even if you did you wouldn't know it as you would have to prove it over a 100 years of tests as it is not a perfect action due to the nature of its reliances on information from the universe and not the individual alone, even if there were a master genius at it they would still get things wrong due to its nature of mixed signals and copy information with slight differences etc. Not to mention information barrier effects and the signal chopping of time overlap.
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 19, 2011 18:01:52 GMT
So if even the master genius cant provide proof, then why do it at all? If you cant trust yourself and your own interpretations for something so important and serious, then why do it? Oh wait i know, for MONEY
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
A psychic isn't trying to prove themselves, your asking them to, and most psychics I've found don't earn hardly anything from it, other than for materials, heating, lighting, session planning, drinks, room rent costs, candle's and music etc for the sessions.
Cost me £4 to go a while ago, cheap enough for ya, probably not for you, you want them to lose money most likely.
A psychic isn't trying to prove themselves, your asking them to, and most psychics I've found don't earn hardly anything from it, other than for materials, heating, lighting, session planning, drinks, room rent costs, candle's and music etc for the sessions.
Cost me £4 to go a while ago, cheap enough for ya, probably not for you, you want them to lose money most likely.
Ok, so a psychic isn't trying to prove themselves but most importantly they believe what they actually do is real and also what is wrong with the public if the're paying for a reading for the psychic to actually for once prove that they are talking to the dead because the whole point of someone going for a reading is for the psychic to prove their skill. Psychics make bold claims of their abilities, so they should actually prove what they do FACT! I wouldn't go to see a doctor if he wasn't qualified and i certainly wouldn't go and see a Dentist if he wasn't qualified either.
But psychics have the audacity to charge for their services without any regulations or testing i bet most of them don't pay income tax and certainly (especially the ones that work from home doing readings) have public liability insurance or any first aid in case a client falls ill. If i set up a therapeutic practice from home i know it would be classed as a business and their are certain conditions that go with it for public safety.
Insurance is needed for all as someone can have an accident in the place of work, tax is mandatory, and proving something that is to do with feelings and a human eliment is too vague and difficult to test accurately.
Thats why mad people aren't cured from testing and treatment because its too difficult to find or test for the cause etc. The brain is too unknown.
I'm going to risk a mental breakdown and attempt to get to the end of a Blackaddder post without stomping a Kitten
Insurance is needed for all as someone can have an accident in the place of work Correct.
tax is mandatory, Correct as long as you meet the basic earnings level.
and proving something that is to do with feelings and a human eliment is too vague and difficult to test accurately. I'm losing the plot here. Are you Blackadder saying that because Mediums etc don't deal with tangible concepts and physical commodities that they should be afforded some special status?.
Thats why mad people aren't cured from testing and treatment because its too difficult to find or test for the cause etc. There are no 'mad' people just people with mental disorders. 'Mad' people get 'cured' all the time with drugs and therapy. I don't understand what's too difficult to diagnose - what are you suggesting Blackadder?.
The brain is too unknown. Phew! I got to the end without Kitten stomping ;D You're quite right - the brain is still needing far more research but we understand far more about the brain than we've ever done. We understand why and how people think they see dead people, why they think they're possessed by demons, why they think dead Aunty Jean is able to tell them their Budgie isn't happy and why people believe in the evidence that's presented for life after death.
And kittens the world over breath a sigh of relief...for now
Blackadder what then do you see as being the point or purpose in indulging in something that is as unreliable, open to interpretation/error, and seems entirely unable to be defined , expressed or experienced the same way twice and requires someone to put 100% trust without even the most basic of evidence to back it up in the person relating it all to you ?
Other than a self indulgent hobby that provides only the person doing it with a perceived experience to relate how can it ever be taken by another as worthy of acting on the information supposedly being given to them by this conduit who can't in any tangible way prove it's correct ?
Because it needs people to indulge in it to understand it more in order to definitively prove or deny its existence rather than assuming it doesn't just because of falluble people. Too many times throughout history people have come up with answers that they should not be able to have and that is why people are still intrigued in this area as it is still not definitively proved or dis-proved. The only thing found is that people are falluble. But it is said that some people have known things they shouldn't have.
Also I mentioned ages ago I don't really believe in the mediums because I know from experience that they are wrong in believing spirits/ghosts existence as it defies science on most levels, I only believe in clairvoyancy, all types. Because of experience also.
And besisdes in your writing it looks like you think I'm defending psychic's, I'm not, I'm defending psychic ability which is different.
And your last point is false as you only assume we can't prove in in a "tangeable way" as we don't have the scientific theories that relate to it yet. Yes we may never, but the point is we have hardly any scientific theories/laws in this world that are proven because there are so few people writing and developing them.
The amount of science we have written is but a nats piss in the ocean of the universe. There are probably millions of laws/theories that need to be covered yet.
If we had possibly developed an AI computer, if ever, then it could be programmed to create all laws when programmed with the laws we have already, and it could test the theories over time and develop new ones at a geometric rate. But that ain't gonna happen so in the mean time just gather info and write slow miniscule and limited specialty theories related to the main science points, because thats all scientists are doing at the moment.
None of them would focus on associations with other things, because they are focused on one thing and that is their proof, but all proofs lead to others, how ever long it takes.
I read it and it doesn't go one way or the other in its meaning other than the writer assumes because I haven't proved it it is wrong until otherwise proved which is fallucy in itself.
assumes because I haven't proved it it is wrong until otherwise proved which is fallucy in itself.
Soooo Blackadder.....because you can't prove me wrong when I tell you I've got an invisible fire breathing Dragon in my garage, then I've probably got one in my garage until someone proves that I haven't?.
morganp
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.
your not making any sense, say for example a god does exist but because your maths hasn't found it possible it must be an illusion even if he showed up and said i'm god.
Or say someone said they saw a flying fish and everyone said it was false because there was no evidence, but then it was on the news flying over big ben. But science says its unable to do so because its a fish, so it must be something else, until they have finally caught up with it and tested it and found it was a fish, or if they never saw it again people would just say it was a weird bird or a fish and argue and argue about one or the other never proving either point, but the fact still remains it was a fish. Just not to us.
Your point of it being non-factual until proven is rubbish as there are billions of things in this universe that exist that are not proven. Its just they exist but you have to look for them, but look for everything different rather than focusing in one area and missing lots of others.
Its a science cop-out to say your wrong cos you haven't proved it because it may be proveable if events occured to allow it to be proved. Many people over history have said things that are deemed to be rubbish and later science quietly apologises to the long dead person after slagging them off because he was right later when they worked itt out because they were too stupid to work it out earlier or were not paying attention to the right area's.
Even Einstein said his theories were right then wrong until a friend said he was right. There are just too many empty unstudied areas in science to dictate to others that they are wrong when science gets it wrong all the time. How many times have you heard this food is good for you only to find out its bad a couple of years later.
Then imagine that they have food to test in the 1st place rather than brain combinational signals and universe background information, and how many are testing it in comparison to food, not many, then its a couple of years for food and a century for psychic/reading etc.
Sorry but science is still an infant on earth and needs more time to grow up.
Are you saying that Morganp's invisible fire breathing dragon in the garage exists until someone discovers a way of looking for invisible fire breathing dragons?
And if this process of looking for invisible fire breathing dragons in garages fails to detect any then we still cant say we have proved there are no invisible fire breathing dragons in garages as the process of looking for invisible fire breathing dragons in garages might not be up to scratch yet???
That is what you're saying right?
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Douglas Adams
your not making any sense Hello Pot...Kettle here ;D
say for example a god does exist but because your maths hasn't found it possible it must be an illusion even if he showed up and said i'm god. Nobody would believe him unless he performed some god like physics defying act in which case our 'maths' would go out the window and would need to be rewritten.
But science says its unable to do so because its a fish, We know fish exist and we know they can fly.
Your point of it being non-factual until proven is rubbish That's not what I said. It's what you thinkI said.
Its a science cop-out to say your wrong cos you haven't proved it because it may be proveable if events occured to allow it to be proved. From that statement I think you have an incorrect view of what science is, does and how it does it.
Many people over history have said things that are deemed to be rubbish and later science quietly apologises to the long dead person after slagging them off because he was right later when they worked itt out because they were too stupid to work it out earlier or were not paying attention to the right area's. Like The Vatican and Gallileo in 1633?. You need to read up on the scientific method, about peer reviewing, empirical evidence and the history of scientific discovery.
Even Einstein said his theories were right then wrong until a friend said he was right. I've got a mate down the pub who does that.
How many times have you heard this food is good for you only to find out its bad a couple of years later. Anything taken to excess is bad for the body. 'Bad' in the nutritional terms you're referring to is relative. Eating the berries of Belladonna (Deadly Nightshade) is bad. Eating nothing but McDonalds burgers is bad. One will kill you very quickly the other may take some time.
Then imagine that they have food to test in the 1st place rather than brain combinational signals and universe background information, and how many are testing it in comparison to food, not many, then its a couple of years for food and a century for psychic/reading etc. Alas, this is where you lost me. I have a backpacking trip to organise and I don't have an hour to get my brain around what you mean in this last bit. Sorry
morganp
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.