This is an interview with leading Brazilian psi and afterlife researcher Vitor Moura Visoni. I thank Vitor for accepting this interview. Enjoy.
1-Vitor, tell us something about your background
I have a degree in Production Engineering.
2-Why did you get interested in psi and afterlife research?
I had a long talk with Julio Siqueira who is today a friend of mine and author of the site “Criticando Kardec”. Until that day my literature about the subject was only religious, basically books about kardecism, which didn’t have scientific evidence, and Julio showed me this. So after that day I tried to find scientific evidence.
3-Have you had any personal, first-hand (scientific or anecdotal) experience with some genuine phenomenon strongly suggestive of psi or survival of consciousness?
No.
4-Chico Xavier was the most famous and respected medium in Brazil. Currently, many people, including some researchers, still consider him as a great medium. However, you have been critical of Xavier, arguing that there is good evidence which suggests that he was a fraud. Which is your current scientific opinion about him, and which is the best evidence supporting the claim that Xavier was a fraud?
My current scientific opinion is that Xavier was a fraud, and the best evidence supporting this is the research of my friend José Carlos Ferreira Fernandes which shows that Xavier’s control – Emmanuel/Publio Lentulus – never existed. But the control appeared in a materialisation’s séance, so it is clear that was an actor doing the paper and Xavier was necessarily involved in this. There is much evidence of plagiarism too.
5-Which is your opinion about William Crookes' research with Florence Cook? Do you think the evidence supports the hypothesis that Cook was a fraud, not a real medium?
Yes, I think Cook was a fraud. See the article Further comments on Cromwell Varley's electrical test on Florence Cook by C. J. Stephenson (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Volume 54, part 198, April, 1966, pp. 363-419). Stephenson replicated the experiments and showed that fraud could have taken place. I don’t know any refutation of his experiment. I believe that Crookes was ingenuous, but he was not involved in the fraud.
6-What do you think of Leonore Piper and Richard Hodgson's research with her? Do you think that the Piper was a true medium?
No doubt she had paranormal powers. And I like the fact that Hodgson used detectives to follow Piper and her family. This eliminated ‘hot reading’ as an explanation of her phenomena.
7-Which is your opinion of Gladys Osborn Leonard? Was she a true medium?
No doubt she had paranormal powers too.
8-Do you think that the research by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker provides good evidence for reincarnation?
Yes, but Stevenson’s books needs to be reviewed. Leonard Angel showed some flaws in the tabulations, although these flaws are not strong enough to undermine the best cases. (see Julios’s criticisms to Angel here). I think better evidence was obtained in recent years. The case of Kemal Atasoy which Tucker studied is a very good one.
9-Do you think that reincarnation is incompatible with the Darwinian theory of evolution?
I asked this question to Julio, who is a biologist. He said no. In his words (my translation): “The reincarnation and survival after death make much sense in the light of biology and in the light of Darwinism. After all, that's what living organisms do all the time: to survive and reincarnate. Virus reincarnate (change from host to host) genes reincarnate, reincarnate the most diverse parasites, etc.. Ideas also reincarnate. So the question is not whether such events make sense or not to the biology and Darwinism. The question is, what would be reincarnated, what would survive, and how would (the effector mechanism of) such reincarnations and survivals. If we use the hypothesis that there are spirits, then these spirits would be modules capable of processing information and would be autonomous agents. Maybe the spirits have appeared only in the more "superior" animals (as apes and cetaceans). That is, perhaps a spirit is the result of evolution and has appeared as a brain development of such beings. So it makes sense that such entities (spirits) try to survive independently. This happens with some of our cells, cancer cells that seek, by breaking the rules, to survive individually and freelancer forever (immortality). One hypothesis for the origin of viruses is also precisely this, that these entities were part of larger genomes and develop autonomy. Another possibility is that spirits are parasites in contact with human bodies. Over time, such parasitism becomes more symbiotic. So, yes, it makes sense in the light of biology. But if this is true or not, who knows?”
10-Do you consider that the current results of the near-death research supports the survival of consciousness hypothesis?
I think some of the best cases do this.
11-Do you think that the Pam Reynolds' NDE case can be fully explained by purely materialistic hypotheses?
I think the chance of that is a very little one, but who knows? My friend Julio once told me that nobody has to give up the materialistic creed because of the Reynolds case, but this case deserves to be seen with great respect, i.e. as a real possibility that we are facing a huge anomaly...I agree with him.
12-Do you consider that at least some psi phenomena (like telepathy or remote viewing) have been scientifically proven to exist beyond any reasonable doubt?
About remote viewing, I like very much Stephan Schwartz’s research about psychic archeology. He showed that the results are repeatable and wonderful. And I think the medium Piper was the first person to show under controlled conditions that paranormal phenomena really exist.
13-What do you think of the Super-ESP or Super-Psi hypothesis? Do you consider it a viable alternative to the survival hypothesis?
Yes, I think.
14-In your opinion, taking the evidence for and against survival as a whole, do you think the evidence favors the survival of consciousness hypothesis over the materialistic/anti-survivalistic hypothesis?
Yes, but only “by a nose” if you include the Super-Psi hypothesis.
15-Skeptics argue that the evidence of neuroscience clearly shows an extremely close dependence of the mind on the brain. So the idea of "survival of consciousness" is, at best, highly implausible; and at worst, impossible. What do you think of this skeptical argument?
It’s a fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation.
16-Do you think the evidence of split-brain patients is incompatible with the evidence for survival of consciousness?
No.
17-Do you agree with the filter/transmission hypothesis defended by writers and researchers like William James, Frederic Myers and Chris Carter to explain the mind-body connection?
No. I agree with Michael Prescott when he said that probably the “transceiver hypothesis” is a better one, in the sense that “the connection between soul-mind and brain-mind is bidirectional”.
18-What do you think of professional skeptical researchers and critics like Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman, James Alcock and Susan Blackmore? Do you think that, overall, their contribution regarding psi research has been positive?
I think it’s important to listen their criticisms. Richard Wiseman recently showed a flaw in Daryl Bem’ study of precognition that even Dean Radin recognizes that is a “valid critique”.
19-What do you think about other "fringe" topics, like ufos and alien abductions? Do you think the evidence for the alien hypothesis (in order to account for some cases of UFOs and abduction experiences) is reasonably good or at least worthy of consideration?
No, I don’t. Carl Sagan clearly showed in “The Demon Haunted World” that the evidence for the alien hypothesis is virtually zero. He destroyed completely Mack’s study of alien abduction.
20-Do you believe in God? Do you think there are good philosophical or scientific arguments supporting the case for God's existence?
No, I’m atheist because I don’t see any evidence for God and I think there is good evidence that God don’t exist. Some definitions of God are indeed self-contradictory.
21-What do you think of "spiritualism" and the "spiritualistic movement"?
I can only say about what happens in Brazil. I think this movement creates a horde of fanatics.
22-What books on science, parapsychology and the afterlife would you like to recommend to the readers of this interview?
About science:
1. “Metodologia e Filosofia da Ciência”, by Ricardo Feijó.
2. “O Método nas Ciências Naturais e Sociais”, by Alda Judith Alves-Mazzotti and Fernando Gewandsznajder (but this book has a chapter about parapsychology that is not good because they give only the skeptical view, they don’t show any of the parapsychologist’s reply. But the chapter about astrology is very good)
3. “A Impostura Científica em Dez Lições”, by Michel de Pracontal. This book has the best criticism against Parapsychology that I had seen.
About parapsychology and afterlife: Mediumship and Survival, by Alan Gauld.
23-Something else that you would like to add to end the interview?
Yes, just an advice! Please, about the paranormal, don’t trust in Wikipedia!
I have a degree in Production Engineering.
2-Why did you get interested in psi and afterlife research?
I had a long talk with Julio Siqueira who is today a friend of mine and author of the site “Criticando Kardec”. Until that day my literature about the subject was only religious, basically books about kardecism, which didn’t have scientific evidence, and Julio showed me this. So after that day I tried to find scientific evidence.
3-Have you had any personal, first-hand (scientific or anecdotal) experience with some genuine phenomenon strongly suggestive of psi or survival of consciousness?
No.
4-Chico Xavier was the most famous and respected medium in Brazil. Currently, many people, including some researchers, still consider him as a great medium. However, you have been critical of Xavier, arguing that there is good evidence which suggests that he was a fraud. Which is your current scientific opinion about him, and which is the best evidence supporting the claim that Xavier was a fraud?
My current scientific opinion is that Xavier was a fraud, and the best evidence supporting this is the research of my friend José Carlos Ferreira Fernandes which shows that Xavier’s control – Emmanuel/Publio Lentulus – never existed. But the control appeared in a materialisation’s séance, so it is clear that was an actor doing the paper and Xavier was necessarily involved in this. There is much evidence of plagiarism too.
5-Which is your opinion about William Crookes' research with Florence Cook? Do you think the evidence supports the hypothesis that Cook was a fraud, not a real medium?
Yes, I think Cook was a fraud. See the article Further comments on Cromwell Varley's electrical test on Florence Cook by C. J. Stephenson (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research Volume 54, part 198, April, 1966, pp. 363-419). Stephenson replicated the experiments and showed that fraud could have taken place. I don’t know any refutation of his experiment. I believe that Crookes was ingenuous, but he was not involved in the fraud.
6-What do you think of Leonore Piper and Richard Hodgson's research with her? Do you think that the Piper was a true medium?
No doubt she had paranormal powers. And I like the fact that Hodgson used detectives to follow Piper and her family. This eliminated ‘hot reading’ as an explanation of her phenomena.
7-Which is your opinion of Gladys Osborn Leonard? Was she a true medium?
No doubt she had paranormal powers too.
8-Do you think that the research by Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker provides good evidence for reincarnation?
Yes, but Stevenson’s books needs to be reviewed. Leonard Angel showed some flaws in the tabulations, although these flaws are not strong enough to undermine the best cases. (see Julios’s criticisms to Angel here). I think better evidence was obtained in recent years. The case of Kemal Atasoy which Tucker studied is a very good one.
9-Do you think that reincarnation is incompatible with the Darwinian theory of evolution?
I asked this question to Julio, who is a biologist. He said no. In his words (my translation): “The reincarnation and survival after death make much sense in the light of biology and in the light of Darwinism. After all, that's what living organisms do all the time: to survive and reincarnate. Virus reincarnate (change from host to host) genes reincarnate, reincarnate the most diverse parasites, etc.. Ideas also reincarnate. So the question is not whether such events make sense or not to the biology and Darwinism. The question is, what would be reincarnated, what would survive, and how would (the effector mechanism of) such reincarnations and survivals. If we use the hypothesis that there are spirits, then these spirits would be modules capable of processing information and would be autonomous agents. Maybe the spirits have appeared only in the more "superior" animals (as apes and cetaceans). That is, perhaps a spirit is the result of evolution and has appeared as a brain development of such beings. So it makes sense that such entities (spirits) try to survive independently. This happens with some of our cells, cancer cells that seek, by breaking the rules, to survive individually and freelancer forever (immortality). One hypothesis for the origin of viruses is also precisely this, that these entities were part of larger genomes and develop autonomy. Another possibility is that spirits are parasites in contact with human bodies. Over time, such parasitism becomes more symbiotic. So, yes, it makes sense in the light of biology. But if this is true or not, who knows?”
10-Do you consider that the current results of the near-death research supports the survival of consciousness hypothesis?
I think some of the best cases do this.
11-Do you think that the Pam Reynolds' NDE case can be fully explained by purely materialistic hypotheses?
I think the chance of that is a very little one, but who knows? My friend Julio once told me that nobody has to give up the materialistic creed because of the Reynolds case, but this case deserves to be seen with great respect, i.e. as a real possibility that we are facing a huge anomaly...I agree with him.
12-Do you consider that at least some psi phenomena (like telepathy or remote viewing) have been scientifically proven to exist beyond any reasonable doubt?
About remote viewing, I like very much Stephan Schwartz’s research about psychic archeology. He showed that the results are repeatable and wonderful. And I think the medium Piper was the first person to show under controlled conditions that paranormal phenomena really exist.
13-What do you think of the Super-ESP or Super-Psi hypothesis? Do you consider it a viable alternative to the survival hypothesis?
Yes, I think.
14-In your opinion, taking the evidence for and against survival as a whole, do you think the evidence favors the survival of consciousness hypothesis over the materialistic/anti-survivalistic hypothesis?
Yes, but only “by a nose” if you include the Super-Psi hypothesis.
15-Skeptics argue that the evidence of neuroscience clearly shows an extremely close dependence of the mind on the brain. So the idea of "survival of consciousness" is, at best, highly implausible; and at worst, impossible. What do you think of this skeptical argument?
It’s a fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation.
16-Do you think the evidence of split-brain patients is incompatible with the evidence for survival of consciousness?
No.
17-Do you agree with the filter/transmission hypothesis defended by writers and researchers like William James, Frederic Myers and Chris Carter to explain the mind-body connection?
No. I agree with Michael Prescott when he said that probably the “transceiver hypothesis” is a better one, in the sense that “the connection between soul-mind and brain-mind is bidirectional”.
18-What do you think of professional skeptical researchers and critics like Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman, James Alcock and Susan Blackmore? Do you think that, overall, their contribution regarding psi research has been positive?
I think it’s important to listen their criticisms. Richard Wiseman recently showed a flaw in Daryl Bem’ study of precognition that even Dean Radin recognizes that is a “valid critique”.
19-What do you think about other "fringe" topics, like ufos and alien abductions? Do you think the evidence for the alien hypothesis (in order to account for some cases of UFOs and abduction experiences) is reasonably good or at least worthy of consideration?
No, I don’t. Carl Sagan clearly showed in “The Demon Haunted World” that the evidence for the alien hypothesis is virtually zero. He destroyed completely Mack’s study of alien abduction.
20-Do you believe in God? Do you think there are good philosophical or scientific arguments supporting the case for God's existence?
No, I’m atheist because I don’t see any evidence for God and I think there is good evidence that God don’t exist. Some definitions of God are indeed self-contradictory.
21-What do you think of "spiritualism" and the "spiritualistic movement"?
I can only say about what happens in Brazil. I think this movement creates a horde of fanatics.
22-What books on science, parapsychology and the afterlife would you like to recommend to the readers of this interview?
About science:
1. “Metodologia e Filosofia da Ciência”, by Ricardo Feijó.
2. “O Método nas Ciências Naturais e Sociais”, by Alda Judith Alves-Mazzotti and Fernando Gewandsznajder (but this book has a chapter about parapsychology that is not good because they give only the skeptical view, they don’t show any of the parapsychologist’s reply. But the chapter about astrology is very good)
3. “A Impostura Científica em Dez Lições”, by Michel de Pracontal. This book has the best criticism against Parapsychology that I had seen.
About parapsychology and afterlife: Mediumship and Survival, by Alan Gauld.
23-Something else that you would like to add to end the interview?
Yes, just an advice! Please, about the paranormal, don’t trust in Wikipedia!
0 comments:
Post a Comment