"Genuine" or knowing fraud?

[Cradle Cap]

How do you tell the difference? That's what I was trying to explain to you.



A thought is different to a voice in your head, whether or not that voice is self-generated.

How to tell the difference? Um, does a voice tell you to go the toilet? When you change channel does a voice say, 'Let's change channel!' When you have an idea for a short story does it appear as a string of words, with gaps and pauses, or is it just there, a sudden burst of inspiration requiring articulation by you? Those are thoughts. They are distinct from a voice.

[chillzero]

A thought is different to a voice in your head, whether or not that voice is self-generated.

How to tell the difference? Um, does a voice tell you to go the toilet? When you change channel does a voice say, 'Let's change channel!' When you have an idea for a short story does it appear as a string of words, with gaps and pauses, or is it just there, a sudden burst of inspiration requiring articulation by you? Those are thoughts. They are distinct from a voice.

How do you tell the difference between 'knowing to change channels', and 'knowing that the person in front of you has a dead grandfather who wants them to know he loves them'?

[Croydon Bob]

How do you tell the difference between 'knowing to change channels', and 'knowing that the person in front of you has a dead grandfather who wants them to know he loves them'?

You may well be right, but I've never had the 'knowing that the person in front of you has a dead grandfather who wants them to know he loves them' and I find it hard to envisage. I've had 'knowing to change channels' thoughts and I can imagine it much easier.

[chillzero]

You may well be right, but I've never had the 'knowing that the person in front of you has a dead grandfather who wants them to know he loves them' and I find it hard to envisage. I've had 'knowing to change channels' thoughts and I can imagine it much easier.

Well, that's all I was trying to explain to you. If you want to understand what happens with a person who claims to be psychic, you can't just dismiss them as 'hearing voices' because that's not what it is.

[Cradle Cap]

How do you tell the difference between 'knowing to change channels', and 'knowing that the person in front of you has a dead grandfather who wants them to know he loves them'?

Well, I would say those are 'thoughts', not a 'voice'. The fact that you've used the word 'knowing' gives it away, surely?

But when you see a psychic at work, what you usually see is the psychic doign this kind of thing. 'He saying he's happy there in the afterlife. He's saying, "no more pain." He's saying '"Lisa," or is it "Liz?''

In other words you're watching the psychic relay, not a thought or a knowing, but a voice. Since nobody else can hear the voice, it's a voice in their head.

[chillzero]

Well, I would say those are 'thoughts', not a 'voice'. The fact that you've used the word 'knowing' gives it away, surely?
No - I am relaying to you what I experienced and what several 'psychic' acquaintances of mine experienced. When people say that psychics 'hear voices' they are misleading themselves as to what this means - other than those who claim to be claraudient.


But when you see a psychic at work, what you usually see is the psychic doign this kind of thing. 'He saying he's happy there in the afterlife. He's saying, "no more pain." He's saying '"Lisa," or is it "Liz?''

In other words you're watching the psychic relay, not a thought or a knowing, but a voice. Since nobody else can hear the voice, it's a voice in their head.
Well, firstly I've already said that I think these guys are knowing fakes.
Secondly, I am not sure why you've chosen to ignore my explanations of this. Just because a self-proclaimed psychic uses the words 'he says' doesn't mean they are hearing an actual voice - unless that psychic is claiming to be clairaudient. It's an easy way to convey information. However, how much more often so you hear them claim 'I'm getting an impression of .... I'm feeling that it is ......' and so on? You need to match the 'experience' with the claim. And - you are limiting this to those who play to an audience, and there are so many other types of 'psychic' out there. There are card readers, those who do guided meditations and past life regressions, those who 'dream' prophecies, those who 'know' where to find missing people, those who 'intuit' illness diagnoses .... so many more types of 'psychic experience' that you aren't considering.

Also, as I've tried to explain ... it's not a matter of actually hearing a voice - it's an 'inner voice' - very similar (identical, in fact, for obvious reasons) to your own internal voice of your imagination or your thought processes.

You can continue to tell me - someone actually experienced in psychic predictions and abilities - that psychics hear voices like external voices and like schizophrenics do. That doesn't make it true. It just means that you are failing to understand/believe what I'm explaining to you. If it was a voice separate to the person's thought processes then it would be so much easier to tell the difference for those starting out in the psychic arena. It would also make it a much easier thing to study and would probably mean that yes, it is a mental illness - diagnosable, studiable, and potentially cureable. However, this simply isn't the case, no matter how much you handwave at me and say "psychics hear voices" as if that's the end of the matter.

When they speak of this voice, they mean their thought processes, but they are expected to 'just know and trust in Spirit' to be able to tell the difference - when none actually exists.

[chillzero]

In other words you're watching the psychic relay, not a thought or a knowing, but a voice. Since nobody else can hear the voice, it's a voice in their head.
This is an assumption that you are making based on terms used by people claiming to be psychic, and outside of your experience by your own admittance.

[Cradle Cap]

No - I am relaying to you what I experienced and what several 'psychic' acquaintances of mine experienced. When people say that psychics 'hear voices' they are misleading themselves as to what this means - other than those who claim to be claraudient.


Well, firstly I've already said that I think these guys are knowing fakes.
Secondly, I am not sure why you've chosen to ignore my explanations of this. Just because a self-proclaimed psychic uses the words 'he says' doesn't mean they are hearing an actual voice - unless that psychic is claiming to be clairaudient. It's an easy way to convey information. However, how much more often so you hear them claim 'I'm getting an impression of .... I'm feeling that it is ......' and so on? You need to match the 'experience' with the claim. And - you are limiting this to those who play to an audience, and there are so many other types of 'psychic' out there. There are card readers, those who do guided meditations and past life regressions, those who 'dream' prophecies, those who 'know' where to find missing people, those who 'intuit' illness diagnoses .... so many more types of 'psychic experience' that you aren't considering.

Also, as I've tried to explain ... it's not a matter of actually hearing a voice - it's an 'inner voice' - very similar (identical, in fact, for obvious reasons) to your own internal voice of your imagination or your thought processes.

You can continue to tell me - someone actually experienced in psychic predictions and abilities - that psychics hear voices like external voices and like schizophrenics do. That doesn't make it true. It just means that you are failing to understand/believe what I'm explaining to you. If it was a voice separate to the person's thought processes then it would be so much easier to tell the difference for those starting out in the psychic arena. It would also make it a much easier thing to study and would probably mean that yes, it is a mental illness - diagnosable, studiable, and potentially cureable. However, this simply isn't the case, no matter how much you handwave at me and say "psychics hear voices" as if that's the end of the matter.

When they speak of this voice, they mean their thought processes, but they are expected to 'just know and trust in Spirit' to be able to tell the difference - when none actually exists.

Firstly, I'm not ignoring your explanations. They're not explanations anyway -- this isn't maths and you're the teacher. I was merely engaging with your assertions.

Secondly, I understand the the difference between a thought and an internal (i.e. non-audible) voice, thanks. It seems that you do, too... now. To quote from your last post: "It's not a matter of hearing a voice".

Only, in your opening post you said, "Everybody 'hears' someone in their head - it's how you think."

Which is what I was taking issue with.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see that you've cleared that up for yourself. Perhaps be a bit less tetchy next time?

[chillzero]

Firstly, I'm not ignoring your explanations. They're not explanations anyway -- this isn't maths and you're the teacher. I was merely engaging with your assertions.

Secondly, I understand the the difference between a thought and an internal (i.e. non-audible) voice, thanks. It seems that you do, too... now. To quote from your last post: "It's not a matter of hearing a voice".

Only, in your opening post you said, "Everybody 'hears' someone in their head - it's how you think."

Which is what I was taking issue with.

Anyway, I'm pleased to see that you've cleared that up for yourself. Perhaps be a bit less tetchy next time?

You seem to have completely ignored again the difference I was trying to explain between hearing voices, and hearing an internal voice. That difference between a thought and an internal voice is the one that I have tried explaining as being difficult to perceive. That internal 'voice' - the same as you 'hear' your thoughts - is the one that psychics will mistake for being something else. How do you tell the difference? You can't - because they absolutely are the one and the same thing.

It is not the same as 'hearing voices' in the way that you initially meant, when you said that psychics hear voices which means they are all a bit nuts.

[Cradle Cap]

You seem to have completely ignored again the difference I was trying to explain between hearing voices, and hearing an internal voice. That difference between a thought and an internal voice is the one that I have tried explaining as being difficult to perceive. That internal 'voice' - the same as you 'hear' your thoughts - is the one that psychics will mistake for being something else. How do you tell the difference? You can't - because they absolutely are the one and the same thing.

It is not the same as 'hearing voices' in the way that you initially meant, when you said that psychics hear voices which means they are all a bit nuts.

Oh, I see. That's what you were explaining. No, I understand the difference between all the different voices. I always did. Sorry, I thought that was a given.

My point is that a person can easily distinguish between an internal dialogue and thought. One unfurls, the other is simply there. When I first made that point about psychics hearing voices I did so on the basis of the spiel you so often hear them come out with, which sounds as though they are responding to an internal dialogue (or pretending to). You've put me right on that and I bow to your superior knowledge there. Even so, that's not what you said initially, which is that we all hear voices, and that's how we think. I would agree that we all have an internal dialogue at times, but that it's self-generated. To sincerely believe that you are party to an internal dialogue (or voice) generated elsewhere strikes me as, well, nuts.

[Nasib]

When they speak of this voice, they mean their thought processes, but they are expected to 'just know and trust in Spirit' to be able to tell the difference - when none actually exists.

What of the [rare] phenomenon that is known as 'Direct Voice' in the field of physical mediumship where (as with Leslie Flint) voices can be heard, totally separate from the medium - in the air so to speak - where a 2-way conversation can be had in real time and which may be heard by anyone else present?
　
Leslie Flint, despite being the most tested and scrutinised medium ever, was never found to be fraudulent even under the most controlled conditions. In this link there is a very interesting (well I think so anyway) lecture where at the age of 61, with almost 40 years' experience behind him, he addresses some of the questions raised here. He also speaks of the necessity for anyone purporting to be practising mediumship to be open and willing to proper scientific testing, and not merely by those who already 'believe'. He also talks of his disgust at some of the pure nonsense being put about by some "well known mediums" in the media (and note this was before MH et al )
　
http://www.leslieflint.com/interviewsmedia.html
　
The last one down the page

SAGB - 1972 : ' Facing the truth about psychic phenomenon and its differences from direct voice. '

[Trinoc]

On one of the various Radio 4 documentaries recently I heard a theory that two major parts of schizophrenia were first the inability to tell the difference between the voice of your own thoughts in your head and the voice of someone else speaking to you, and second the inability to remember the order of events. This means that the personal voice we all hear commentating on events just passed gets remembered instead as the voice of another person predicting an event before it happens.

I'm not suggesting that all deluded "psychics" are clinically schizophrenic, but there does seem to be a similarity here.

[Mulder]

To sincerely believe that you are party to an internal dialogue (or voice) generated elsewhere strikes me as, well, nuts.

We all have a 'voice in our heads' which is generated by consciouness. However, there are times when information - perhaps the solution to a problem - just pops into our heads, as if from outside. It is outside the normal 'stream of consciousness'. It is not an audible voice, just an idea or thought that appears unbidden. It comes, of course, from our unconscious. However, it is easy to see how some people might interpret this as genuinely a message from outside their heads - maybe from a spirit.

Have you never had such an idea, inspiration or answer to a problem just pop into your head?

Clairaudience is quite different and involves a separate voice 'heard'.

[Cradle Cap]

We all have a 'voice in our heads' which is generated by consciouness. However, there are times when information - perhaps the solution to a problem - just pops into our heads, as if from outside. It is outside the normal 'stream of consciousness'. It is not an audible voice, just an idea or thought that appears unbidden. It comes, of course, from our unconscious. However, it is easy to see how some people might interpret this as genuinely a message from outside their heads - maybe from a spirit.

Have you never had such an idea, inspiration or answer to a problem just pop into your head?

Clairaudience is quite different and involves a separate voice 'heard'.

Sure, all thoughts are just there in my head. I don't have this ongoing internal dialogue that you guys seem to do, except when I'm reading or writing.

[Mulder]

Sure, all thoughts are just there in my head. I don't have this ongoing internal dialogue that you guys seem to do, except when I'm reading or writing.

Have you never considered a problem and then, as if from nowhere, thought of the answer? I'm talking about going straight from the question to the answer, without any conscious 'working out' or 'logical thinking' in between. That might feel like a 'dialogue' with an 'outside being' when, in reality, the thinking is simply taking place without conscious intervention (ie in the unconscious part of the brain).

Of course, without considering the problem carefully, the answer may well be wrong. But then it often is with psychics too!

[Cradle Cap]

Have you never considered a problem and then, as if from nowhere, thought of the answer? I'm talking about going straight from the question to the answer, without any conscious 'working out' or 'logical thinking' in between. That might feel like a 'dialogue' with an 'outside being' when, in reality, the thinking is simply taking place without conscious intervention (ie in the unconscious part of the brain).

Of course, without considering the problem carefully, the answer may well be wrong. But then it often is with psychics too!

Yes, for the second time, that's how I think all of the time.

I don't have the voice that we all have, according to you (except when reading or writing), hence my querying of it. For me, a thought contains all of the information at once, there is no narrative implied by the idea of a 'voice'.

[Mulder]

Yes, for the second time, that's how I think all of the time. I don't have the voice that we all have, according to you (except when reading or writing), hence my querying of it. For me, a thought contains all of the information at once, there is no narrative implied by the idea of a 'voice'.

So, at least you agree there is a 'voice' some of the time! So you've never thought to yourself 'what am I going to do next?' without actually saying it out loud?

It's possible that you don't get the phenomenon I described above, where the answer to a question you've been asked, or have posed yourself, simply appears in your head, as if from nowhere. Do you get a lot of novel ideas?

[Trinoc]

So, at least you agree there is a 'voice' some of the time! So you've never thought to yourself 'what am I going to do next?' without actually saying it out loud?

It's possible that you don't get the phenomenon I described above, where the answer to a question you've been asked, or have posed yourself, simply appears in your head, as if from nowhere. Do you get a lot of novel ideas?
This is an interesting issue. Do some people come to complex decisions without debating them internally, using language - no voice in the head, in other words? Does this sort of thinking produce more rational results, or is "jumping to a conclusion" without thinking it through in a way which could be debated with another person the antithesis of reason?

Personal I'm suspicious of snap decisions in cases other than well-learned behaviour (walking, balancing, driving, etc.), but that may be because I am a "voice in the head" person.

Is there a continuum between people who hear no voices (and so may or may not make decisions without apparent reason), through "ordinary" folk like me who think things through in the manner of a verbal debate, to people who believe the voices are another person speaking to them and making them do things with their own twisted logic (like schizophrenics)? Maybe this makes Cradle Cap ultra-sane, or maybe some degree of internal dialogue is essential to rationality.

How many people here think things through in words, and how many find that decisions just come to them unbidden?

[Cradle Cap]

It's possible that you don't get the phenomenon I described above, where the answer to a question you've been asked, or have posed yourself, simply appears in your head, as if from nowhere. Do you get a lot of novel ideas?

Mulder, with all due respect, are you being deliberately obtuse? For the third time now, the phenomenon you're describing above is my default way of thinking. I would suggest that applies to most people.

I do certainly agree that there is a voice some of the time -- I have an internal dialogue and it's most apparent when I'm reading or writing but, yes, you're right, I might ask myself a question -- but it's self-generated and it's not where any of the real work goes on. If I'm trying to work on a new invention that will save the world, I don't ask myself, 'How can I do that?' I bury the problem in my subconscious and put it to work.

At that subconscious level, the process is thought, not a voice. If this process were to manifest itself as a voice then, in my opinion, I would have cause for concern, hence my comment about psychics, "To sincerely believe that you are party to an internal dialogue (or voice) generated elsewhere strikes me as, well, nuts."

[Cradle Cap]

Maybe this makes Cradle Cap ultra-sane.

Absolutely.

Now you must excuse me while I choose which one of my victims' faces to wear today...

[Mulder]

Mulder, with all due respect, are you being deliberately obtuse? For the third time now, the phenomenon you're describing above is my default way of thinking. I would suggest that applies to most people.

Chatting with a few others, it appears it is NOT the default for most people at all. Many go through a complex problem stepwise rather than trusting to an instant answer from their unconscious. Perhaps you are psychic! :smiley:

Given that you do think this way by default, you should appreciate more easily than most how such ideas 'popping up', as if from nowhere, could be interpreted by some people as messages from spirits.

In the world of the paranormal, exaggeration and misinterpretation are common, particularly among psychics. You can sit in a darkened room and hear a creaking chair that elicits the response 'thank you' from a medium, indicating that they take it as a greeting from a spirit! Strong belief is what causes these misinterpretations, not some form of mental disorder.


At that subconscious level, the process is thought, not a voice. If this process were to manifest itself as a voice then, in my opinion, I would have cause for concern, hence my comment about psychics, "To sincerely believe that you are party to an internal dialogue (or voice) generated elsewhere strikes me as, well, nuts."

When we talk about an internal 'voice' what we mean is that we are crystallising our stream of consciousness into actual words. Whether ideas that pop up, as if from elsewhere, appear as words or another form is not important. To the psychic it is a 'message', 'impression' or 'voice' from a spirit.

You cannot take what psychics say too literally. If you ask them precisely what they experience, they often get vague and may well contradict themselves. The range of 'experiences' reported is wide and varies from psychic to psychic. The only common factor is their strong belief that they are being contacted by spirits. Psychics aren't born, they are made - usually by other psychics. They are taught to re-interpret their subjective experiences are contact from elsewhere.

[DrS]

I agree, Mulder. I think in words, so apart from flashes of inspiration or instinct, thoughts are structured into word form, making strings of words ... a narrative, I suppose. I can see how some could conceive of this as a dialogue rather than a conceptual monologue.

Others seem to me to think more in images or pictures, which for those who believe these are externally (spiritually?) generated, could perhaps account for the many "I see an image of a ...".

Just thinking aloud .... :cheesy:

[chillzero]

Mulder,
Thank you for those posts which seem to be so much more clearly worded than mine. :)

[Trinoc]

So, are we homing in on an important idea here?

Is it possible that people who (honestly) believe they are psychic are mostly, or even exclusively "flash of inspiration" thinkers? Are skeptics and rationalists generally "internal dialogue" thinkers?

Could our failure to realise that psychic believers think in a fundamentally different way be at least part of the reason why we don't seem to have any common ground with them?

Perhaps the first question we should ask anyone who describes him/herself as a rationalist or a psychic believer is "Do you think things through with a verbal debate in your head, or do your ideas come to you fully-formed from your subconscious?"

[chillzero]

Well, doesn't everyone have a combination of the two types of thinking?

I know I do.
When I was reading for people I also had a combination. Occasionally there would be a flash of inspiration, or 'knowing' something. At other times I'd be thinking of something and would have an inner dialogue about it.

If it was a matter of these two different types of thinking accounting for it, then as I said earlier I think it would be easier to study and discuss. But I had many discussions with many 'peers' as a psychic and on this aspect we were all in agreement. There was often discussion - as I've already pointed out - regarding how to tell the difference between your own thought processes, imagination, inspirations, and anything that was being told or guided to you. As with most matters where there is no clear answer - or the answer is an uncomfortable one - the default reponse is that some things you 'just know', neatly deflecting any further questioning, and placing blame for any failings squarely on the shoulders of the person asking.