Survival Psi & Somatic Psi: Beischel excerpt #13

Whatever the mediums in this study were doing, psi was involved. There are, however, two competing psi-based explanations for the source of the accurate information mediums report: survival psi and somatic psi. Together, these terms more accurately reflect the proposed theoretical framework attempting to explain mediumship and have replaced more imprecise terms like ‘super psi’ and ‘living agent psi’. 

 

If survival psi is the correct explanation, the medium is using psi to communicate mind-to-mind with the survived consciousness of the discarnate. In the somatic psi theory, the medium is not communicating with any discarnates. Instead, the somatic psi theory posits, the medium is using any combination of psi-based cognitive tasks to acquire information about the discarnate: accessing the minds of living persons associated with the discarnate; obtaining information about the discarnate from distant locations, documents, objects, or other sources; retrieving information from the future when the reading is scored by the sitter; or examining a psychic reservoir of information to learn about the discarnate. The root of the word somatic (soma) means body; the term is used to refer to the physical body of the living sitter and/or the body of information stored in the universe as examples of what sources the medium allegedly accesses in this explanation. 

 

At this time, somatic psi and survival psi are simply theoretical constructs; just names for ideas not backed by empirical evidence. We can’t prove either one in and of itself. Thus, using them as explanations for the source of the information mediums report about the deceased would commit either (a) the logical error of reification (mistaking the abstract for the concrete) or (b) the error of nominal fallacy (thinking that something is understood simply because it has a name; or ‘naming is not explaining’). Still, the two concepts are useful for thinking about and discussing mediumship, and I’ll continue to use them here as placeholders to represent the two sides of this established battle.

 

Since the initial scientific examination of mediums in the late 19th century, being able to break this tie between the ideas of survival psi and somatic psi has seemed quite impossible. It appeared that both were equally likely to be true, which has strongly dissuaded many researchers from studying mediums.

 

This is because the source of the information reported by mediums cannot be determined from its content and, for a long time, content was all researchers had. All they could do was assess the accuracy of what mediums said. And nothing a medium can say during a reading will break the tie between somatic psi and survival psi. Any content can be the result of anomalous transfer of information from a psychic reservoir, from the future, from distant places, or from the sitter or other people through somatic psi. If a medium reports something the sitter didn’t know but needed to verify through someone else, that can be explained as the medium using somatic psi to get the information from that other person. If a medium accurately reports an event that hasn’t happened yet, that can be explained as somatic psi from the future. The general phenomena attributed to somatic psi are well established and make logical sense.

 

However, the cases above could just as logically be explained as the result of survival psi and communication with a discarnate. The discarnate could provide information the sitter didn’t know and needed to verify with others. The discarnate could report information to the medium about a future event. Again, both somatic psi and survival psi could be true.

 

We could collect accuracy data until the end of time and it would continue to support the existence of anomalous information reception by mediums, but it could not help us get any closer to figuring out where a medium gets [their] information. The content of the reading is irrelevant in this debate because it can never break the tie or shift the balance.

 

So, we are at an impasse. What’s a scientist to do?

 

 

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).