Perfecting Identity - Request for Feedback

[sgrenard]

Myself and another investigator are interested in testing my hypothesis
regarding perfecting the identity of spirit or consciousnesses in one-on-one
sessions
between medium and sitter with special additional considerations
involving
the probable presence of multiple (potential) sitters in the vicinity.

.

1. Identification of the consciousness for a particular sitter seems to be
the most problematic part of any reading. Various reasons are given for this
by mediums, skeptics and by students of the process. These include:

a. misperceived expectations by sitters
b. failure of sitters to recognize descriptions; or, psychic block?
c. the presence of multiple consciousnesses and multiple
potential sitters (in the area), thus confounding the process
d. robust communication by some cponsciousnesses as opposed to
weak or non-existent communicative ability by others as defined by A.S.
Berger
c. intended fraud on the part of either sitter or medium
d. non-intended fraud on the part of either sitter or medium


2. Mediums frequently have to resort to what appears to be cold reading in
order to confirm or eliminate identities. In fact it may well be cold
reading as defined by skeptics. This includes offering many items of a
descriptive nature, initials, names or homophones and causes of death, some
of which produce subjective symptoms in the mediums which they then must
interpret. Some mediums do not have the medical knowledge to properly
interpret such symptoms, others do. Third party observers with knowledge
of medical differential diagnosis can often help/consult in post session
analysis.

3. Failure of the medium and sitter to perfect the identity of the
consciousness ultimately results in full or partial failure of the session.
Complete failure due to the total absence of any verifiable, validatable
facts and
partial failure due to the coincidental presence of facts which may fit more
than one
person. The skeptic complaint of making "facts" fit in order to validate the
session (by the sitter) may legitimately occur under such circumstances.

4. Mediums, in trying to help the sitter, often persist in trying to perfect
identity, thus causing doubt (by sitters, investigators, 3rd parties
and skeptics) on the process as a result.

5. The ultimate reason for the sitter to give up identity information as
above is to assure both the sitter and medium that the correct consciousness
is in contact. This is not an adversarial process and all parties to the
experiment are interested in obtaining valid information not obtained by any
means other
than true communication, telepathic or otherise, between the medium and
consciousness.

By doing this the process eliminates accusations of cold reading and mis-
identification for this phase of the reading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

In order to preclude the above problems with the process, it is being
proposed that:

1. Sitters (or investigators in an experimental session) advise the medium
in advance of the identity of the consciousness or multiple consciousnesses
being sought: including name, relationship, hair color, physical
description,
age at passing, height/weight, and presumed cause of death.

2. That if the medium accepts this information and believes that a
consciousnes (or more than one) are being contacted, then the second or
validating phase of the reading should proceed with 100% or near 100%
accuracy.

3. That if the medium accepts this information and believes that they do not
have contact with one or more consciousnesses that fit the identity that
was given, then the session should be scrubbed and not counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------

In the case of multiple sitters or others in the vicinity (e.g. John
Edward's
Crossing Over program) mediums have been known to obtain identity
information which does not fit a particular sitter but which may be of a
spirit that can be claimed by a non-sitter. Some mediums are very adpt
at isolating sitters and matching them with spirit in large group
situations.
However, in evaluating more than 100 non-local, anonymous sessions
involving readers who succeed 100% in one-on-one, it was determined
that more than half the sessions was devoted to trying to perfect identity
and that a further 50% of the sessions failed when identity was not
satisfactorily confirmed. In some cases this may have been due to an
overly willing sitter claiming an identity which they may subconsciously
have known was not intended for them.


For experimental purposes, such impromptu sessions should not be allowed as
they invalidate
the controls on the process. If they occur, or be allowed to proceed, they
should occur
solely for the humanitarian benefit of the new sitter but any results
obtained should
not be tabulated unless the "new" sitter was a previously designated
experimental
sitter with all the controls and pre-validation questions in place. Further
recommendations, following the testing of this hypothesis, will be made as
suggested by experimental results.
These recommendations may be incorporated into sessions where large groups
or multiple un-related
sitters may be involved.










http://survivalscience.50megs.com



To view SurivvalScience Database of Member Recomended Books go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/survivalscience/files/readinglist.html

To add a Book and your Review to this Database go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/survivalscience/files/recommendation.htm






Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Don]

Steve, my man, if I ever start a fortune cookie company, I want you to be the one that does the little sheets of paper. You can condense more interesting information into a small space than anyone I know.

[sgrenard]

Thanks for the offer. Ill keep it mind. In the meantime, where are your suggestions for this project? :)

Steve

[Yardbird]

>>>> Hi Steve- just look for my >>>> to see my questions. :)

Originally posted by sgrenard:
Myself and another investigator are interested in testing my hypothesis regarding perfecting the identity of spirit or consciousnesses in one-on-one sessions between medium and sitter with special additional considerations involving
the probable presence of multiple (potential) sitters in the vicinity.

3. Failure of the medium and sitter to perfect the identity of the
consciousness ultimately results in full or partial failure of the session. Complete failure due to the total absence of any verifiable, validatable facts and partial failure due to the coincidental presence of facts which may fit more than one
person. The skeptic complaint of making "facts" fit in order to validate the session (by the sitter) may legitimately occur under such circumstances.

4. Mediums, in trying to help the sitter, often persist in trying to perfect identity, thus causing doubt (by sitters, investigators, 3rd parties and skeptics) on the process as a result.

>>>> Could you help me out? #3 and #4 seem to be the same. I know brevity is a must for posting, but did you leave clarification out? I could be just missing it myself, too. :)

5. The ultimate reason for the sitter to give up identity information as above is to assure both the sitter and medium that the correct consciousness is in contact. This is not an adversarial process and all parties to the experiment are interested in obtaining valid information not obtained by any
means other than true communication, telepathic or otherise, between the medium and consciousness.

By doing this the process eliminates accusations of cold reading and mis-identification for this phase of the reading.

>>>> #5 includes the consciousness as a member of "...all parties to the experiment" as opposed to it being the subject at hand like the previous. It is obvious to us here that they should be included as members of the experiment and not to be considered the experiemental topic itself- wonder what those more "skeptical" would relegate them to. Also, have seen a few other psi-experiements and have not to my knowledge seen the "spirit" included as an active member before. I believe you've stepped into new territory with justan hypothesis, Steve. Congrats and thanks for that alone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to preclude the above problems with the process, it is being proposed that:

1. Sitters (or investigators in an experimental session) advise the medium in advance of the identity of the consciousness or multiple consciousnesses being sought: including name, relationship, hair color, physical description, age at passing, height/weight, and presumed cause of death.

2. That if the medium accepts this information and believes that a
consciousnes (or more than one) are being contacted, then the second or validating phase of the reading should proceed with 100% or near 100% accuracy.

3. That if the medium accepts this information and believes that they do not have contact with one or more consciousnesses that fit the identity that was given, then the session should be scrubbed and not counted.

>>>>Physical descriptions? Really? Is that necessary? No insinuations here, just purely curious. And with such information at the medium's disposal, I can only assume through my limited observation of mediumship that the second or validating phrase is going to be mention of a person, place, or event common to both the spirit and the sitter.

>>>>My question is about the "psychic block" or amnesia that occurs. I have seen mediums (e.g. John Edward) be more accurate with the information than the sitter (repeatedly trusting the spirit's communicated message by stating "I'm going with them on this one" or "Yes, you do have an Aunt Phyllis")- is there going to be a limitation on accuracy to the reading in accordance to time and solitary sitter? Is the experiment limited to what was acknowledged in the moments that connection is made with the spirit, or will afterthoughts before the sitter leaves the experimental site be counted (a survey, essay on their take, etc)? Plenty of trust to having sitters on an equal footing can degrade as time wanes- just curious that while careful consideration to the medium's knowledge of the spirit is considered, is consideration for how well-versed the sitter is in the spirit also addressed in the intended experiment?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of multiple sitters or others in the vicinity (e.g. John
Edward's Crossing Over program) mediums have been known to obtain identity information which does not fit a particular sitter but which may be of a spirit that can be claimed by a non-sitter. Some mediums are very adpt at isolating sitters and matching them with spirit in large group situations. However, in evaluating more than 100 non-local, anonymous sessions involving readers who succeed 100% in one-on-one, it was determined that more than half the sessions was devoted to trying to perfect identity and that a further 50% of the sessions failed when identity was not satisfactorily confirmed. In some cases this may have been due to an overly willing sitter claiming an identity which they may subconsciously have known was not intended for them.

For experimental purposes, such impromptu sessions should not be allowed as they invalidate the controls on the process. If they occur, or be allowed to proceed, they should occur solely for the humanitarian benefit of the new sitter but any results obtained should not be tabulated unless the "new" sitter was a previously designated experimental sitter with all the controls and pre-validation questions in place. Further recommendations, following the testing of this hypothesis, will be made as suggested by experimental results. These recommendations may be incorporated into sessions where large groups or multiple un-related sitters may be involved.

>>>>Wow- again with the new territory- multiple sitters. My nagging concern is when equal foting in measurement comes into play- that over-willing sitter may be able to fit many of the personages, places, and events together as well as the next guy, which then bears unequal responsibiliity on the shoulders of the medium (as opposed to equal response to medium, sitter, and spirit) not only to connect with the spirit, find the connection to the corresponding sitter, and then assure themselves that the other over-willing sitter is not the intended, all the while being the active, not passive, member of the experiement. Not sure how control can be measured when more focus is reliant on one particular member of the experiement. Once again, I could just be missing something here on the account of posting brevity- would be extremely pleased to see even a focused attempt at measurement in a multiple-sitter session.

>>>>It's a bold thing you are hypothesizing, Steve. Please do keep working, even if no more than just your ideas come to fruition. Laura J.

[ceceoh]

Originally posted by Yardbird
>>>> Hi Steve- just look for my >>>> to see my questions. :)


>>>> #5 includes the consciousness as a member of "...all parties to the experiment" as opposed to it being the subject at hand like the previous. It is obvious to us here that they should be included as members of the experiment and not to be considered the experiemental topic itself- wonder what those more "skeptical" would relegate them to. Also, have seen a few other psi-experiements and have not to my knowledge seen the "spirit" included as an active member before. I believe you've stepped into new territory with justan hypothesis, Steve. Congrats and thanks for that alone.

Hey Steve. I've been reading your proposal over and over (You'd probably have to "dumb it down" for me to understand it all.)

I think I understand that the experimenters already accept the premise that the consciousness of passed individuals do exist, and that this experiment is to prove whether the medium is genuinely contacting these spirits, by eliminating the more obvious physical descriptions of the spirit contacted and concentrating solely on more personal validations as a measurement of the medium's skill.

It bothered me though that you proposed that if a spirit came through that did not match the "control information", that the reading would be concluded and discounted. From what I understand from my studies, the spirits contacting these mediums are going through great efforts, sometimes Herculean, in order to communicate with the medium, and that they definitely have their own "agenda" which probably isn't going to take into consideration that this is a scientific experiment. If they come through, it's because they have a message to deliver, and are not going to care if they are on the "guest list" or not.

Respectfully, I feel that to conclude a reading because the subject isn't on the "list" smacks of disrespect, if not cruelty. And even if the reading is allowed to continue, but the results would be discounted, isn't it possible that the focus and energy of the sitter and mediums are going to be effected by this "wild card", that they would be thinking about the results of the experiment, and not about what the spirit is trying to communicate? I hope I'm making myself clear, here.

I keep thinking about the old saw" It's like trying to nail down mercury". Science being the hammer, the spirit world being the quicksilver.

[sgrenard]

I will endeavor to answer the questions raised one by one.

The spirit or consciousness is definitely considered a member of the experimental team. This is not a first. It was a primary feature of the Skoal Experiments in the U.K., it was a tactic used bv Prof. A.S. Berger and others and is discussed in his monograph
"Aristocracy of the Dead. New Findings in Post-Mortem Survival"and Drs. Schwartz, Russek and Watson used the consciousnesses of specific departed people as hypotheiszed co-investigators in their first mediumship experiment involving the mediums Susy Smith (now in spirit herself) and Campbell. In fact they even published their paper with the names of the spirits as co-authors.

One of the earliest experiments involving the Frederich W.H. Myers cross-correspondences also utilized Myers as a co-investigator. In an interesting mediumistic event, a spirit whose identity was well known to myself and the instructors in a class on mediumship regularly appeared during those classes. He was used to test the abilities of the students in their psychic/mediumistic development. As he was known to the instructors, they and myself were able to validate and test the students through his contact. In this case was not only the consciousness a co-investigator but was accepted as a colleague!

This experiment proceeds from the premise that the process of mediumship and ADCs, dependent upon post-mortem survival, is a genuine occurrence and is seeking to identify the reasons for mediumistic failure or variability, in mediums who may get 100% accuracy in some cases and fail miserably in others. I have hypothesized that such failure is due to failure to perfect the identity of the consciousness. The object of the proposed experiment is to test and disprove this hypothesis. Other reasons have been put forward (and were listed) but this one is one of the simplest to test.

In simplest terms, if the identity information is provided to the medium at the beginning of the session, and if the medium recognizes the consciousness(es) in contact as fitting that description, will this result in mediumistic success? And at
what %-level? Initially there will be no controls. If the first part indicates a very high success rate then he hypothesis will be tested in the absence of providing this ifnormation and the success rate(s) compared by statistical analysis.

There are two broad categories of mediumistic contact: one on one sessions and group sessions. Some mediums, JE being one of them, are particularly adept at sorting out relationships and identities in large group situations. Even in one on one sessions he tapes, he is often diverted by the presence of consciousnesses belonging to non-sitters (i.e. crew and staff members) or to others in the vicinity. I am not suggesting that these "divergent" or extemporaneous contacts are not valid, just that they should not be counted for the experiment's purpose since the designated sitters will be pre-validated by the investigators, and that this would include
presentation of identity information as above. Obviously this would subvert our quest to test or disprove the hypothesis.
This ocurrence is definitely of interest, however, and should be noted. Its true incidence is unknown. The data from such encounters may be useful as controls. I am undecided about this.

Obviously it is not possible for a room of 1000s of people to all
provide identity information in advance. If this hypothesis is not disproven, its implications for large group sessions will need further refinement.

One of the implications for large group readings is that the provision of this information may help to preclude mis-identification and the mediumistic failure this mis-identification often engenders. Or at least this is what is going to be tested. Maybe not.

[sgrenard]

Some more replies:

1. Mediums who persist in trying to get information for sitters who do not respond positively after some pre-determined time
limit are given as an example of mediumistic failure. My assumption is that if identity is perfected this will not occur.
I am not being critical of efforts by mediums to establish proper contact with spirit for sitters and I applaud their persistence. I have seen John and others do this. I have also seen this go on for 30 or more minutes and a halt called. Can this be avoided if my hypothesis is not disproven?



2. The validity of the experimental sitter's responses will be
co-enigneered by the completion of a questionnaire with over
200 points of agreement known by the sitter and which applies to their relationship with the consciousness in spirit. Room will
be allowed for items not covered to be added post-sitting. The sitter will be interviewed by a trained investigator. They cannot just walk out, after checking off yes, no or dont know, see ya later. This may even be done during a follow-up days or weeks later, to put distance between the session and its evaluation.

3. The potential for extemporaneous contacts outside the field of the intended one on one is difficult to prevent as there will be other people (investigators, staff members, strangers in the vicinity) in the area. In fact the non-locality premise of all mediumistic contact, which is attributed to collective telepathy, may make this impossible to control for. This is another reason
for perfecting identity. Some mediums, as I conceded, do this
very well. Other mediums are sensitive to a broad range of information and do not do this well. I myself may be one of these non-adepts. We all may. If this hypothesis is not disproven, it may help non-adept mediums (e.g. telephones that do not work as well as other telephones) to obtain information which would broaden their range of functionality whereas now
they know they receive information but often fail in matching it to the intended or correct sitter. Mis-routing?

I thank you for your comments and suggestions which have been dutifully printed out and will become part of the preliminary file and will be considered by the investigators and myself. Keep ideas and comments coming.

[PsyQuestor]

Steve,

Forgive me if this is in any way redundant.

Is it even possible for JE et. al. to get messages from only one discarnate entity?

For example, even when John is doing one on one's, we have seen that be interrupted by another discarnate entity who is not related to the sitter being read. For example, someone who's reading is next is backstage. John is trying to do a reading for the current sitter, but has to bring out ( early ) the next appt. This because the discarnate entity will not wait for his "appt."

Also, the information that JE receives is determined by the discarnate entity, not the sitter ( or even the person studying the validity of said reading ). Unless John hits on something that can be validated by the sitter, it is considered a miss. Now that isn't to say it isn't accurate, only that it cannot be validated by the sitter.

If there was to be a predetermined "sign" or validation known to the sitter or the person studying it, wouldn't then it be possible for a skeptic to say...well that's mind reading ( telepathy ) and not mediumship? I guess this is what I am mainly curious about.

Thank you in advance for putting up with my probably silly questions.

Sorry Steve...i didn't see the second part to your post ( some more... ) this answers my question(s).

[sgrenard]

I agree that extemporaneous sessions for non-designated sitters should be allowed to continue for humanitarian reasons and that it would be cruel and disrespectful to prohibit that.

I suggested only that unless such a reading was for a previously deignated sitter (who happens to be in the vicinity), that the results of the unauthorized sessions, if you want to call it that, be eliminated or possibly held in obeyance as a control.
Steve

[sgrenard]

It is possible for a medium to have more than one consciousness for a single sitter trying to push through. There is a primary or closest person, however. Secondary possibilities will be known to the investigators.

I have seen mediums ask secondary contacts to hold on while communicating with the primary consciousness.

If the properly identified primary contact brings through or is accompanied by others in spirit, there is usually no dispute as to the identity of those coming through in this way although they might not always feel it is necessary to identify themselves.

This is a good point and will be considered. Thanks!!

[sgrenard]

Re: Telepathy.

All contact with consciousness is via telepathy inosfar as I am aware. Is there a lot of noise and crossed connections?

The possibility always exists that the medium is in telepathic contact with the sitter rather than with spirit but various validations have ruled this out including information not known to any living person being offered and later validated. Most typically this involves the revealing the location of lost or secreted objects.

In theory a medium can be in telepathic contact not only with the spirit, the sitter but with anyone on earth. I do not know how to control for this. The FWH Myers Cross Correspondences were deigned to disprove this and did so in that case. Mediums who did not know each other throughout the world all got pieces of a message which made no sense by themselves but when put together were a piece written by the late FWH Myers. Only
Myers knew what the whole was. The envelope with this was kept in a safe at the SPR in London. No living human knew what was in there until after all the messages were received and asembled. One must assume that Myers and only Myers was in telepathic contact with the designated mediums . And yes, he had already crossed over at the time.

[ceceoh]

Thanks for the additional information, Steve.

[Yardbird]

Steve, once again you amaze me with your tenacity to finer points. This obviously has been through stages and stages of thought, trial-and-error, revamping, and on behalf of us all I thank you for allowing us in on the early stages before experiementation. I just love to watch these things work through their process (even English teachers love analytical and critical thinking :) ).

SGrenard eloquently wrote:
1. mediums who persist in trying to get information for sitters who do not respond positively after some pre-determined time limit are given as an example of mediumistic failure. My asumption is that if identity is perfected this will not occur.... Can this be avoided if my hypothesis is not disproven?

1. I am gathering that if the medium knows whom to look for, they can readily establish that the spirit is the contact preferred as primary in such a controlled case. That would certainly cut down on time spent establishing identity between sitter and spirit (a positive since energy is being expended here and time is of the essence) as well as establishing parameters for a medium to use and similar experiences will be had by each successive sitter with proposed structure. It would also give scientists something concrete to force professional skeptics to accept as well-defined parameters for readings that would produce similar if not same results each time.

My wondering is if there are just too many variables for the equation. Again, Steve, bear with me here because you are teaching me, not debating- I just plain don't have the information on hand if such information exists. It would be monumental to have such defined control as you propose and I wish you best of luck and support with it.

As the sitters are going to give you as much information as possible as to establish the identity of a spirit to connect with, is there the possibility that the spirit they wish to connect with may not have the defined "appearance" or controlled objectives that other members of the experiment may have?

For example: say a young mother wants to connect with her 3-year old daughter who died after long complications in the hospital. As I have watched Crossing Over, it has appeared again and again that small children actually take on an "appearance" of someone with more "worldly" experience- they don't seem three years old at all. Also, it has been rare for Mr. Edward to comment on physical attributes of the person other than presumed cause of death, simply because "they don't care now." The investigators recording the experiment may have to interpret more than just the establishment of said spirit, as some appear to take on more than just our realm of "physical world" attributes.

2. Thanks for answering most of my questions from yesterday, but I have one more little ponderment that maybe you could clarify?

SGrenard eloquently wrote:
2. The validity of the experimental sitter's respnses will be co-engineered by the completion of a questionnaire with over 200 points of agreement known by the sitter and which applies to their relationship with the consciuosness in spirit. Room will be allowed for items not covered to be added post-sitting.... This may even be done during a follow-up days or weeks later, to put distance between the session and its evaluation.

Good. I am glad that consideration for follow-ups after a period of time is considered. However, I would hope that such findings would be kept separate from the original sitting, as human tendency to "fit" things may degrade the original content of a message given in a reading. I'm sure this will be the method of course; just would be pleased when reading the findings that the discourse would be something to the effect of "During the reading the sitter was able to validate....", then see "After the reading upon taking a survey by the investigator the reader was able to validate....", then see "Two weeks after the control reading, on upon being interviewed by the investigator, the reader was able to validate...." It would greatly interest me to see how strong or how subtle certian validations are, and if there is a pattern for such validations (e.g. More messages about events were validated within the reading; more messages about people were validated in the survey; more messages about possessions were validated after a two-week period).

I'm not a scientist by any stretch, but curiosity runs rampant when I read evaluations such as these sessions- I get to thinking "Hey, interesting that possessions take longer to validate than events".... just me. :cool:

I have to cruise your site again and read up on some of the past experiments you mention in this post- quality stuff, my man. Kudos. Laura J