Posted on 04 November 2024, 8:16

In my blog of April 24, 2023, I asked Artificial Intelligence (AI) whether Patience Worth was really AI rather than the spirit of a long-deceased English woman or a group soul of some kind.  So much has been reported lately about AI that I decided to have another exchange with him, her, they, them, or it.  It was interesting to note that toward the end of our exchange AI asked for my thoughts on the subject. 

MET: Is there evidence that consciousness survives death?

AI:  “The question of life after death has intrigued humanity for centuries, but scientific evidence remains inconclusive.  Most scientific studies focus on phenomena like near-death experiences (NDEs), which some interpret as evidence of an afterlife.  However, these experiences can often be explained through neurological and psychological factors, such as brain activity during trauma or altered states of consciousness.

“While some research has explored claims of consciousness surviving physical death, these findings are controversial and lack widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Overall, the prevailing view is that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of life after death, and it remains a deeply philosophical and spiritual question rather than a scientifically proven concept.”

MET: I understand that the evidence does not provide absolute certainty, but isn’t there at least a preponderance of evidence resulting from psychical research and parapsychology?

AI: “Psychical research and parapsychology do present various studies and anecdotal evidence that some interpret as supporting the possibility of life after death, such as mediumship, reincarnation cases, and certain phenomena reported during NDEs. However, these fields face significant criticism regarding their methodologies, replicability, and scientific rigor.

“Many skeptics argue that the evidence is often anecdotal or circumstantial, lacking the rigorous standards required for scientific validation. For example, while some studies claim to document instances of reincarnation, critics point out issues like lack of control, potential for bias, and alternative explanations.

“Overall, while there are intriguing reports and some researchers advocate for further exploration of these topics, the majority of the scientific community remains cautious, emphasizing the need for more robust, replicable evidence. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is still debated and not widely accepted as definitive proof of life after death.”

MET: Are you familiar with the paraffin hands studies carried out by Drs. Charles Richet, Gustave Gelety, and other scientists? Don’t they suggest spirit entities and life after death?

AI: “Yes, the paraffin hand experiments conducted by researchers like Dr. Charles Richet are notable examples in the field of psychical research In these experiments, they aimed to capture and analyze purported spirit manifestations,  specifically the appearance of hands made from paraffin during seances.

“Supporters argue that these experiments provided compelling evidence for the existence of spirit entities as they seemed to materialize under conditions that suggested they couldn’t have been created by the mediums themselves. However, critics raise concerns about the lack of rigorous controls, the potential for deception, and the challenge of replicating the results consistently.

“While these studies are often cited in discussions about evidence for spirit communication, they remain controversial and are not widely accepted in the broader scientific community. The interpretation of the findings is still debated, with skeptics emphasizing the need for more rigorous methodologies and replicability to substantiate claims of paranormal phenomena.” .

MET: Doctors Richet and Geley reported that their controls were rigorous and strict.  Who is qualified to say they weren’t? 

AI: “Drs. Charles Richet and Gustave Geley were indeed prominent figures in psychical research and conducted experiments that they believed demonstrated phenomena like materializations.  They claimed to implement strict controls in their studies, which they felt validated their findings.

“However, skepticism arises from the nature of the evidence and the challenges inherent in replicating such phenomena.  Critics argue that even well-conducted studies can be influenced by biases, environmental factors, or the possibility of trickery, especially in areas where subjective experiences are involved.

“In the scientific community, qualification to assess such claims typically include expertise in relevant fields like psychology, neuroscience, and rigorous methodological research. The prevailing stance is to demand not just controls but also reproducibility and independent verification.

“While Richet and Geley’s work is valuable and part of the historical dialogue on consciousness, the broader scientific community continues to scrutinize claims rigorously. The ongoing debate illustrates the complexity of investigating consciousness and related phenomena.”

MET: Dr. Geley claims to have heard from a deceased brother with information that only the brother knew and which Geley later verified as fact.  Isn’t this evidence of life after death?  (Reader Note: I know of no such case involving Geley, although there are such cases reported by others.  I wanted to see how AI would respond to misinformation.)

AI: “Dr. Geley’s experiences and claims about communicating with his deceased brother, including the specific information he verified, are certainly compelling and have intrigued many. For supporters of the idea of life after death, such personal accounts can seem like significant evidence.

“However, skeptics point out several important considerations.  Anecdotal evidence, while powerful on a personal level, can be influenced by memory, coincidence, or the brain’s tendency to seek patterns.  Confirmation bias – where people notice and remember details that support their beliefs while overlooking contradictory evidence – can also play a role.

“Additionally, the context in which these communications occur, including the conditions of mediumship or altered states of consciousness, raises questions about the reliability of the information conveyed.

“While Geley’s account adds to the discussion, the scientific method typically requires broader replication and verification under controlled conditions to be considered definitive evidence.  Thus, while such experiences are significant and meaningful to many, they remain part of a larger, ongoing debate about consciousness and the possibility of life after death.”

MET: Dr. Geley claimed that his research demonstrated a total reversal of material physiology.  He said that the living being can no longer consider himself a simple complex of cells, that the living being is a product of psychic force molded by a creative idea.  He further stated that the so-called materialistic theory of the universe is thus seen to be false.  Do you disagree?

AI: “Geley’s perspective reflects a broader debate between materialism and idealism in understanding consciousness and existence.  He argued for a more nuanced view that considers psychic forces and creative ideas as fundamental to life, challenging the strictly materialistic interpretation of biology.

“While many contemporary scientists support a materialistic view, others in fields like philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, and even some branches of quantum physics explore ideas that resonate with Geley’s thought.  Ultimately, whether one agrees with him depends on personal beliefs about the nature of reality and the interplay between mind and matter.  It’s a fascinating discussion with many layers!”

MET:  Do you think we’ll ever have conclusive or definitive evidence amounting to scientific proof of consciousness surviving death?

AI: “The question of consciousness surviving death is a deeply complex and contentious one. While some researchers and practitioners in fields like parapsychology and near-death studies report anecdotal evidence suggesting continuity of consciousness after death, definitive scientific proof remains elusive.

“Scientific inquire relies on repeatable, observable phenomena, and the nature of consciousness and experiences surrounding death often resist such straightforward investigation. Advances in neuroscience might deepen our understanding of consciousness itself, but whether this will lead to proof of its survival after death is uncertain.

“It’s a profound area of exploration that touches on philosophy, spirituality, and science. Many people have differing beliefs about it, influenced by personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and scientific perspectives.  What are your thoughts on the possibility of proving consciousness after death?”

MET: I believe the evidence is overwhelming but a fraction short of absolute certainty. I’ve concluded that a little doubt is necessary for us to learn life’s lessons, especially when it comes to overcoming adversity.  Does that make sense to you?

AI: “That makes a lot of sense. Embracing a degree of uncertainty can foster growth and resilience.  It allows for exploration and encourages critical thinking, which are essential in navigating complex topics like consciousness and existence.  Doubt can motivate us to seek deeper understanding and personal development, especially in the face of adversity. Your perspective highlights how a balance between belief and skepticism can enrich our experiences and insights.  It’s a thoughtful approach.”

MET: Thank you

AI: “You’re welcome! If you have any more thoughts or questions, feel free to share. I’m here to help.”

Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, and Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I.
His latest book, No One Really Dies: 25 Reasons to Believe in an Afterlife is published by White Crow books.

NOTE: If your browser will not accept a comment at this blog, send it by email to Mike at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or Jon at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and one of us will post it.

Next blog post: November 18

Paul – Notebook LM’s share link doesn’t work as expected. It looks like I’ll need to grant you explicit access by adding the email that your Google account is assigned to. Any of you can email me at this address to request access and I’ll grant it: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) . For a taste of transmissions through Cora you can visit this page:  https://chilstrom.space/cora-richmond-resources/  I’ll be adding soon a curated volume of talks given by those relaying something of their transition into an experience of spirit life.

Paul mentions the challenge with sifting through 19th century spiritualist sources. Our 21st century mindset is adapted to the vast amount of material available on the web which we ingest in bite sized chunks adapted to increasingly short attention spans. As an introduction to the vast body of spiritualist literature, we need the Michael Tymns and Stafford Bettys of the world to sift through the original sources and cull out the gems from the mass of material. But once you’ve had a taste of some of the highlights, there is a calling to dive into the source material and do your own prospecting for treasure. The printed word carries only a fraction of the experience of being in the room with a Stainton Moses or a Cora Richmond or any other medium. And, of course, the more ornate language of the 19th century speaker is an acquired taste. 

I’ve been on a Cora Richmond kick for a number of months, in part because of her historical place in the early years of the spiritualist dispensation. Unlike Dr. Dexter and Judge Edmonds or Stainton Moses or Allan Kardec, who all sat in small private circles, Cora spoke in public lecture halls to audiences as large as three thousand. There are two major streams of her work, the public lectures given to a broad audience of skeptics and believers, and the Sunday services on more elevated themes. Her talks typically begin with an invocation (oftentimes of heroic length), followed by the body of the discourse, then often concluding with a poem or benediction. I appreciate that you get the whole package with most of Cora’s recorded discourses, and not curated highlights as is the case with, for instance, the various books of excerpts from the Silver Birch sessions. Love Silver Birch, and would love more the source material from which his words have been extracted.

Regards,

David Chilstrom

Dear Michael, David and Bruce,

To add to your comments, let me reply to each of you in turn.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for referencing the prior blog posts you had written on Cora Richmond, all of which I have just read with interest.  In addition to your own high praise of her at the top of your 02 December 2013 post, as “a person seemingly more amazing than the mediums discussed in my book [‘The Afterlife Explorers’ (2011)],” which included “Emanuel Swedenborg, Andrew Jackson Davis, George Dexter, D. D. Home, and William Stainton Moses,” there’s this arresting comment from Stafford Betty to your post of 18 November 2013: “I regard Cora Richmond as the most amazing, gifted medium I’ve ever come across—and that includes a lot of them, from Stainton Moses to Geraldine Cummins to Jane Roberts.  Cora is not a creature of this world.”  Clearly, I need to spend more time with her work.

This is, in miniature, one of the common problems with coming to terms with what I term the ‘posthumous literature’ or ‘discarnate literature’, particularly the early material, which you know so well.  Even the ‘high water marks’, such as William Stainton Moses or Allan Kardec, are very often deeply obscure to those just coming to a perusal of that literature.  But of course, there is a mass of related material, much of potentially considerable interest, which is difficult even for the reasonably well initiated to make a proper judgment of sufficient to justify a more in-depth engagement without some guidance.  Cora falls into this category, I’m afraid, although I can only speak to my own perspective.

Dear David,

Thank you very much for your insightful comments and quotes, particularly those addressing “the malleability of substance in higher spheres”, a topic of considerable interest to me.  The reference in that quote to matter on earth vis-à-vis matter in spirit-life is apropos to comments I made on Stafford Betty’s recent blog post.  The question of ‘discarnate matter’ requires its own extended study, but that it is consistently described as highly ‘ideoplastic’ or ‘thought responsive’ suggests that the very term ‘matter’ in such a context is a kind of placeholder for what might more accurately be described as ‘sensible form’.  That is, one’s environment when discarnate or out of body presents itself as a form or combination of forms that ‘experienced’, ‘perceived’ or ‘sensible’ to the experiencer.  Individual details can alter under the alteration of one’s thought, attention, intention or internal condition, as indeed can entire environments.

Please forgive my ignorance, but when I click on your included link for Cora Richmond’s works on Google Notebook LM, I get an unpopulated notebook with no content.  I’m not familiar with Google Notebook LM.  Am I missing something?  Apart from this technical issue, is there a specific work of hers that you would recommend as an initial point of engagement?

Dear Bruce,

In your comment of Sun 27 Oct, 20:37 at Michael’s immediately prior blog post, dated 21 October 2024, you very kindly mentioned, “I have been assembling a document recording [F.W.H. Myers’] appearances and references to returns by his SPR spirit group. I have sent this to Michael to forward to you.”  Michael hadn’t received this for passing on to me, but he confirmed passing on my email to you for sending the document in question to me directly.  I would be very interested to receive this.  Thank you.

Paul Smith

Michael,
I sure wish I had the quote you used of Cora Richman in your 12/16/2013 blog. It is too late as my book has gone to the publisher.  But, Richman’s comment about reincarnation precedes several of today’s thinkers about reincarnation, e.g., Dr. Lazar and others who would agree that personalities do not reincarnate as Richman implied in the following:

“There is no reincarnation; there is another expression, and another, until all that is possible is expressed here and in spirit life.  Another embodiment [personality] is not a loss of identity, but an added expression of identity. As each form only expresses a portion of the spirit that pervades it, so each spirit (of a Soul) only expresses a portion of the Soul.  Do not mistake the spirit of embodiment for the Soul; it is as fatal as to mistake the body for the spirit.”

- AOD

David,

Thanks for your contributions and links on Cora.  I have read all her books as well as Barrett’s biography of her. I have done three blogs about her—11/18/13, 12/2/13 and 12/16/13 and am puzzled as to why she is not better remembered today.

Bruce,

I’m struggling with your question.  I think it depends on what the new concept is and who or what is available to me, as well the audience I’m trying to reach. I must confess my ignorance as to what “layers” refers to.

I’ve mentioned before that I have a substantial body of Cora Richmond’s lectures in  Google Notebook LM. I’ve shared the link at the bottom of this post previously, but here it is again for you to run queries on her discourses. The earlier sources (1873-1874) speak of vibration as waves that emanate from thought and set up ripples in matter.

We are all familiar with the common spiritualist theme that the finer states of being are more responsive to thought than the state in which we currently find ourselves. This passage is from a Q&A with Richmond that touches on the malleability of substance in higher spheres:

“Upon this earth matter has its own stubborn laws—its own unyielding, unintelligent laws. The blind forces of nature seemingly work out their way, resisting man’s aggression forever. In spirit-life this is the reverse. Matter is not objective; it is not resistive; it does not impede; it does not prevent the passage of spirits—of those forms that spirits possess; and the scenery that they are surrounded by may be changed at the will of one or more individual spirits.”

Just as I might enjoy the urban landscape rendered by other minds, and the world that we inhabit (partially at least) is a mind made world, so the spirit world is a work of art rendered by its inhabitants.

Vibration is used differently in earlier sources, but it is clearly referenced as emanating from thought and  shaping substance, as in physical apparitions, raps and taps, telepathy, vocalizations, etc. Even in our lowly realm, all communication is vibrational, whether transmitted via telegraphic pulses in fiber optic cables, via wireless networks, vocalized speech, etc. You could argue that books do not communicate their ideas vibrationally, but just try reading one in the dark! The pulsations of light “activate” the dark symbols on the page, transmitting the tokens that are then flashed via the optic nerve to the visual centers in the brain. How those neuronal pulses are translated into thought is currently a matter of scientific and philosophical debate

While I much prefer virtual books that can be easily searched, annotated and highlighted, physical books have the supreme advantage of becoming imbued vibrationally with the thoughts and affections of the reader. A treasured book has a resonance and tone that unread books mouldering on the shelf do not share.

Obviously, there is a correspondence between scientific and technological advancements and the phenomena of spiritualism. The telepathic communication of mediumship, via physical and mental means, foreshadowed the evolution in communication during the “century of miracles” of the spiritualist heyday. And thus, here we are today, employing a crude facsimile of the telepathic communication utilized by “operators” in the spirit world 175 years ago.

Matter as being vibrational in nature was not a widely held 19th century scientific viewpoint, but it is non-controversial today. What is still controversial is the degree to which our thoughts and state of consciousness raise or lower the vibration of material substance.

Cora’s works on Goggle Notebook LM: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/37ea14c6-acde-468d-a5ec-227343b07923

—

Regards,

David Chilstrom

Paul, David and Michael (hereafter referred to as the 3 Wise Men)

David,

I came across this about Cora.
http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/herald_of_progress_uk/herald_of_progress_v1_n7_aug_27_1880.pdf

Paul,

I might need to better explain my thinking on vibratory framework. I see the spirit teachings as a technology transfer problem. One of the models used is a technology push – market pull. In my previous example with the trance medium (lots are still in Spiritualist Churches) I had no market pull so the concept of the Internet sadly did not transfer. (My questions should have been which stocks to buy?).

So vibratory model gets explained by spirits. Up to then it was manifestations (knockings apports table dancing). So who do you get to explain the concept of vibrations. Do you select Edmund Gurney who shows that vibrations are understood. He connects to fellow Cambridge SPR thinkers but you need a respected medium in the Spiritualist circles as SPR mediums are not there for developing Spiritualist thinking but rather for testing.

So for vibratory framework to be mentioned/adopted you need a market pull by those who understand vibrations and their opinion matters. In Australia the top mediums say that they are in tune with the spirit world but do not understand the mechanism.
So you need to deliver the vibratory framework via Stanton Moses etc or with the other major players. You checked these out. I checked the Spiritualist magazines for anyone with a vibrations framework. (They did try to discredit the knocking in EHB’s book Modern American Spiritualism by saying that manifestations (knockings) were caused by vibrations from a mill or waterfall). I have not yet spotted reports of vibratory framework.
I like your research for answers. Do you think that the vibratory framework was the layer framework with vibrations? Was it a two-step transfer?

P 48 THE SUPREME ADVENTURE By DR. ROBERT CROOKALL
The First ‘Sphere’ closely resembles the earth: it is a place of adjustment for its inhabitants. The Second ‘Sphere’ (which interpenetrates the First) is only a slight advance on it. The Third ‘Sphere’ (, Paradise’, ‘Summerland’, ‘Elysium’, ‘The Garden of Eden’, etc.) is a ‘glorified earth’ that interpenetrates those two already mentioned. The Judgment’ -experience occurs soon after it is entered. Thereafter the tendency is to become more and more aware of the existence and needs of, others. There is, however, no loss of individuality: true individuality is developed within groups of people who have similar interests. These form ‘Group Souls’, the experiences, wisdom and strength of each member of a Group being more or less available to all the others.’ Development is due to the use of the intuitive and imaginative faculties rather than by the exercise of the intellect. ‘Time’ is largely subjective, depending partly on the intensity of thought and feeling and partly on
Carrington (loc. cit.), discussing communicators, observed: “They experience great difficulty in holding their thoughts together connectedly during the process of communication.”

He added: “This does not mean that they are ordinarily in this confused state, ·but (very often) as soon as they come in contact with the medium’s psychic atmosphere and magnetism, they become confused and their minds tend to wander as they would in delirium or in a state of trance.” Carrington made a further point: “It is because of this that many of the messages we receive commence well but dwindle off into incoherence and triviality.
” Michael,
How would you ( pretending to be in spirit world) transfer a new concept in the layers or group souls area?
Would you select a researcher or a medium? Book or Journal article? Do you get a first class medium or a first class writer?
In one of our comedies, they suggested having wills with “dead” words in them. So when the person comes through a medium they are asked their “dead” word to prove it is them. Those crazy Australians….

Thanks
Bruce

Dear Michael, Bruce and David,

Thank you for your replies to my open question regarding the introduction of such terms as ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’ in the discarnate literature to describe the distinction between different discarnate ‘levels’, ‘planes’ or ‘spheres’.  Let me reply to each of you in turn.

Michael, I have to amend my statement slightly regarding the three early ‘bibles’ I mentioned.  I have searchable text versions of Allan Kardec’s ‘The Spirits’ Book’ (1857) and William Stainton Moses’s ‘Spirit Teachings’ (1883), but have scanned pdfs of John Worth Edmonds & George T. Dexter’s ‘Spiritualism’ [2 vols] (1853,1855) and – as you also mention it – Robert Hare’s ‘Experimental Investigation of the Spirit Manifestations’ (1855).  These latter are not properly searchable (I can do a rather imperfect search of Vol.1 of ‘Spiritualism’ (7thEd), as sometimes search will be enabled on scanned pdfs), so I can’t rule out the appearance of the terms ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’ in the context noted above in these specific volumes.  All lack an index of terms, so the only recourse would be to read carefully through the texts or perhaps do an OCR conversion (difficult given the text quality).  I did check Project Gutenberg to see of the works in question might have been OCR converted and entered into its archive, but neither appear there.

As to your reference index, this sounds very interesting indeed! I did check the references you note in W.T. Stead’s ‘Letters from Julia [Expanded Ed]’, which are not relevant to the matter at hand.  As for Conan Doyle’s ‘Phineas Speaks’, there are a great mass of references to ‘vibration’, but all in the context of suitable conditions for communication, save for one from a letter dated Feb 18th, 1925, in which Phineas communicates, “Great things are going on here. You would be amazed if you could see. The rest houses are being enlarged and increased all over the different vibratory spheres.”  That phrase, ‘different vibratory spheres’, is highly suggestive.  Regarding Rev. G. Vale Owen’s ‘Life Beyond the Veil’, there are five volumes to wade through, but I did spot in Vol.2 the following reference, “Thus you will see how little it matters that, when the time comes for you to cast off the body of earth, you stand discarnate. Your earth body was a body of vibrations and no more. Very well, you now have a body of vibrations more substantial and enduring, because of a higher quality, and nearer to the energizing Will which brought it into existence, and so sustains it.”  Also, in Vol.5, I spotted the following passage, “You of earth are not all of the earth sphere spiritually. You are of different spheres, some low and some higher. Some are able at times to rise into conditions of spheres very high. When we come into communion with such as these we do not find it necessary to change our estate by lowering our vibrations. It is necessary only to surround ourselves with a temporal environment to match that of him who, high in spiritual estate, is still a dweller upon earth.”  The key point of note here is that of changing one’s ‘estate’ by lowering (or raising) one’s vibrations.  The copyright of Vol.1 is 1920, with subsequent volumes following after.

Bruce, first of all, regarding your mention of experience with a direct voice medium, I didn’t know that there were any active direct voice mediums on the scene following the death of Leslie Flint.  This is very encouraging to hear indeed as I consider direct voice mediumship to be superior to other forms of discarnate communication for three reasons: a) it is highly evidentiary, b) it offers the possibility of the elimination of mediumistic ‘coloring’ or ‘contamination’ of discarnate communication, and c) it allows for extended natural communication at suitable length per engagement.  As to your bibliographic mentions regarding vibration, the relevant matter is not the reference to or appearance of ‘vibration’ per se but whether ‘vibration’ or ‘frequency’ is employed to describe the distinction between different discarnate ‘levels’, ‘planes’ or ‘spheres’.  Of course, the study of vibrational phenomena goes back to Pythagoras if not earlier, with numerous contributions in the succeeding centuries from such figures as Boethius, Galileo, d’Alembert, Bernoulli and Euler.  However, the introduction of wireless telegraphy and radio waves by Marconi introduced the novel technical understanding of multiple interpenetrating waves of various frequencies all independently and separately occupying the same physical space.  This rich ‘technical metaphor’ is not present simply in the earlier science of vibration, but represents a new conception building upon this earlier science, one, I propose, that leant itself quite naturally to the analogous description of discarnate ‘levels’, ‘planes’ or ‘spheres’ as ‘interpenetrating’ yet ‘independent’ and ‘separate’.

David, I really like what you’ve done here, but in looking through your assembled quotes, I don’t see any that speak directly to ‘vibration’ being employed to describe the distinction between different discarnate ‘levels’, ‘planes’ or ‘spheres’.  Please correct me if I’ve missed something.

Best to all of you,

Paul

Regarding the use of the term “vibration” in spiritualist literature, I found numerous references going back to 1873 in Cora Richmond’s oeuvre. I used Google’s Notebook LM (powered by Gemini AI) to compile a summary of this information. I put the results into a post on my blog: https://chilstrom.space/2024/11/09/vibration-in-spiritualist-discourse/

Paul,

An interesting question of the use of a term. I might say from my own experience with direct voice medium when I was told about the Internet in 1992-3 they used a public network of computers linked together. My engineering degree was in telecommunications so a good exchange took place. I asked who owned the network? The reply was no one which did not make any sense – why would the owners not charge for usage. So the concept was beyond my understanding.

I looked for who would use vibrations and came across this reference. I will try to obtain it.
Chapter 14 - Vibrations
Sound and Literature
Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2020
By Shelley Thrower
This chapter begins with a brief chronological outline of how vibrations figure in scientific and literary texts from the eighteenth-century to twentieth-century Modernism. It outlines approaches to the transmission of scientific and spiritualist concepts of vibratory energies and atoms through literature, going on to consider literary form and materiality as vibratory, focusing briefly on Conrad’s work. Moving further beyond the confines of literary periods, it then relates analysis of literature in its material forms to the work of music and sound studies
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/sound-and-literature/vibrations/49EC1850E546DAEF5D813A5CFDBC4D3C

I then thought about checking with the founders of the SPR. My research is based on my knowledge of Edmund Gurney. I needed to check an expression of his which I found in The Power of Sound. (Another story, another time)

The Power of Sound 1880

I checked the first 308 pages and there were 30 mentions of vibration. (computer search not by hand) One mention uses vibration and medium together.

The existence of these media is of course connected with the power of the eye and the ear to act at a distance from the exciting cause,  which affects them by vibrations set up in the medium,  not by direct contact
Phantasms of the Living by Edmund Gurney, Frank Podmore, and Frederic William Henry Myers 1886 would be my next stop.

If the question of when mediums or their controls used this term I would look at Lodge and the mediums. The controls know the technical backgrounds of those asking questions.
Thanks,
Bruce

Paul,

Further to my last comment, I discovered that the reference index I was maintaining from about 2000 to around 2010 has 12 references for “Vibrations.”  The earliest appears to be the 1900 book, “The Spiritual Significance” by Lilian Whiting.  On page 106, she writes, “To worry is to send to the object of this mental disturbance inharmonious vibrations.”

I also list “Letters from Julia” by William T. Stead, page 46, and “Phineas Speaks” by Conan Doyle, page 34 and 145.  Another old one (1905) is Interwoven, no author, page 52.  Also “The Life Beyond the Veil” by Vale Owen, pages 51 and 59. I put two stars next to the last one, to indicate that it was good reference, and two stars next to “The Silver Birch Companion,” page 100-102. I still have a vague recollection of Robert Hare using it in his 1856 book, but I’m probably wrong on that and not prepared to re-read that book right now to search for it. 

Your theory about use of the terms “frequency” and “vibration” make sense and I will see if there is enough to do a future blog on it.  Thanks for theory and other comments.

Paul,

Good point on the vibration matter. It would take me some time to go through all the references to determine where it is first mentioned, or to rule it out as having been mentioned, so I don’t have a quick answer on that.  I will also check Robert Hare’s book.  Thanks for bringing this up.

The video by Keith Parsons is very rich and to be recommended.  I did want to comment on one point, raised at the 25:40min mark, that as to whether the ‘distance’ between discarnate levels or planes was spatial or vibratory.  In some of the earliest literature, such as Andrew Jackson Davis, on does find spatial conceptions of difference voiced, but this is hardly to be found at all in the later literature.

Based on this matter, I have a question for Michael (and others) to ponder, building on a number of linked comments I had made a few years ago on Stafford Betty’s blog [https://whitecrowbooks.com/staffordbetty/entry/a_philosophers_salvation/].  Michael, as you know from your mastery of the posthumous literature, the description of discarnate ‘levels’ in terms of ‘vibration’ is as near-universal in reference as any subtopic in that literature is, referenced at once by the most simple and most erudite of ostensibly communicating discarnates, while found in source materials of both older and newer provenance.  As a point of note, it appears that terms such as ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’ are not found in the earliest literature.  I have not made a comprehensive study of the question, but none of the three early ‘bibles’ of this literature – John Worth Edmonds & George T. Dexter’s ‘Spiritualism’ [2 vols] (1853,1855), Allan Kardec’s ‘The Spirits’ Book’ (1857) and William Stainton Moses’s ‘Spirit Teachings’ (1883) – make mention of either term, as subsequently employed in the literature.

On the other hand, a notable contribution from a slightly later period, Elsa Barker’s ‘Letters from a Living Dead Man’ (1914), does make use of the term, as when the discarnate Judge Hatch comments, “You must understand that the two worlds are composed of matter…moving at a different rate of vibration”.  I suspect the sudden appearance in the literature of this subsequently ubiquitous description, which – on the basis of my extremely limited survey – occurs between 1883 and 1914, is due to the invention and successful demonstration and deployment of wireless telegraphy in the late 1890s.  It might well be that the widespread general knowledge of ‘radio’ and ‘radio waves’ made possible the deployment, previously unused, of ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’ as technical metaphors of description in discarnate communications.  However, this is surmise on my part.

An additional consideration on this matter occurred to me the other day while reading Jane Sherwood’s ‘The Psychic Bridge’, where she comments in the introduction, “The experiments described here were carried out over a period of six years. After the first difficulties of making contact were over a receptive, albeit enquiring, attitude was adopted, and a system of question and answer developed. I was directed to the reading of certain books which should familiarize my mind with notions that were necessary before I could hope to grasp the full import of what was to be conveyed to me.”  This being directed to read certain books recalled to my mind other instances in the literature where discarnate communicators were limited in what they were able to communicate by specific limitations of intellectual knowledge and associated vocabulary of the mediums they were working with and through.

In the case of understanding discarnate levels in terms of ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’, might it be the case that, prior to the widespread general knowledge of ‘radio’ and ‘radio waves’ following the advent of wireless telegraphy in the late 1890s, this understanding wasn’t available not only to the general public but also to mediums such as those participating in the communications forming ‘Spiritualism’. ‘The Spirits’ Book’ and ‘Spirit Teachings’.  The discarnate communicators could hardly instruct those mediums to read a book on wireless telegraphy, ‘radio’ and ‘radio waves’ as that very field had yet to come into existence and lacking such a vocabulary on the part of the mediums it seems likely that such an understanding simply couldn’t be effectively conveyed at the time.

A potential test of this tentative notion would be to look to the earliest transcriptions of direct voice communications to see which predated the advent of wireless telegraphy and whether any such either make or fail to make reference to ‘vibration’ and ‘frequency’.  I put forward direct voice here as presumably it would not suffer from the same limitations of communication based upon a medium’s specific knowledge and vocabulary or lack thereof.

Best,

Paul

Keith Parsons has just posted his latest you-tube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-eaqftiCQs  It is titled “Spirits Talking: Can they be trusted?” He discusses AI in this very interesting presentation which is 37 minutes long.  Many thanks to Keith for mentioning my book, “The Afterlife Revealed,” along with Stafford Betty’s book,“The Afterlife Unveiled.”  Both of our books were published in 2011. Actually, Stafford and I were planning to collaborate on a book, but our writing style were so different that we decided to go our separate ways.  Both books came about about the same time.  Keith’s you-tube involves a subject matter I was planning to write about for my next blog and I will incorporate some of his material into my blog.

Here’s how to create you own wax molds. - AOD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5w5FoMwlc8

I was struck by Michael’s interesting AI experiment, not least because I am sceptical of the ability of AI to come up with valuable particular conclusions in the face of conflicting points of view contained in the background material used by the software. Right now my latest documentary is being uploaded to Youtube. It is not there yet but should be in a day or so. I will post the link when I can. The doc is entitled:“Spirits Talking: Can they be Trusted?” It looks at the enjoyment to be had from reading individual spirit descriptions received through seances - and the intuition needed to decided whether or not these are likely to be true, while contrasting also the AI understandings of the afterlife as generated by 3 different software products in the work of the University of Padua’s Consciousness Research Group, compared with good old fashioned human scholarship as found in individual analytical publications on the subject. The controversy generated by this AI subject certainly raised interesting comments in this column, and whether we like it or not afterlife research through AI is bound to expand significantly in the years ahead - it’s too trendy not to do so - but by that time I’ll be content to be off-planet !  Thanks Michael.

Thanks to all for the comments.  I probably should have pointed out that even Professor Richet, a Nobel Prize winner in medicine, was reluctant to subscribe to the spirit hypothesis, since it was anti-science and he was a leader in the field.  He saw the so-called spirit entities, dipping their hands in the paraffin wax, but he considered the possibility that they were some kind of manifestation of the medium’s subconscious or some other explanation not yet known to science.  Dr. Geley accepted the spirit hypothesis. 

I should also have pointed out that Richet and Geley carried out a number of such experiments and therefore there was replication.  Several other researchers also carried out similar studies and replicated the results of Richet and Geley.  Actually, I recall that one or two researchers did it before Richet and Geley and they got the idea from them. 

AI talked about the need for more rigorous and controlled conditions, but I don’t know how Richet and Geley could have made them more so.  They searched the medium, worked in a lab behind locked doors, observed under red light, held the medium’s hands to be sure he wasn’t doing something and also used a coloring agent in the paraffin they brought to the lab to be sure that the coloring agent showed up in the paraffin hands, i.e., it was not some pre-molded paraffin hand that the medium somehow hid away in their lab.  They had the paraffin hands compared with the hands of others in the room and there was no match.  One was the hand of a child. 

I don’t recall the dialogue that went on between the researchers and the “spirits,” but I don’t think it was much.  Absolute proof might have required the spirits to give their names and details of their earth lives and then those details would have to be confirmed. However, the   “energy” involved in such experiments is apparently limited. 

See my blogs of July 25, 2011 and September 11, 2023 for more info on the paraffin hands experiments.  It’s also a chapter in my book, “No One Really Dies.”

Michael,
I asked ChatGPT the question
Apply inferential reasoning to all the cases of spirit communication – starting with the Phantasms cases. Which cases carry the most weight to the belief in life after death? What can we infer from this dataset?
ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
The Phantasms of the Living cases, documented by Edmund Gurney, Frederic W. H. Myers, and Frank Podmore in 1886, provide an early systematic approach to exploring spirit communication and apparitional experiences. This collection involved numerous accounts of people experiencing apparitions of living persons, often during crises like accidents, illness, or death. To evaluate the weight of these cases in supporting beliefs in life after death, we can examine the quality of the evidence and the strength of inferential reasoning within these cases. Here’s a structured approach to analyzing their weight:

1. Crisis Apparitions and Coincidence Rates

Many Phantasms cases involve apparitions coinciding with the death or severe distress of a distant person, often a loved one. Such crisis apparitions have been documented with greater frequency than random chance would suggest. In these cases, the apparition might seem to “announce” the person’s crisis or passing, potentially implying a connection beyond physical means.
Inference: If we treat the high coincidence rates as non-random, it implies a telepathic or transpersonal connection between people, especially during extreme emotional states. However, the data does not necessarily point to survival after death but rather hints at mental interactions at a distance, which could still occur in a materialist framework of interconnected consciousness.
2. Cases Involving Post-Mortem Apparitions

While most apparitions in Phantasms were of living individuals, some were reportedly seen shortly after the death of the person. These instances carry more weight for life-after-death beliefs since they suggest the appearance of a person after physical death, which could imply the existence of a “spirit” or surviving consciousness.
Inference: Post-mortem cases are more compelling for survival beliefs because they imply continuity after death. However, to conclude survival, we would need to rule out other explanations, such as psychological projection, grief-induced hallucinations, or unconscious processing of information about the death.
3. Veridical Apparitions

Some accounts describe apparitions providing information unknown to the experiencer at the time, which later proved accurate. For example, an apparition might reveal details about its own death or location that were not publicly known at the time. Such cases are stronger evidence because they suggest the apparition is not merely a mental projection.
Inference: Veridical details add substantial weight, as they suggest an intelligence communicating across a boundary of life and death. However, we must still consider subconscious knowledge or cryptomnesia as explanations. If alternative explanations fail, these cases could imply post-mortem agency.
4. Consistency of Phenomenological Patterns

Phantasms cases show recurring patterns: visual apparitions often appear suddenly, are frequently silent, and vanish abruptly. This consistency suggests an underlying mechanism or structure to the experiences that may not be purely subjective. Consistency across witnesses (from different backgrounds and cultures) adds to the credibility.
Inference: Consistent patterns might support the hypothesis of an external or objective source for these experiences, hinting at a real phenomenon. But, if apparitional experiences are structured consistently across human cognition, they might reflect shared psychological or cultural archetypes rather than survival after death.
Inferential Summary and Weight of Evidence

The Phantasms cases collectively provide a foundational dataset for studying apparitions, telepathy, and possibly survival. The most compelling cases for life after death are:

Post-mortem apparitions with veridical details that could not have been known by the witness otherwise.
Crisis apparitions occurring at or near the time of death, especially when coupled with a perceived farewell or final communication.
From this dataset, we can infer:

Cognitive Connection in Life: The frequency of crisis apparitions supports a theory of interconnected consciousness, where strong emotions or crises trigger experiences across physical boundaries.
Possible Post-Mortem Continuity: Veridical post-mortem cases and those involving detailed messages imply a form of consciousness that may persist after death. While not definitive, these cases support the possibility of survival, especially if alternative explanations are ruled out.

Challenges to Pure Materialism: The dataset challenges strict materialism, as the experiences often occur without any sensory input and lack conventional communication methods.
In conclusion, Phantasms provides a valuable but complex body of evidence. The strongest cases lean toward a belief in post-mortem survival, although alternative explanations need careful consideration. Further corroborative data, particularly around veridical post-mortem apparitions, would be necessary to solidify the inference toward life after death.

Paul and Michael,

I have returned to find a copy of Robert Crookalls article which I have started to read with interest. I trust that you received my record of the Myers group interaction with our world. You also asked my opinion - I would be curious to know your opinion of Juliet S. Goodenow’s ‘Vanishing Night: A Series of Letters Given Through Telepathic Correspondence by the late Frederic William Henry Myers’ (1923). It has been some time since I read this, but I concluded upon doing so that I wasn’t convinced that what had been conveyed was actually the person and communication of the discarnate Myers.

I also felt disappointed in the weight of the communication. Myers usually was deep in his transmissions. You might have missed that I am also an evidential medium. I did receive this Those of us who have advanced wish to tell those who are our representatives on your Earth that Myers, Gurney, Constable and others had advanced in their thinking. The books that came later, your Mental Radio were appropriate for their time.

The Rhine chapter did not advance thinking as much as we had hoped. Demonstrations still carry weight. Remember as Barlow said that this is all to worship God. Such beauty is found all around. 17/9/2022.

I am struck by Roberts collection of stories (like the Phantasms of the Living). To me these are the demonstrations that are mentioned.

To cover Michael’s article - the AI bot usually repeats key facts and then uses boilerplate to sit on the fence. You can box the bot in their logical thinking. Michael was trying to reason with the bot. Try this technique:

Deductive reasoning proceeds from general cases to particular cases, while inferential reasoning proceeds from particular cases to general cases. They are two inverse processes. Take the cases Michael uses of the wax hands - particular to general. Michael was asking AI but when is the number of particular cases sufficient to prove a point of view, that is life after death?  Not much of an answer.

The standard reply is that unless the event can take place in the controlled environment of a laboratory in a repeatable manner then it does not exist. Phantasms was a qualitative collection of events which alluded to mechanisms such as telepathy or spirit communications.

My bot questioning would be Apply inferential reasoning to all the cases of spirit communication – starting with the Phantasms cases. Which cases carry the most weight to the belief in life after death? What can we infer from this dataset?
(My spirit team didn’t think Rhine was very influential. Neither did David Fontana.)

Anything that does not readily lend itself to laboratory protocols based upon the natural sciences is therefore seen as superfluous. Speaking of her experiences in Rhine’s laboratory, Susy Smith (2000) tells us that Rhine’s reaction and that of his team towards her mediumship was not to get involved in anything that might spoil their other fine work by causing them to receive the label ‘ghost chasers’ ... what I stirred up at Duke was a lot of complete indifference ... nobody would admit to knowing anything about survival.

SURVIVAL RESEARCH: OPPOSITION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
by DAVID FONTANA Journal of the Society for Psychical Research [Vol. 68.4, No. 877 page 193

Thanks
Bruce

In the present intellectual climate, which is still strongly dominated by a hegemonic materialism, AI – which its creators have an incentive to render inoffensive, given considerations of market adoption – will strongly tend to responses that are a) representative of ‘mainstream consensus’ and b) anodyne.  Such is precisely what we see repeatedly in the responses proffered to Michael’s queries.  To the degree that individuals or broader society come to rely on AI as a primary means of obtaining knowledge, to that degree they will be unknowingly limited by such an underlying dynamic to a kind of ‘consensus silo’.  This is where most people are on most matters most of the time anyway, but in order to approach a critical topic such as survival of bodily death, it is – in the present climate – necessary to break out, at least for oneself, of this ‘consensus silo’ and engage with material that stands in direct contravention to it, whether Richet’s paraffin hand molds or much else besides.  If one looks to AI as a source of knowledge in such topics, it will simply serve as a more sophisticated version of what Max Weber famously termed the ‘iron cage’ of modernity, a cage whose bars are so many pleasant, consensus, anodyne responses that bear the illusion of insight with none of the reality.

Fascinating, especially when you gave a question that contained misinformation, about Geley’s brother.

AI is still quite unreliable, but it’s amazing nonetheless.

I hadn’t heard of the Kluski paraffin hand molds, and am delighted to find out about them.  That experiment alone is danged close to “proof.” A well-designed test that would be truly hard to refute, it seems to me.  The skeptics can only ignore such things, not disprove them.  Here’s a description of how the experiment was handled (no pun intended):  https://www.metapsychique.org/the-kluski-hands-moulds/

Elene

Pretty recursive.  A lot of eloquently worded repetitive sentences that don’t say anything much.  Boring and useless. It takes a trillion calculations for it to produce one word.  Those calculations have a HUGE energy cost and consequent environmental destruction.  Dumb.  The cost of the data needed to train it is mind-boggling and involves slave labor, so human cost (look up Amazon’s Mechanical Turk).  They started trying to create a machine that thinks almost 80 years ago and keep digging the whole deeper even though it cannot because human brains are different and we don’t even know why yet even though we are apparently determined to replace it!  Sooo much human energy and the brightest and best minds plus trillions of dollars for this.

Two friends have sent emails to me suggesting that discussing AI is a mistake and that I am opening the door for skeptics to use it in countering spirit communication and related phenomena.  However, my intent was the just opposite—to close the door on the skeptics. 

I’ve already had several skeptical friends suggest that all spirit communication is nothing more than AI. I think it was William James who called it the Cosmic Reservoir, which became Superpsi. 

I don’t plan to dwell on it. Hopefully, the skeptics will seek an answer at AI rather than at Wikipedia.  At least they’ll come away with “maybe” rather than “not at all.” 

The AI ‘comments’ bombed for me with the near constant repetition of ‘the consensus of science’, ‘the scientific community agree that…’ Blah, blah, blah. ‘Science by consensus’ is a widespread popular meme now, well promoted by the MSM, and an utterly faulty one now appearing, actually programmed into, AI – good science doesn’t work that way.

Bernardo Kastrup did a good fairly recent blog piece on AI. Google “The illusion of AI understanding and creativity” and you will find it, well worth a read. Keeps things in perspective.

This article has triggered so many fascinating thoughts. I will try to be brief. We have bowed down and worshiped the almighty scientific method for a few centuries now. There is no doubt that such a methodology has made modern life possible, but such experiences as communicating with deceased loved ones, remembering a past life at three or four years old, or having an out-of-body experience are not likely going to submit themselves to either observation or replication that is core to the scientific method.

Most of life isn’t going to submit to a methodology and certain the experience of life, the joy or sorrow or hope or disappointment or pleasure or pain, will not submit to it or even barely be hinted at in a brief abstract.

AI will never weep tears of joy holding a baby in its arms or squeeze sand between its toes while it walks along an ocean shoreline or caress its lovers face as death separates the two after sixty-seven years of friendship.

The “answers” it provides sound like a gifted political leader saying, in the same sentence,  “yes” to those who hope for “yes” and “no” to those who hope for “no.” “Some believe…,” “Research suggests…,” “Studies are inconclusive…,” “This is a spiritual question and not an empirical one…,” and on and on it goes.

At sixty-one, I look back to all the years of wasted time reading endless lines of interminable words, words, and more words trying to educate myself about the nature of reality. I remember typing entire pages of my ideas and making a single typing error at the bottom of a page, tearing it out and starting over so that my page could be perfect. What a waste of experience!

I know I am an eternal being. I don’t need anyone to believe it. I don’t need to prove it. I love this particular expression of being Brian Anthony Kraemer. I love the infinite other expressions and I love the eternal further ones. See you all as we cross paths again and again.

——————————————————————————————————————————

Gratefully,

Brian Anthony Kraemer
1310 Arbutus Ave. Unit 2
Chico, CA 95926-2632
(530) 321-3964 (cell)

Mike,

This was a valuable exercise. It demonstrates how worthless AI is for discovering truth.

Stafford

If nothing else, AI is much more objective or open-minded than Wikipedia.  What amazes me about AI is the little time it takes to respond to a question.  As soon as I hit “enter” with a question, the answer is given within seconds.  I understand that it draws from a data base on the subject matter, but I would have assumed it would take some time to assemble and organize all the information.

Hi Mike,

Your colleague AI has been working his tail off for you and not charging you a cent. At that rate of pay you could deduce he’s living in a convent and supported by nuns.

Hope all is well with you.
Kindest regards,
Dave

Mike
Good one. The amazing and scary thing about AI is that you almost instinctively and reflexively except AI as some sort of a person and individual, a real personality or person. It is not, of course it is simply a computer algorithm, searching through a database of information and forming the answers in in a conversational style. AI doesn’t wonder, think reflect or ponder;  it simply takes the evidence that it has at hand, and organizes the answer grammatically.

As computer experts always say, “garbage garbage out “  The answer to question is always pre-written. That’s why it’s so important to know what sources AI is getting its information from. That’s also why it’s so scary. in our world whoever controls the AI input, controls the AI output And as more and more people begin to rely on, trust,  and anthropomorphize AI, the more we are in danger of beginning to lose our ability to think and evaluate for ourselves. Brave New (scary) World!

Mike S

This gets weirder and weirder.  AI must be a politician.

Michael,
I stopped playing with AI when it provided a multitude of false information about Patience Worth.  Just ask AI for the laboratory evidence that people dream. The only “evidence” that people dream is anecdotal, (or maybe brain wave tracings) but most people dream. Dreams can not be repeated on demand in a laboratory. - AOL