Reading Ideas

Me. I say no one has psychic powers.

Based on what? What do you know that makes you so sure that no psychic powers exist?

And how much weight does this knowledge carry when compared to the millions of experiences of real psychically and telekinetically capable people?

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

This post was edited by Magnifico on Jul 17, 2003.

Based on what? What do you know that makes you so sure that no psychic powers exist?

I refer you to what I said before and redirect to provide some evidence of a concrete nature or even a plausable theory that relates to SCIENCE as to how phsyic powers can exist.

And how much weight does this knowledge carry when compared to the millions of experiences of real psychically and telekinetically capable people?

None. Millions experience god - doesn't make god so just because.

I've yet to hear of a single person whose claimed these sorts of abilities actually able to utilise them under controlled conditions.

A lot of people claim a lot of crap.

I refer you to what I said before and redirect to provide some evidence of a concrete nature or even a plausable theory that relates to SCIENCE as to how phsyic powers can exist.

Concrete evidence? Sort of hard to have evidence on thoughts. Or dreams.
And then, who's to say that we still haven't found what might cause these powers to occur? How is dismissing the idea out of hand any different from, say, the Roman Church telling Galileo that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun simply because they had yet to find 'concrete proof' from the methods they had?

I've yet to hear of a single person whose claimed these sorts of abilities actually able to utilise them under controlled conditions.

A lot of people claim a lot of crap.

And what would you define as controlled conditions?

From what I've seen, something as minute as the arrangement of the furniture in my room, especially my bed, can affect how often my dreams (the ones which I later experience in waking life) come, and how vivid they are.

Eppur si muove

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

Concrete evidence? Sort of hard to have evidence on thoughts. Or dreams.

Yes it is. That's why it's sorta hard to accept it at face value after the fact.

And then, who's to say that we still haven't found what might cause these powers to occur?

Me. It's total fantasy.

How is dismissing the idea out of hand any different from, say, the Roman Church telling Galileo that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun simply because they had yet to find 'concrete proof' from the methods they had?

Very. The Roman Catholic Church dismissed what Galelio was based on the fact it disagreed with their teachings - Gallelio's OBSERVATIONAL evidence was irrelevant to the matter. He didn't
merely conceive the idea to be difficult - he invented the telescope and recorded a LOT of data on what he OBSERVED.

At the time absolutely no type of evidence would have been sufficient to change their minds short of God coming down from heaven and telling them otherwise. Galileo questioned their authourity. This situation is not the same - I've yet to see anyone quoted here of any sort of callibre of Galileo.

And what would you define as controlled conditions?

Not anecdotal at the very least.

From what I've seen, something as minute as the arrangement of the furniture in my room, especially my bed, can affect how often my dreams (the ones which I later experience in waking life) come, and how vivid they are.

I fail to see how that is psychic - it's like saying:

"Well, if I walk in a slightly different path across the street there'll be tiny differences in expereince in my life compared to this path I took," - inconsequental and hardly amazing.

Kids can do a lot of amazing things we can't at their rapid stage of learning - develop powers with no grounding in physics is not one of them.

I fail to see how that is psychic - it's like saying:

"Well, if I walk in a slightly different path across the street there'll be tiny differences in expereince in my life compared to this path I took," - inconsequental and hardly amazing.

The statement was to point out that what you might consider 'controlled conditions' could greatly affect psychic attunement. But I find your response confusing. So dreaming of an occurence one day, and, several days later, watching as the same event (almost always exactly as dreamed) unfolds in real life is in no way psychic? Curious. . .

Very. The Roman Catholic Church dismissed what Galelio was based on the fact it disagreed with their teachings - Gallelio's OBSERVATIONAL evidence was irrelevant to the matter. He didn't
merely conceive the idea to be difficult - he invented the telescope and recorded a LOT of data on what he OBSERVED. (. . .)I've yet to see anyone quoted here of any sort of callibre of Galileo.

The disruption of the Church's status quo would in no way affect their power if they accepted Galileo's belief. There were people in the Church who believed Aristotle over Galileo simply because what they'd seen in the teachings of Aristotle had a greater backing at the time. Galileo had no way to really prove his observations to those who did not understand what he understood of the matter. And, though there were many who'd sooner stick with the status quo than what was new, how is that any different from you?

By the way, Galileo was of no notice until people accepted what he claimed. You're not going to find anybody speaking on the existance of psychic abilities to be the same caliber as Galileo until that person's theories are similarly accepted.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

So dreaming of an occurence one day, and, several days later, watching as the same event (almost always exactly as dreamed) unfolds in real life is in no way psychic?

It's not - because it doesn't happen. It's pretty easy to claim AFTER the fact.

The disruption of the Church's status quo would in no way affect their power if they accepted Galileo's belief.

You don't get this do you?

There were people in the Church who believed Aristotle over Galileo simply because what they'd seen in the teachings of Aristotle had a greater backing at the time. Galileo had no way to really prove his observations to those who did not understand what he understood of the matter.

That is irrelevant - he was tried as a heretic for questioning the Church. The popularity or not of an idea is irrelevant - the Catholic Church relied on the ignorance of its congregation and their unmitigating acceptance of what they say as the truth. Gallileo publishing stuff that questioned that was unacceptable.

You really believe that Catholic Church would have just accepted it any which way Galileo tried to explain?

And, though there were many who'd sooner stick with the status quo than what was new, how is that any different from you?

Yes, because I'm demanding to see some real evidence - not the nonsense fantasy that dominates this area of 'science'.

I'm still waiting for some explainations as to why you think psychics really exist other than the incredibly vauge or dubious ones given.

You want to believe, whether it is real or not, just because that might make humanity more special. We're not; we're apes in suits.

It's not - because it doesn't happen. It's pretty easy to claim AFTER the fact.

Claiming it "after the fact" is the only way to truly claim it. The occurence of 'the fact' is what defines the experience as prescient realization.

Yes, because I'm demanding to see some real evidence - not the nonsense fantasy that dominates this area of 'science'.

I'm still waiting for some explainations as to why you think psychics really exist other than the incredibly vauge or dubious ones given.

The human mind is, among other things, capable of reaching conclusions outside of what's really happening. This, along with things like concepts of time, sets humanity apart from other living things. Perhaps the human mind, especially when under no other stimuli (while in the deep-sleep stages) can draw conclusions in certain circumstances of what would happen, based on experience (similar to Anduril's previous posts in the dream sections about dreams being 'garbage processing' from the day). This could create a kind of psychohistorical prescience, akin to what Asimov used to write of in the Foundation series. Such predictions would then, coming out of the deep-sleep stage, be processed into imagery for the mind.

You don't get this do you? (. . .)You really believe that Catholic Church would have just accepted it any which way Galileo tried to explain?

There would have been many people within the Church who were learned in the science of the heavens and would've agreed with him. This would leave the Church with two paths; rejection or acceptance. Rejection would mean turning away the people who comprehended the argument (pronounced "enormous egg on the Church's proverbial face") or accepting the argument from the side of Bruno, Galileo, et al.

Remember what I said earlier:

Galileo had no way to really prove his observations to those who did not understand 
what he understood of the matter.

You don't get this, do you? ^_^

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

Claiming it "after the fact" is the only way to truly claim it. The occurence of 'the fact' is what defines the experience as prescient realization.

I'm saying for me to believe in precognition I need to see someone write down what is going to happen in some detail and then why they think the event that has occured is the one they precognated.

It's pretty easy for me to claim I precognated something that may have been fairly likely to happen.

The human mind is, among other things, capable of reaching conclusions outside of what's really happening. This, along with things like concepts of time, sets humanity apart from other living things.

Which assumes we are the only species that can do this merely because we assume so and also assumes these to be fundamentally remarkable in nature to such an extent as to make us markedly removed from other animals.

This could create a kind of psychohistorical prescience, akin to what Asimov used to write of in the Foundation series. Such predictions would then, coming out of the deep-sleep stage, be processed into imagery for the mind.

So I can predict what might happen tomorrow based on what I did yesterday and what I know about the world? Big deal.

I fail to see how that's a psychic phenomenom of the magnitude this thread is concerned with.

There would have been many people within the Church who were learned in the science of the heavens and would've agreed with him.

I fail to see how - given that Galelio invented the technique upon which astrological observations made a giant leap - the telescope. Lets not forget he got in trouble too for describing the moon as a less than perfect spherical heavenly body by drawing it's cracked and cratered surface in detail. Arguing that there were some in the Church who came to these conclusions does sound fairly implausable.

Rejection would mean turning away the people who comprehended the argument (pronounced "enormous egg on the Church's proverbial face") or accepting the argument from the side of Bruno, Galileo, et al.

Sigh. The Church forced Galileo to sign a document in fact stating he was wrong in his theories. This was all about protecting the Chruch's power - it's truth. I don't see what you're getting at all now. The fact that the books were out there with the idea didn't stop the Church from stamping on it. AS far as the Church was concerned Galileo was wrong and what he was saying was dangerous to them.

Galileo had no way to really prove his observations to those who did not understand
what he understood of the matter.

You don't get this, do you? ^_^

Irrelevant.

First and foremost, I'll tell you why I'm just now responding to your post, Cyborg: that you'll dismiss out of hand the relevancy of your misunderstanding (though you are in no way at fault; we all have our own opinions from our experience and our mindset) of what I've referred to in this threat, there's little more that the two of us can really discuss on the topic. Having said that, though, I'd like to clarify a mistake:

The human mind is, among other things, capable of reaching conclusions 
outside of what's really happening. This, along with things like concepts of time, 
sets humanity apart from other living things.

Which assumes we are the only species that can do this merely because we assume so and also assumes these to be fundamentally remarkable in nature to such an extent as to make us markedly removed from other animals.

It turns out that you were right on this one. We're not alone.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

This post was edited by Magnifico on Jul 19, 2003.

No offence but, seriously, people who aren't psychic or cannot see things whatever have no right whatsoever to judge on the existence of it. Personally i know a friend and he is a psychic and an astrologer. I don't care what you think, all i have to say is that, he has already developed his powers very well and he is already at an extent where he could foresee the future and definitely help the people in need with his abilities. So i say, why not? Why criticize on its existence of it when people are using it for good purposes? You haven't experienced it, that's all. So you all, don't be so sure about everything when u haven't seen the entire thing. You'll regret it when you have realised what you've foolishly stated.