Living with the mystery: Beischel excerpt #19

Draw Conclusions from all the Phenomenology Research 

 

From the data collected during the UVO-I, -II, and -III Studies, we can assuredly conclude that what mediums experience as survival psi (communicating with the deceased) is statistically and in most other ways completely different than psychic readings for the living, the placeholder experience for the theoretical situation proposed by the somatic psi explanation. Most convincingly, from the quantitative PCI love data collected during the UVO-III Study under blinded conditions, we can conclude that the different ways mediums describe the two experiences cannot be solely a result of knowing which phenomenon they are talking about and consciously or unconsciously spinning the narrative to fit their needs.

 

And let’s season our hearty science with some tasty logical inference: When we consider the extensive experiences of people throughout history and across the globe who have ongoing relationships with the souls of the deceased, it is actually more logical to land on the survival side of the survival psi/somatic psi argument. It just makes more sense that these 21st century, American mediums are communicating with the deceased, like they say they are doing and like people have been doing for eons all over the world, rather than using psychic functioning to acquire information about the deceased. That is, in addition to the science, the history and ubiquitous nature of communication experiences allow us to infer that survival psi is a better explanation than somatic psi for the source of mediums’ accuracy under controlled conditions. 

 

Draw Conclusions from all the Research 

 

As established above, science is considered the most reliable, valid way of knowing. Based on the science described here, this is what we know: 

 

1.Certain prescreened mediums can report accurate and specific information about the deceased under controlled laboratory conditions that address normal explanations for the source of the information they report.

 

2. The anomalous source of that accurate information must involve psi. 

 

3. The two possibilities are that (a) they are communicating telepathically with the survived consciousnesses of deceased people (survival psi) or (b) they are using precognition, clairvoyance, or telepathy with the living to gather information about the deceased (somatic psi).

 

4. Twenty laboratory-tested mediums and over 100 self-identified mediums have reported that survival psi and psychic readings for the living (the surrogate for the somatic psi theory) feel different. Extensive qualitative and statistically significant quantitative phenomenological research supports their claims. 

 

5. Quantitative findings from blinded readings performed by laboratory-tested mediums for deceased and living targets specifically demonstrated that, at the very least, love is experienced to a greater degree during mediumistic readings for the deceased compared to during psychic readings for the living.

Taken together, these facts provide the best available evidence for the survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. As we have stated all along this journey, 

 

"With a combination of evidence for AIR and support that the use of survival psi during the mediumship process is phenomenologically or physiologically different from somatic psi under blinded conditions, it could be inferred that survival is the best explanation for the data."

 

The most logical explanation for the collection of data described above is that people can survive the death of their bodies and can communicate with mediums.

 

But how can that be? 

 

 While these conclusions may seem like heresy or profanity to some, controversial ideas can be the “key to scientific progress” and keeping them “at the scientific margins is strikingly at odds with the potential public impact such work could have”.

Moreover, competent scientists are comfortable with uncertainty and mystery. In Brida by Paulo Coelho, another novel I happened to be reading while writing this, Brida’s boyfriend explains to her the classic physics double-slit experiment that demonstrates that particles can inexplicably act like both particles and waves simultaneously. “You may not believe it, but it’s true,” he says. “It’s something scientists know but can’t explain.”

 

Brida asks, “What do scientists do when confronted by these mysteries?”

“They enter the dark night,” he responds. “We know that the mystery won’t ever go away and so we learn to accept it, to live with it... It isn’t explanations that carry us forward, it’s our desire to go on”.

 

Here’s to living with the mystery. 

 

Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).