hence your account was overly credulous (James Randi himself made this point in his newsletter). Can you clarify as to whether you researched things like cold reading, and the other methods used by conjurors and charlatans?

DB: Yes, I knew I was going to get that reaction and, candidly, I thought I could live with it. I'm an obsessive over-researcher so I looked at cold readings, muscle readings, the wonderful fraudulent devices used by mediums, the works. But what made the story interesting, worthwhile, wasn't the fraud. Do we need another book debunking dead mediums?

The whole point of my book - the one I knew would get me in trouble with the Randis of the world - was that possibility exists, that some things remain genuinely fascinatingly explicable, and that there are still questions that deserve to be answered in the realms of the supernatural. Even if we only learn that "supernatural" is the wrong word, that the real answer is that we simply haven't found the limits of the natural world yet.
. . .

TDG: To finish, the tough question - but you can keep your answer extremely short, no need for an explanation. In light of your experience in writing Ghost Hunters, if you (personally) had to answer the question with only a yes or a no: is there something beyond death?

DB: I don't know. But I will tell you that before I researched the book, my answer would have been No. So I'm glad I took the time and trouble - it's made the world a more interesting place for me. . .

This interview is very much worth reading in full.

A real treat. . .

Tomorrow (Tuesday August 7th), Marcel Cairo has a real treat for us: parapsychology researcher and author of The Trickster and the Paranormal, George Hansen.

Hansen's book is a must-read for those interested in psi phenomena and why they inhabit the murky and ill-defined edges of our knowledge and institutions. Don't miss it.

As always, this show will begin at 4:00 PM PDT, 7:00 PM EDT.

UPDATE: The show is now scheduled for tomorrow, August 7th.

Reminder. . .

Marcel Cairo has a show on his Afterlife FM program coming up today that looks interesting titled: Science, Spirituality and Spinoza's God.

Sounds like a great topic.

As always, the show starts at 4:00 PM Eastern, 7:00 Pacific.

The guest today is blogger Brian Hines, who has often had interesting things to say on his blog. Call in and talk to Brian and Marcel on this interesting subject. . .

In the hot seat. . .

I will be appearing tomorrow (Tuesday July 10) on Marcel Cairo's internet radio show AfterlifeFM at 7:00 PM EDT / 4:00 PM PDT. You can listen live and call in too. . .

UPDATE

Thank you very much Marcel for the opportunity to appear on your show. You are a very generous host, free iPhone or not. ;-)

You can download the show from Marcel's archives here.

Interesting show ahead. . .

Marcel Cairo is hosting the very knowledgable Public Parapsychology blogger Annalisa Ventola today on his Afterlife FM show.

Don't miss it!

The show starts at 7:00 PM EDT / 4:00 PDT.

David Chalmers and John Horgan discuss consciousness

If you haven't yet, go watch this fascinating video of Chalmers and Horgan discussing the nature of consciousness.

Great interview with Deborah Blum

Michael Tymn begins his interview with Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer Deborah Blum by recounting a brief history of the history of psychic research:

A century ago, roughly between 1885 and 1925, some distinguished scholars and scientists conducted some very thorough investigations of mediums. Their objective was to determine if spirits were really communicating through the mediums and, concomitantly, whether consciousness survives bodily death. Almost without exception, they came to the same conclusion: that spirit communication was real and that consciousness does survive physical death. The few exceptions accepted that certain mediums were not charlatans; they simply didn't know what to make of it and sat on the fence to protect themselves from ridicule by their closed-minded colleagues, who felt it was beneath their dignity to consider such foolishness.

When I see modern scholars and scientists aping those “closed-minded colleagues” of yesteryear and their ancient ancestors, I've got to believe that evolution has come full circle. Either that, or there are checks and balances in the evolutionary plan to make sure that we don't progress too rapidly. A recent example of what I am talking about is a comment in TIME Magazine by Steven Pinker, a Harvard University psychologists, that “attempts to contact the souls of the dead” by scientists of a century ago “turned up only cheap magic tricks.”

Having thoroughly studied the research done by those psychical researchers of a century ago, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could make such a statement, unless he or she hasn't really dug into the material and is simply suffering from the aping syndrome, the tendency to want to look bright and not foolish by smirking, scoffing, and sneering at things that are beyond the grasp of current science.

After introducing us to Blum's area of research, Tymn goes on to ask some good questions which Blum adroitly answers. Here's the first:

Tymn: What prompted you to write the book?

Blum: Curiosity. I had been researching the early history of psychology for another book and I kept finding references to William James losing his mind, going astray into the world of the weird. And I thought, ‘Well, that's strange because I thought James was considered an intellectual statesman.' So I got a book that Gardner Murphy had put together called ‘William James and Psychical Research.' And as soon as I read it, I saw the possibilities. First, James was far more adventurous and less stuffy than I'd always thought. His personality and that of his correspondents - Fred Myers, Edmund Gurney, Oliver Lodge - just shone in their writing. Second, I found myself agreeing with James perspective on the attitude of science toward psychical studies. More than 100 years ago, he wrote: ‘The rigorously scientific mind may, in truth, easily overshoot the mark. Science means, first of all, a certain dispassionate method. To suppose that it means a certain set of results that one should pink one's faith upon and hug forever is sadly to mistake its genius and degrades the scientific body to the status of a cult.' And that is as true today as it was then. And finally, I realized that there were some wonderful inexplicable supernatural events, uncovered by this group that I wanted to recreate. One of them, I use as the opening of my book - it's called ‘The Woman on the Bridge'.

Now go read Tymn's interview, and check out the rest of his blog while you are at it!

(HT: Michael Prescott)

New podcast and a great article about fundamentalist materialism

I haven't listened to the latest Skeptiko interview with Neal Grossman yet, but I did notice that Alex linked to a remarkably worthy article by Grossman over at the IONS website.

Here are a few cogent paragraphs:

When researchers ask the question, "How can the near-death experience be explained?" they tend to make the usual assumption that an acceptable explanation will be in terms of concepts—biological, neurological, psychological—with which they are already familiar. The near-death experience (NDE) would then be explained, for example, if it could be shown what brain state, which drugs, or what beliefs on the part of the experiencer correlate with the NDE. Those who have concluded that the NDE cannot be explained mean that it cannot be, or has not yet been, correlated with any physical or psychological condition of the experiencer.
I wish to suggest that this approach to explaining the NDE is fundamentally misguided. To my knowledge, no one who has had an NDE feels any need for an explanation in the reductionist sense that researchers are seeking. For the experiencer, the NDE does not need to be explained because it is exactly what it purports to be, which is, at a minimum, the direct experience of consciousness—or minds, or selves, or personal identity—existing independently of the physical body. It is only with respect to our deeply entrenched materialist paradigm that the NDE needs to be explained, or more accurately, explained away. . .

Perhaps the "smoking gun" case is the one described by Michael Sabom in his book Light and Death. In this case, the patient had her NDE while her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees, and all the blood was drained from her body. "Her electroencephalogram was silent, her brain-stem response was absent, and no blood flowed through her brain." A brain in this state cannot create any kind of experience. Yet the patient reported a profound NDE. Those materialists who believe that consciousness is secreted by the brain, or that the brain is necessary for conscious experience to exist, cannot possibly explain, in their own terms, cases such as this. An impartial observer would have to conclude that not all experience is produced by the brain, and that therefore the falsity of materialism has been empirically demonstrated. Thus, what needs to be explained is the abysmal failure of the academic establishment to examine this evidence and to embrace the conclusion: Materialism is false, and consciousness can and does exist independently of the body. . .

Our collective irrationality with respect to the wealth of evidence against materialism manifests in two ways: (i) by ignoring the evidence, and (ii) by insisting on overly stringent standards of evidence, that, if adopted, would render any empirical science impossible.

One of my earliest encounters with this kind of academic irrationality occurred more than twenty years ago. I was devouring everything on the near-death experience I could get my hands on, and eager to share what I was discovering with colleagues. It was unbelievable to me how dismissive they were of the evidence. "Drug-induced hallucinations," "last gasp of a dying brain," and "people see what they want to see" were some of the more commonly used phrases. One conversation in particular caused me to see more clearly the fundamental irrationality of academics with respect to evidence against materialism. I asked, "What about people who accurately report the details of their operation?"

"Oh," came the reply, "they probably just subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brain subconsciously transposed the audio information into a visual format."

"Well," I responded, "what about cases where people report veridical perception of events remote from their body?"

"Oh, that's just a coincidence or a lucky guess."

Exasperated, I asked, "What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that it's real?"

Very nonchalantly, without batting an eye, the response was "Even if I were to have a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain." He went on to add that dualism (the philosophical thesis that asserts mind and matter are independent substances, neither of which can be reduced to the other) is a false theory, and that there cannot be evidence for something that's false.

This was a momentous experience for me, because here was an educated, intelligent man telling me that he will not give up materialism, no matter what. Even the evidence of his own experience would not cause him to give up materialism. I realized two things in that moment. First, this experience cured me of any impulse to argue these things with recalcitrant colleagues; it is pointless to argue with someone who tells me that his mind is already made up, and nothing I can say will change it. Second, this experience taught me that it is important to distinguish between (a) materialism as an empirical hypothesis about the nature of the world, which is amenable to evidence one way or the other (this is the hallmark of a scientific hypothesis—that evidence is relevant for its truth or falsity) and (b) materialism as an ideology, or paradigm, about how things "must" be, which is impervious to evidence (this is the hallmark of an unscientific hypothesis—that evidence is not relevant for its truth).

My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, qua scientific hypothesis, might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology that "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism connotes an attitude of certainty towards one's core belief. Just as the fundamentalist Christian is absolutely certain that the world was created in the manner described by The Bible (fossil evidence notwithstanding), so also the fundamaterialist is absolutely certain that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter or physical energy (NDE and other evidence notwithstanding). In fact, and this is the crucial point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. As my fundamaterialist colleague put it, "There can't be evidence for something that's false."

With respect to (a), materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b), materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. A complicating factor is that the fundamaterialist typically holds the metabelief that his belief in materialism is not ideological, but empirical. That is, he misclassifies himself under (a), while his behavior clearly falls under (b). The debunker and skeptic believe they are being "scientific" in ignoring and rejecting the evidence against materialism. But when asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince them that materialism is empirically false, they are, like my colleague, usually at a loss for what to say. If they're not familiar with the data, they'll come up with a criterion of evidence that in fact has already been met. When it is pointed out that there exist many well-documented cases that satisfy the proposed criterion, they will simply make the criterion more stringent, and at some point they cross the line between the reasonable demand for scientific evidence and the unreasonable (and unscientific) demand for logical proof. . .

Not so well-informed skepticism. . .

On the way to work today I listened to this Skeptico podcast interview with Dr. James Alcock.

I noticed a few inconsistencies between what Alcock said and the psi research I am familiar with.

5:50 Alcock: "One would expect that over this length of time that there would be at least some phenomenon that was indisputable. Some phenomenon that however weak, could be reproduced by skeptical, by neutral scientists, but that's never occurred".

Wrong. Just as one example, quantum physicist Henry Stapp was at best neutral to the possibility of psi, but he participated in a fraud-proof experiment that provided strongly statistically significant evidence for PK effects.

It is true that those who are strongly skeptical to psi phenomena are quite unlikely to discover any evidence for it. Alex mentions a related phenomenon in the interview:

13:15 Drug research done at major universities is three times more likely to show efficacy of the drug if the drug company has sponsored the work.

Later in the interview, Alcock assures us of his intimate familiarity with psi research:

15:15 Alcock: "I've looked at probably as much parapsychologic literature, certainly as any "skeptic" and probably more than most parapsychologists.

Having informed the listeners of his bona-fides as an investigator of psi phenomena, Alcock later turns his guns on Rupert Sheldrake's research on staring detection:

28:40: I don't know if you're familiar with the staring experiments -- some of the early parapsychologists back in the 20s, did staring experiments, and they came to the conclusion there was nothing there, and this was then abandoned by modern parapsychology, no modern parapsychologist that I know of, apart from Dr. Sheldrake has had much, or any interest in this.

Actually, this is completely incorrect. Dean Radin covers a recent meta-analysis he conducted in his book Entangled Minds that showed an extremely significant effect. He has also conducted studies with statistically significant evidence for this phenomena. Other parapsychologists who have independently conducted recent research into staring detection with positive results include Jonathan Jones, Marilyn Schlitz, and D.L. Delanoy.

Somehow James Alcock missed this in his extensive review of the parapsychology literature that he alluded to above. In particular I am surprised that a "well-informed" skeptic missed the very prominent discussion of these experiments in Dean Radin's book Entangled Minds, which really has to be considered must-read book for anyone who wants to be abreast of the latest psi research.

addendum:

There was something else about Alcock's statement that really bothered me. Let's revisit it again:

I've looked at probably as much parapsychologic literature, certainly as any "skeptic" and probably more than most parapsychologists.

I happen to agree with him that he is probably much more familiar with the literature than most psi deniers. However that's a pretty damning indictment, since he appears to be largely unfamiliar with the latest and most important published review of the parapsychological research (Entangled Minds). If the average psi denier is even less familiar with the research (and probably a lot less), can their opinion even be worth listening to? I guess that's what happens to any group of people who outsource their beliefs to a propaganda organization. . .

Excellent podcast interviews. . .

<

Skeptiko has been doing some really excellent interviews and landing some of the top names in both skepticism and parapsychology research. Names like Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Charles Tart, Stephen Schwartz, Marilyn Schlitz, Michael Shermer and more. . .

Congratulations to Alex Tsakiris for his extremely successful new endeavour. AMNAP plans to analyze some of these interviews in more depth later. . .

AMNAP Interview with Rupert Sheldrake - (Repost from AMNAP 1.0)

AMNAP has been fortunate enough to get a personal interview with Rupert Sheldrake. As most of you probably know, Dr. Sheldrake is one of most prolific scientific investigators of the topics covered by this blog. Here are the questions I asked and Rupert's answers:

AMNAP: What experiments are you personally conducting and / or coordinating these days?

RS: At present I am mainly concentrating on Online Telepathy Tests, and investigating the ability of people to wake sleeping animals by staring at them. I invite anyone who is interested to try the Online Telepathy Test for themselves. It’s on my website www.sheldrake.org. Also, I’d love to hear from any who’s found they can wake an animal, such as a dog or cat, by staring at it. Please email me at sheldrake@sheldrake.org

AMNAP: It's been a decade since the publication of your book Seven Experiments that could Change the World. Have you thought of an eighth (or more) experiment that would be worth adding to the list?

RS: I have already added several more experiments to the list of seven. Perhaps the most notable is the telephone telepathy test, on which I’ve published several papers and which has been giving very positive and highly significant results. This is the background for the online telepathy test currently on my website.

AMNAP: Why do you think that parapsychology and related areas of study are so disreputable to "mainstream" science?

RS: Parapsychology has been under a kind of taboo for decades. I think this is because psychic phenomena became classified as superstition by Enlightenment rationalists, who wanted to move beyond superstition and religion, to a new era of science and reason. Unfortunately this hope has hardened into dogma and ironically, people who defend these taboos become very unscientific and very unreasonable.

AMNAP: I found your research with JayTee to be some of the most convincing evidence for the existence of telepathy. The effect size was very large and even a hard-core "skeptic" like Richard Wiseman was easily able to replicate your data. Are you aware of anyone conducting ongoing research with other animals like Kane and Jaytee to try and replicate your findings with other return-anticipating pets?

RS: I don’t know of anyone trying to replicate our work with return-anticipating pets. I wish someone would do this. It would be very good to have some filmed experiments with cats, and also with parrots. This would make a good student project and I hope someone will take it up.

AMNAP: You've been involved with a lot of different projects since the publication of A New Science of Life. Educational videos and series, books touching on spirituality and science, conducting experiments and writing scientific papers, interviews, writing books, and family life too. What do you see as your major projects over the next decade?

RS: My main projects over the next few years are likely to be automated tests for telepathy and other psychic phenomena. I think that democratising this research and opening it up to widespread participation is extremely important. The internet provides a wonderful way of doing that. I hope also that large scale participation in experiments on the sense of being stared at will also be possible both through the internet and in school and college classes.

In addition to these interests in unexplained human and animal phenomena, I continue with my original fascination with biological morphogenesis, and am particularly interested in the forms of leaves and how they develop. The idea of morphic fields arose first of all in developmental biology, and I still see this as one of the core areas in which biology needs to move forward.

AMNAP: One of the benefits to a "standard" academic career is the opportunity to mentor young people to follow in one's footsteps, carry on one's work, etc. Your book Seven Experiments That Could Change the World seemed to have that sort of a feel to it. Are you seeing any young people picking up the gauntlet and carrying out the sorts of experiments that could change the world? Any names in particular we ought to pay attention to?

RS: Very few people within universities at the graduate level have taken up the kinds of experiments I do. This is not through shortage of interest, but because over and over again graduate students who get interested are advised by their academic supervisors that they should do something conventional unless they want to damage their careers. Regrettable though it is, I’m afraid this is probably sound advice. It reflects the reality of the prejudices that are still so strong within the academic world. On the other hand dozens of undergraduates and high school students have done projects based on my research, and have made an important contribution to knowledge in this field. I have recently launched on a trial basis a Work Scholar programme, which encourages people in schools and colleges to take part in my research projects and gain research experience by doing so.

AMNAP: Is there anything that people can say or show to "skeptics" that might change their minds about the possibility that something beyond a dead, mechanistic universe might be real?

RS: One of the biggest problems for the mechanistic worldview is consciousness itself. Those who believe that mechanistic science can explain everything have not done too well in the area of consciousness studies, although they still hope that somehow the study of brain activity will lead to an understanding of the nature of the mind. But very few people think this problem can be solved easily. In fact, in academic circles is it usually called "the hard problem".
I hope that if there is good, repeatable evidence for telepathy in animals and people this will also have an impact on "sceptics". Many have had these experiences themselves, or know people who have but are forced to deny them in the interests of what they think of as science. However if it can be showed through scientific investigations themselves that the evidence for these phenomena is stronger than the evidence against them, I think this will help to open things up. Some "sceptics" are afraid that if telepathy is admitted to exist, then science as we know it will crumble. This is not the case. I hope when they realise that they needn’t be so afraid that their minds will be more open. Richard Dawkins has recently suggested the term "perinormal", meaning near the normal, for phenomena like telepathy as opposed to "paranormal", which means beyond the normal. I agree with him that these phenomena could become accepted as part of normal science and I hope this change will come about quite soon.

AMNAP: The main current of thought in science and academia is incredibly reductionistic. Seemingly more today than ever before. Everywhere you hear about the power of the genome to control virtually all aspects of human physiology and behavior, how neurology and brain biochemistry experiments have disproved the existence of a soul, and that self-replicating machines and strong AI are just around the corner. In the background there are a few voices with a different message, but those voices seem so marginalized and so ignored. Do you see any hope for a sea change in the scientific establishment's position any time soon?

RS: The reductionistic, molecular biological approach has dominated biology for more than forty years. It has lead to a vast amount of detailed information, like the sequences of the genomes of many different organisms. But it has still not given us an understanding of fundamental biological problems like the development of embryos and plants. Increasing numbers of molecular biologists are coming to realise that they are drowning in data and need to have some simplifying principles, some way of understanding how all this molecular detail has organised and integrated. I think this will lead to an interest in more holistic approaches to biology and that this could start to happen soon.




Thank you very much Rupert for participating in this interview. I'm sure the readers of AMNAP will find your answers as interesting and thought-provoking as I did. Make sure you check out Rupert's web site and read some of his peer-reviewed research.

Interview with Rupert Sheldrake (Repost from AMNAP 1.0)

The Australian Broadcasting Service has released a new interview with Rupert Sheldrake, with audio and a text transcript. Here is a brief extract:

Robyn Williams: How did you come to make this transition long ago from being a botanist at Clare College, Cambridge to what you do now?


Rupert Sheldrake: While I was Clare College, Cambridge working in developmental biology, I came to the conclusion that the regular reductionist genes and protein approach was too limited. We needed a field approach to biology. So it got me into the idea of morphogenetic fields.


Robyn Williams: Yes but how? What really made you feel that the reductionist way was insufficient?


Rupert Sheldrake: Simply through coming up against a brick wall, through realising that in specifically I was working on the plant hormone auxin, and how it's made and how it's transported. I discovered the transport system that's now in every textbook. So this was sort of straightforward mainstream research but then I realised that in order to explain plant form, this explained too much. All plants have auxin, all of them have the similar transport system, and yet eucalyptus trees, and oak trees, and ash trees all have different shaped leaves and different kinds of flowers. So auxin couldn't possibly explain these different forms. It was obviously involved in the process, but it was involved in the process in the same way that food's involved in the growth of animals. Or all animals have the same kinds of hormones, all mammals. It doesn't explain why we're different from chimps or cows. And auxin doesn't explain why plants have their specific form. For that, you need another explanation and I got from the developmental biology literature the idea of morphogenetic fields. . .


Robyn Williams: We'll come to that in just a minute. Were you disappointed by the scepticism with which a lot of this has been greeted by the orthodox university people?


Rupert Sheldrake: Well I in a way expected a kind of scepticism. I developed these ideas when I was working in the biochemistry department at Cambridge and, you know, when I discussed these ideas with my colleagues, I noticed that the idea of collective memory and morphic resonance, and so on, was greeted with less than wild enthusiasm. So I was prepared for that. I don't mind that, it's fair enough, it's part of science. What I don't like is dogmatic prejudice. I mean, healthy scepticism is part of science, a completely closed dogmatic prejudice isn't. There's plenty of that around and I think it's bad for science.


But the other thing that surprised me was how many scientists are actually open-minded. I meet them all the time. I have a lot of friends and colleagues within institutional science who are tremendously helpful to me and very friendly. The only thing is that they are afraid. There's a kind of culture of fear within science, people are afraid to step out of line. And I don't have anything to fear, 'cause I've got nothing to lose, but I think that science would be greatly helped by a parallel with the gay liberation movement. I'm always saying to my colleagues, "why don't you come out?", because science would be so much more fun if those who do have a wider way of thinking were prepared to say so.


Robyn Williams: What sort of things would they come out with? What might they say if one of your friends did something like that?


Rupert Sheldrake: Well I mean take a taboo topic like telepathy. Most ordinary people think they've had telepathic experiences. Most people within science labs have also had them, 'cause they are ordinary people when they're not at work, and indeed when they are at work. But the culture of science labs is one that says, "this is a taboo topic, you're not meant to believe in it." So they don't feel free to talk about it when they're at work. They might talk about it after work, or after a glass a beer with friends or family, but not at work, and they may even pretend it doesn't exist at work. So that's the kind of thing, you know, a kind of secret life that's separated from a public appearance. And I think the parallels with the gay liberation movement are quite strong. . .


Rupert Sheldrake: [Referring to a telephone telepathy experiment which was produced for television. . .] Well, they were people from the TV studio. They had sceptics in the audience including Professor Chris French, and they did it with sceptical critiques in mind. I discuss these things with sceptics all the time. I mean, I find people like Chris French quite helpful; he's a noted British sceptic, a professor in London University. Others are not, some of them are just purely dogmatists. You know, they say, "this is impossible, I'm not interested in the evidence cause I know it's wrong." That doesn't seem to me very scientific. . .

Some of my opponents take the view we more or less know the truth already, it's just a matter of filling in the details. I think that's wrong, I think there's a huge amount we don't understand; most of all the human mind itself, and that's one of the areas I'm working in.


Robyn Williams: No mention of spiritual values, always dealing with scientific terms only? How come?


Rupert Sheldrake: Well I don't think that the existence or non-existence of telepathy or premonition, or can animals foretell earthquakes and tsunamis, and other questions I look at, I don't think these are particularly connected with spiritual values. I mean, you find as much scepticism about these things among religious believers as among secular people, secular humanists. I don't know any religion which is sort of tied to a belief in these kinds of things. They seem to be pretty neutral from the point of view of religious belief. So I think that spiritual values are important, I think spiritual experience is important, but that, I think, is in a different category from telepathy, which I think is a basic form of communication between members of animal groups, common in many animal species, including human.

In the complete interview, Rupert elaborates on his development of the theory of morphic resonance, as well as more details on some of his experiments.

Interview with Marcel Cairo (repost from AMNAP 1.0)

Usually this blog covers scientific research into psi phenomena. Occasionally I also relate anecdotes and other less formal kinds of data. I thought the readers of this blog would find it a nice change of pace to hear from a practitioner whose work touches on the research covered by this blog. So I invited Marcel Cairo to talk about his work as a medium for the enjoyment of our readers.

AMNAP: First of all, Marcel, thanks for agreeing to perform a reading for me and having an article written about it, published here a few days ago. And second, thank you for agreeing to be interviewed about your work as a medium. I think AMNAP's readers would be fascinated to hear what you have to say about your work communicating with those who have passed on.

Here is my first question. How did you come to practice mediumship?

Marcel: This is a question that I get a lot, most likely, all mediums are asked this question at regular intervals. I think people are looking for what I call a “burning bush” moment. A special moment in history when God or spirit appear to man and ask for his/her assistance in carrying forward their heavenly message. Well, sorry to disappoint, but there was no “burning bush” that beckoned me to this work. In my case, my development as a medium was a classic case of nature and nurture coming together to awaken my awareness.

I say nurture because I grew up in a household where scientific, intellectual, spiritual and philosophical discussions were common dinner table fodder. My mother was, and still is, as an extreme a mom as you can ever imagine. A fiercely independent doctor who questioned and challenged the establishment at every step of the way, my mother taught me and my three brothers to question authority, defy convention and let the universe be our teacher.

Anyway, while other kids lived behind closed doors, my house was Grand Central station for all types of freaks, creeps, gurus and geniuses that one way or another made their way through San Antonio, Texas. I can remember astronomers, mathematicians, athletes, artists, ex-cons, lunatics, you name it. To me, though, they were all gypsies possessing some secret or another about life. Often times, my mom would pull out the Ziriya board (a Ziriya talking board) and hold séances. She would have me join in as she believed that children were better at channeling spiritual energy than adults. Now remember, my Mom was a doctor and researcher. To her, this wasn’t anything more than an investigation into energy and it’s continuation after death.

To make a long story short, in 9th grade at the age of 15, I asked a good friend of mine to have lunch with me. During our lunch, not knowing why, I asked her what she would do if her father died. She was taken aback be the question, and soon the subject was changed. When she arrived home that day, she was told that her father who had been on a business trip to El Paso, had fallen asleep at the wheel and died in a car crash. Even though her father was already dead by the time I had asked her this question, I felt extremely guilty and somehow blamed myself for not having done something to prevent the accident. At this same time, one of my mom’s frequent gypsies introduced me to the spiritualist church (www.nsac.org), and it is there that I began a very long apprenticeship under the wings of an honest, talented and compassionate reverend (and medium).



AMNAP: Marcel, have you always had a spiritual belief, or were you ever a doubter or a scoffer at the notion of survival after death?

Marcel: I am constantly challenging my own beliefs and am always looking to learn from others. My doubts are doubts I have of my own self; my own shortcomings as a human, as a father, as a friend, a husband, etc. Like most people, I am my own worst enemy, and can often become self-defeating. Luckily, my own awareness and my spiritual support team are there to kick me in the ass and make me snap back into a positive mode. If I scoff at anything, it is at my own ego, and how often that ego makes a fool of me when I think I know better. Spirit has been too good and forgiving of me for me to scoff at it.



AMNAP: What do you think is the purpose of life, given the work that you do?

Marcel: For me, the purpose of life is quite simple. To love. To forgive. To laugh. I can’t think of anything that feels as good physically or spiritually as those three things.



AMNAP: Do you protect yourself from any possible "negative entities" when communicating with the deceased? Ever have negative experiences while doing this work?

Marcel: Very rarely do I encounter “negative” entities, but they are there. When I do encounter them, they are mostly spirits that are commonly termed “earth-bound angels,” those who are still resisting letting go of their earthly addictions or their carnal cravings. The way I protect myself is by telling them to keep their distance while communicating with me. I also depend on my spiritual crew to protect me. Just six months ago, I did a reading for a woman who I had seen once prior. In our reading, an uncle-in-law stepped in who while on Earth had been quite “evil and clever,” to put it in my client’s terms. He was still very disturbed in some ways, and was mocking my client by taunting her with painful memories that had rocked her family. This entity started to make me feel very uncomfortable and vulnerable. I couldn’t even look in his direction because he was so unsettling. Eventually, I had to ask my “bouncers” to show him the door. That’s the thing to remember as a medium, that even though you no control over the information that comes through, you still have free will to just say no or close down. Many mediums just beginning get so excited and caught up in the communication process that they forget to protect themselves or close down when necessary.



AMNAP: How does your family feel about your avocation for mediumship?

Marcel: That’s quite funny that you ask this question because only last year, after 22 years of doing this, did I start telling both my brothers and friends of my mediumship abilities. My brothers knew that I was a “spiritualist” and attended a spiritualist church from time to time, but they had no idea that I was a medium until last year. I told my mom a couple of years ago.

Why did I hide this part of me for so long? I guess because I am a very private person on one level, and because I never wanted my vocation to define me. I don’t walk into every situation in life broadcasting that I can talk to the dead like I’m something special. It’s totally irrelevant to who I am as a person. Sure, it’s helped me grow, but if people are going to care about me, it’s because I have earned that care by being a good relative or a friend.



AMNAP: Has it ever been difficult being a medium for you? Any regrets?

Marcel: Yes, it has. Being a medium means it’s a lot harder to deceive yourself. When I act selfishly, inappropriately or uncompassionate, I am immediately aware of it and feel the mighty sting of spirit rubbing my face in it. As a carnal being with an ego, I make at least a dozen mistakes a day, and have at least two dozen inappropriate thoughts every couple of hours. In sit-down readings, I often feel like a hypocrite when spirit starts to talk about my client’s spiritual shortcomings. I’m the first person to say, “Hey, don’t sweat it because I’m also no angel, and spirit still talks to me.”

Regrets? There are a few biggies. Mainly not preparing for a reading properly by either being drunk the night before or not getting enough sleep. If I get cocky, spirit makes me pay by humiliating me in front of clients or my wife. It’s painful.



AMNAP: What do you say about skeptics who claim that you cannot really communicate with the dead?

Marcel: I’m a fighter by nature, so my reactive instinct is to want to prove skeptics wrong. Sometimes I’m able to refrain from engaging them in battle, but more often than I care to mention, I end up goading them in to some kind of fruitless debate where no one wins and everyone’s time is wasted. Look, I’m not trying to change anyone’s belief system. All I really want is for people to entertain the idea that consciousness survival is possible and that if applied correctly, it can benefit your spiritual journey. In all honesty, I don’t have any problems with skeptics. Being skeptic only means that you are unsure, but open to new possibilities. It’s self-righteous cynics that I can’t stomach. Cynics thrive from destruction. That’s the kind of person I try to steer clear of.



AMNAP: Do you have any worries about your own death?

Marcel: I don’t fear death, but I dread dying. I was in New York on 9/11 and saw the collapse of the towers with my own eyes. I had nightmares for months afterwards and still have a difficult time with it all. My paranoia about flying has quadrupled. I’m also a father now, and I don’t think there’s enough I can do to protect my daughter. In my readings so many children come through for their parents, but in the end, it doesn’t mean a thing. There’s not much that can console a grieving parent. I understand that completely now.



AMNAP: What is your best personal story about mediumship where something that has come up in a reading?

Marcel: There are many things which delight me in each reading I am a part of. I am always in awe and wonder at what spirit manages to bring through. One of the things that really stands out in my mind goes back to a reading I did for a father who lost his four year-old son who was hit by a car as he and his mom were crossing the street. The parents were separated at the time of the accident, and quite expectantly, the father could not help but place some blame on the mother for the son’s death. This four year-old boy brought through so many validations that it was shocking even to me. It wasn’t just the things he said, but the maturity in which he said them. At the end of the reading, the boy asked the father to forgive his mother, that it wasn’t her fault, and there was nothing she could do to prevent it. The father was in tears, as this was a big request to make. Then, as if to seal the deal, the four year-old son made me raise my hand in the air with all my fingers spread out and go and place them on the hand of the father. After the father was able to speak through his emotions, he told me that he and his son never parted ways without first putting up their hands to each other, exactly the way the son had me do in that reading. It was very touching and emotional for me. It made me forget for a moment all the mistakes I make and all the struggles I sometimes have in other readings.



AMNAP: Anything else you would like to tell the readers about mediumship or the implications of your work?

Marcel: People who study PSI and other related topics hope that somehow survival of consciousness will be proven in a laboratory using the scientific method. I don’t think this is possible, because in the end, it really comes down to belief, not facts. I mean here we are nearing the year 2007, and we are still debating whether we came from from monkeys or Adam and Eve.

A good analogy here is the field of history. Though people say history repeats itself, in actuality, history cannot be repeated in a lab. Does that make it less real? Less worthy of serious study? In fact, most people think that history is an objective science, but it’s not. History is purely subjective in the eyes of the observer. Not one single event in history has been agreed to by all people. Not the Holocaust, not the landing on the moon, and not 9/11. Still, no one questions whether history happens. Everyone just question who’s version of history to believe.

As a medium, I have a simple mantra – aim for 100% honesty, not 100% accuracy. Mediumship, is a biography gathered from unreliable sources written in invisible ink on pages that don’t exist. It’s an imperfect form of communication for lack of a better one, but its proper application and careful study can be life defining. For me, the difference between those with faith and those without is just that; believers have something that can't be touched, and those who doubt, just doubt. I’m happy to believe. I’m even happier to know for sure.



AMNAP: Thanks again Marcel for sharing with the readers of this blog. I hope all our readers enjoyed this different approach to a topic than our usual emphasis on controlled experimental studies. . .