Could scepticism soon be replaced by science of the paranormal [Archive]

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 02:59 AM

Logic requires a step by step progression to arrive at a certain destination. This way of thinking is restricted to some degree by the conscious. We all know that sport is done better when the conscious is left out of it, perhaps it is the same with thinking. I know it sounds a little far fetched, how can one develop an answer with out conscious thought?

I propose that there is another way to learn and gain knowledge with out the need for time consuming and labourious thought.

It is my understanding that after the process of logic the result is a clearer view of the situation.

One can see how certain things relate and thus they can understand the issue more clearly. Can't this now be attained in another manner that requires no linear progression?

My proposal relies on the view of how the brain functions. How is it we see what we see and think how we think?
Most people believe the brain builds our view of the world and that it somehow translates that view to us through some processing unit (if this is the case, what is "us"). I believe the brain actually does the opposite, instead of building our knowledge it restricts what we percieve and in doing so we are given a narrow focus which now gives us intention and direction.
Now if I were to speak about an inanimate object such as a rock as though it were alive it may make the picture clearer.
Let us say a rock is as alive as you or I for all intents and purposes. If it is true that the brain restricts what one sees and understands then if someone was a rock for example, they would see a whole lot more of the world than us humans do, but they would as consequence see more and would have less intention. He would because of his balanced view of reality effectively have less opinion and judgement of the world around him and thus he is a rock and acts like a rock. In all the wisdom of the rock he decides nothing, and because of this he is effected by all things around him, this makes him more sensitive and aware than us but it also makes him as inactive as a rock. We are so animate because we see less than the rock our view of reality is imbalanced and because of this we are animate. Now back onto explaining the brain. Basically the brain allows you to focus, or to restrict other information in relativity to the focus. To broaden ones focus one must think less as opposed to the traditional school of thought that one must think more. In martial arts it is well known that to see more one must have "no mind", kind of like in the movie The Last Samurai. If your focus broadens it also becomes sharper. As your focus extends outward it also allows greater insight into everything within focus. Whilst on the other side of the story if your focus becomes more restricted and small you are less capable and notice less. When reading and walking you will trip over for the object that surprises you was not percieved. It is my belief that the greatist narrowing of focus of the human is sleep, you focus on a certain energy and feeling so much that you no longer notice time go by or much else. It is not narrowing our focus that causes our brain to churn and nor is it the broadening of our awareness it is rather the act of focusing on many separate things at a time that takes brain power. Often one focuses on many points when thinking, trying to find connection, this is when the brain starts cranking.
Anything that increases your thought is something different from focus entirely. To think about different things what your brain does is it changes what is in focus, just like a lense on a camera only more complicated.
Our brains are structured from the things we become either through genetics or the reactions to the environment. Our brains and body effectively make up one energy or emotion that makes us focus on certain things.
Now if this were true then to be knowledgable and understand an issue one need not construct an accurate view of reality, one need only get out of the way and sense it. Allowing ones focus to encompass the situation so that all factors are "seen". An answer would not be a product of a linear succession of "this causes this" but would rather be a product of all things in the situation, thus this manner would be far more accurate than logic. It is not different to logic, perhaps just an improvement. To know an answer all one would have to is broaden their focus of the situation.

Now some of you may be asking how this has bearing on the "paranormal". We all assume that there is a limit to our senses. My explanation has just stated that the senses are not limited, because of the way the brain works. The capacity for understanding the world is unlimited for it does not take thought, but rather less thought.

Now I am not saying that everything everyone says about the paranormal is correct, for I have found most to be either full of it or not skilled enough to pull it off on command. What I am saying is that certain things relating to understanding are possible. Take for example mind reading, it is possible, I can personally do it myself, although I must admit that proving that I understand a situation is a bit of a difficulty. (If anyone has a solution I would immediately do this challenge) Now when I speak about mind reading I all I am really doing is reading body language or the situation.
Interesting concept isnt it? Like to see the sceptic response, Im sure youll disagree. However isnt this a plausable theory of the supernatural? After all, if you can be aware of a situation you can know how to manipulate it.

richardm

24th January 2006, 03:37 AM

people do not believe that certain things like mind reading are possible because they see no way to do it.
It's not just that, it's also that there has never been any good evidence produced to show that it happens. Show us that it works and then we can spend time considering the mechanism. Until then, it's a waste of time and effort.

I'm not quite sure what you are proposing. Are you saying that if we don't think about how paranormal stuff works then it will become obvious that it does work? Part of the problem we face is that there are many tricksters who think very hard about how to fool us. And they are very successful. How would it be help us if we didn't think about what they might be doing?

brettDbass

24th January 2006, 03:45 AM

We all know that sport is done better when the conscious is left out of it
Oh, really?
Try telling that to a snooker player.

As for the rest of your post, do I smell a Krishnamurti influence there perhaps? Or maybe the "silent knowledge" passages of Castaneda?

I found the poorly formatted & bulky wad of text rather hard to follow... any chance of a little editing to make it a little clearer so we can read it and help isolate your points more easily?

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 03:48 AM

Since you are new here, TheGuyThat[nothing], I won't use my patented answer.

Instead, I'll spell it out for you: Everything you just said is wrong. All of it, from beginning to end. It does not correspond with reality in any way. It is pure nonsense.

Hope this helps. Have a nice day.

vbloke

24th January 2006, 03:50 AM

Take something like mind reading, as per your example.
What is the mechanism behind it?
Does everyone's mind "broadcast" our every thought and feeling over a given radius or are some people capable of transmitting "beams" into our minds capable of making sense of the jumble of thoughts that exist in there?
If the former is the case, our minds must be transmitting vast amounts of energy every day. What is this energy and how is it generated? Can it be measured and analysed?
If the latter is the case, what are these "beams", how are they generated and what, in the genetic or otherwise, makeup of these people make them capable of such a feat? How is it controlled and can it be measured and analysed?
Either one runs contrary to what we know about how the human body works, how physics works and seems, at least to me, counter intuitive.
In every properly conducted, rigourous test of mind readers, their powers seem to mysteriously vanish.
The most logical explanation is that these abilities do not exist and that it is either self delusion or a con trick.
As with everything else, I reamin open minded about this, but there is not a shred of conclusive evidence so far to support it.
If, sometime in the future, we can build machines that can measure this energy, or decode what our minds are doing from a distance, then I will pay close attention to it and change my stance on the matter.
For the time being, however, it is conjecture and anecdote, with no solid evidence behind it.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:14 AM

What I tryed to get across was that the Brains function is not limited. That the brain works by restricting information not creating and interpreting it, and that the reason for this is that it gives us intention and would of be a necessity because of evolution.
I apologise for its clunky display and will in future make it much clearer.
I expain that powers such as mind reading etc do not need some far out explanation requiring other planes of existance etc. I try to display that all one needs to do is become aware of what the person is feeling. Instead of our opinions and bias clouding our view, simply let yourself see. What I mean is that a person must act a certain way if they feel a certain way, such is the nature of cause and effect. If one can fathom why they are doing what they are doing one will understand how and what they think.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:25 AM

It's not just that, it's also that there has never been any good evidence produced to show that it happens. Show us that it works and then we can spend time considering the mechanism. Until then, it's a waste of time and effort.

I'm not quite sure what you are proposing. Are you saying that if we don't think about how paranormal stuff works then it will become obvious that it does work? Part of the problem we face is that there are many tricksters who think very hard about how to fool us. And they are very successful. How would it be help us if we didn't think about what they might be doing?

I am certainly not proposing that "if we don't think about how paranormal stuff works then it will become obvious that it does work". I am merely saying that there is a misconception of the "paranormal" being impossible because of the assumption we all have of how the brain works.

The classic view is that the brain allows us to see the world
The proposed view is the the brain allows us to restrict what we see of the world

Now if I am correct, and there is much evidence to back it up, this would mean that the "paranormal" that relies on knowledge is completely possible.

brettDbass

24th January 2006, 04:32 AM

I expain that powers such as mind reading etc do not need some far out explanation requiring other planes of existance etc.
Now that is spot on my friend.
You don't need some far-out explanation, merely a testable and repeatable demonstration that such a power (even just one) exists.

The sceptics and scientists of this world would be falling over each other to be involved in helping to find out the operations behind such a power once it had been proven to exist.

Demonstration : Examination : Explanation

hey, reminds me of my driving test...

Mirror : Signal : Manoeuvre

Ririon

24th January 2006, 07:07 AM

...I expain that powers such as mind reading etc do not need some far out explanation requiring other planes of existance etc. ...
No they don't, since there is no need to explain something that does not exist. And yet, you yourself come up with exactly such a "far out explanation". Go figure...

If it is simplicity and understanding you seek, take one step back. You just put your foot in it for no good reason. Wipe it off and continue. I suggest you leave your brain switched on from now on. I find it's better that way. :)

steenkh

24th January 2006, 07:46 AM

The classic view is that the brain allows us to see the world
The proposed view is the the brain allows us to restrict what we see of the world
But the proposed view goes against the physical laws as we know them, and there is no evidence whatsoever that it is so. Nor can you suggest a way that will prove this view to be correct.

Now if I am correct, and there is much evidence to back it up, this would mean that the "paranormal" that relies on knowledge is completely possible.
What evidence do you have to back it up? Many times has this been claimed, but the evidence has always evaporated under scrutiny.

Start by presenting the evidence, then find an explanation. It will not work the other way round.

Almo

24th January 2006, 10:22 AM

The analogy with the rock doesn't help at all, since a rock is entirely unable to "perceive" anything, as it has no way to "sense" anything.

Let's start with a something that CAN perceive something, say, a hermit crab. I've had these as pets (very cute!), so I know a little about their behavior. If my understanding is correct, you're saying that less brain means that there are few limits on your perception. So the crabs would have a more complete perception, but have less "intention," or things they want to do.

Let me tell you about Hercules. He was a fist-sized crab, and was the dumbest of the lot (we had 13). Yeah, crabs aren't known for intelligence, but he was dumber than most. One day, we had him out on the floor; we let the huge ones crawl around on their own since they can't really get lost. We heard some noise under the computer table. It was Herky. He was stuck in some wires, having gotten some caught on his shell. He was moving his legs in a normal walking motion, but wasn't moving. 10 minutes later, we checked on him again. He was still doing the same thing.

So is your agument that he was fully aware that he wasn't moving, but didn't have enough "intention" (due to his larger awareness) to bother doing anything about it?

It was my impression that the crabs had a very dim awareness of the world around them. They clearly have less brain than we do, and I think their behavior supports the common notion that the brain processes information and creates perception of surroundings.

LordoftheLeftHand

24th January 2006, 02:01 PM

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2006, 02:07 PM

Now if I am correct, and there is much evidence to back it up, this would mean that the "paranormal" that relies on knowledge is completely possible.

Excellent. Please show us this evidence.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 02:07 PM

What I tryed to get across was that the Brains function is not limited. That the brain works by restricting information not creating and interpreting it, and that the reason for this is that it gives us intention and would of be a necessity because of evolution.
Our studies of the brain show that this is simply not true. The brain does interpret and create information.

I expain that powers such as mind reading etc do not need some far out explanation requiring other planes of existance etc.
As others have pointed out, there is no need to explain these powers at all, because there is no evidence that they exist.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 02:08 PM

Let's start with a something that CAN perceive something, say, a hermit crab. I've had these as pets (very cute!), so I know a little about their behavior. If my understanding is correct, you're saying that less brain means that there are few limits on your perception. So the crabs would have a more complete perception, but have less "intention," or things they want to do.

So is your agument that he was fully aware that he wasn't moving, but didn't have enough "intention" (due to his larger awareness) to bother doing anything about it?

It was my impression that the crabs had a very dim awareness of the world around them. They clearly have less brain than we do, and I think their behavior supports the common notion that the brain processes information and creates perception of surroundings.

Cute example. I did not mean to infer that brain equals less awareness or that something with less brain will be more aware, this is why I used the rock. What I am talking about suggests that a smaller brain would not allow thought to be as complicated as something with a larger brain. I am saying that the brain allows you to restrict information, which doesn't necessarily have to mean that more brain equals less awareness. What it does mean is that more brain equals more complex awareness. A hermit crap would tend to think of certain things depending upon its evolutionary journey. What I mean is that the brain be evolved to view the certain factors that influence its livelyhood. Brain size does not have any bearing on intelligence or awareness, but rather what they are aware of.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 02:19 PM

Excellent. Please show us this evidence.
This theory would explain certain things:

It would explain Idio servants (it explains this because of the lack of need of brain function to understand a situation and be a genuis)

It would explain dementia patients gaining skills (for my theory states that one not need a working brain to understand or perceive something)

Genius brains being completely normal (The brain would not differ more than normal because genuis is a result of being aware of a situation more than others)

It would explain multiple personality disorder and how it is possible which is a mystery to science (The brain can create many people that are completely formed in intellectual, emotional, memory, etc. evidence strongly states that these are actually different minds in one person)

It would explain "supernatural" things like mind reading, seeing the future, etc...(for the capacity for understanding is unlimited)

It would explain near death experiences(as the brain can no longer function your awareness would expand)

It explains why someone can know how to speak a language without ever learning it (controvershall this one, not really proven to exist i think, but this is quite possible)

Past life experiences (the limit of understanding is unlimited)

It would explain how that someone with virtually no brain can appear and act completely normal

See evidence to support my theory and I have much more and can elaborate to great extent.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 02:32 PM

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2006, 02:39 PM

This theory would explain certain things:

It would explain Idio servants (it explains this because of the lack of need of brain function to understand a situation and be a genuis)

It would explain dementia patients gaining skills (for my theory states that one not need a working brain to understand or perceive something)

Genius brains being completely normal (The brain would not differ more than normal because genuis is a result of being aware of a situation more than others)

It would explain multiple personality disorder and how it is possible which is a mystery to science (The brain can create many people that are completely formed in intellectual, emotional, memory, etc. evidence strongly states that these are actually different minds in one person)

It would explain "supernatural" things like mind reading, seeing the future, etc...(for the capacity for understanding is unlimited)

It would explain near death experiences(as the brain can no longer function your awareness would expand)

It explains why someone can know how to speak a language without ever learning it (controvershall this one, not really proven to exist i think, but this is quite possible)

Past life experiences (the limit of understanding is unlimited)

It would explain how that someone with virtually no brain can appear and act completely normal

See evidence to support my theory and I have much more and can elaborate to great extent.

The fact that it would explain lots of things is not evidence that your "theory" is true. Not by a long shot. If I were to theorize the existance of gremlins (in the classic sense, malicious sprites that cause airplane malfunctions) it would explain why some planes mysteriously crash. However, the existance of mysterious plane crashes is not evidence of gremlins.

Besides, most of the things it would allegedly explain are either very subjective (i.e genius brains being 'normal'; its meaningless since every brain varies in some way) or not established to exist in the first place (i.e past life experiences) so you would have to establish the existance of those things (good luck on that) before you could use them es evidence of anything else.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 03:37 PM

What my evidense is aimed at proving is the theory of how the brain works. I can not say it proves that all supernatural things are an actuality. I myself believe most of claims to be not truly based on reality and to be nonsense. However I do know these things are possible, and would prove it to you if I can find a way. Ofcourse this way has to be benificial to me and better than the plan I already have. But that is another matter. I certainly don't want anyone to believe the "supernatural" on faith, I personally prefer sceptics to those who believe for no reason. My theory predicts that it will be proven by demonstration. In time we shall see. Who knows I might even be the one to do it but I live in Australia so it is quite a trip.

petre

24th January 2006, 03:40 PM

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 03:50 PM

What my evidense is aimed at proving is the theory of how the brain works.
To do that, you actually need evidence. That's the point. Don't tell us how your theory explains the evidence, show us the evidence.

I can not say it proves that all supernatural things are an actuality. I myself believe most of claims to be not truly based on reality and to be nonsense.
A good start.

However I do know these things are possible
No, you don't. You have a theory that would explain these things, but first you need evidence that these things happen.

and would prove it to you if I can find a way. Ofcourse this way has to be benificial to me and better than the plan I already have. But that is another matter. I certainly don't want anyone to believe the "supernatural" on faith, I personally prefer sceptics to those who believe for no reason. My theory predicts that it will be proven by demonstration. In time we shall see. Who knows I might even be the one to do it but I live in Australia so it is quite a trip.
You can apply for the challenge by mail, and there are skeptic groups in Australia who could conduct the preliminary test, so you'd only need to travel if you passed the preliminary.

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2006, 03:56 PM

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:03 PM

No.

Show us the evidence.

Don't tell us that your "theory" will explain things that do not happen.

Show us the evidence that these things do happen.

Show us that NDEs are more than just vivid dreams.
Show us that mind reading and precognition really work.
Show us that past life experiences are anything other than fraud and invention.

It would be my pleasure, except I first have to find a way to make it practical. If doing so has irrelevant benifit why would I do it. I am in the process of figuring out a way to provide the clearest evidence with the least level of difficulty and sacrafice. If it is impractical clearly I must do something else.
I do not attempt to prove that the "supernatural" is real in this thread. Rather I raise the point that is not as far out as you think and that the human has unlimited capacity for understanding. This does not mean that these acts are practical or common place, which I highly doubt most are.
I would say that some NDEs are more than vivid dreams but that is my opinion. Obviously a quantity of claims are a result of misinterpretation, delusion, ego trips etc... I was a sceptic, I was raised athiest and in a science type household. I am also a martial artist of 11 years experience and came across this topic inadvertantly through my studies. I appreciate scepticism and believe that one should be sceptical of such "paranormal" things. However I am a great believer that many things can be solved if we understand how the brain works. I do not attempt to persuade you to believe as I do, but rather want you to have some conception of my view on the mind and how it makes these things possible. I believe it should be enlightening to some degree as it will give you a perspective on the subject from a previous sceptic and man of great belief in science.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:06 PM

You can apply for the challenge by mail, and there are skeptic groups in Australia who could conduct the preliminary test, so you'd only need to travel if you passed the preliminary.
Thanks man, just what I wanted to hear. That makes it alot more practical. I may just now. Thankyou very much

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:10 PM

But you said earlier that their was plenty of evidence that the brain works the way you think it does. I am simply asking for that evidence, all you have supplied so far is more assertions.

These things are not explainable by current theories and are explainable by mine. My theory explains all that the previous classic theory explains except more, thus making it a superior theory.
All research that has been done with the brain either supports the theory or does not affect it.

JLam

24th January 2006, 04:12 PM

Whoops...I'm sorry. I seem to have unwittingly stepped into an alternate universe. I'll see myself out.

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2006, 04:22 PM

These things are not explainable by current theories and are explainable by mine. My theory explains all that the previous classic theory explains except more, thus making it a superior theory.
All research that has been done with the brain either supports the theory or does not affect it.

I will put this as simply as I can. An assertion that theory X explains phenomenon Y is not evidence of the truth of theory X. This is doubly true when phenomenon Y is not proven to exist.

Also an assertion that theory X explains more than theory Z does not make theory X a 'superior' theory (assuming by superior you mean 'more accurate'). If I were a religious man I could explain everything in the universe simply by 'Goddidit'. This explains everything your theory purports to explain PLUS it explains the popularity of Britney Spears (which is inexplicable by any other means). Does this mean 'Goddidit' is superior to all other theories?

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:30 PM

I will put this as simply as I can. An assertion that theory X explains phenomenon Y is not evidence of the truth of theory X. This is doubly true when phenomenon Y is not proven to exist.

Also an assertion that theory X explains more than theory Z does not make theory X a 'superior' theory (assuming by superior you mean 'more accurate'). If I were a religious man I could explain everything in the universe simply by 'Goddidit'. This explains everything your theory purports to explain PLUS it explains the popularity of Britney Spears (which is inexplicable by any other means). Does this mean 'Goddidit' is superior to all other theories?
What is it exactly you think is not true?
I do not mean to try to prove any phenomenon rather a theory on how the brain works. I do however say that IF the theory is correct it makes some "supernatural" things plausable.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 04:38 PM

What is it exactly you think is not true?
I do not mean to try to prove any phenomenon rather a theory on how the brain works.
The brain doesn't work the way you suggest. We know this. It's not in question, or at least, not by reasonable and informed people. Read up a bit on, say, human vision. We know an awful lot about how the brain works, and none of it matches your theory.

I do however say that IF the theory is correct it makes some "supernatural" things plausable.
Unfortunately, your theory is contradicted by the evidence, so this doesn't matter.

If, on the other hand, you could show us actual evidence of something supernatural - and mind reading would be a good example - then you would have evidence for your theory and evidence against our theory of how the brain works.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 04:42 PM

By the way, here's a link to the Australian Skeptics web site (http://www.skeptics.com.au/). They have their own $100,000 prize, separate from the JREF million dollar prize.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 04:43 PM

The brain doesn't work the way you suggest. We know this. It's not in question, or at least, not by reasonable and informed people. Read up a bit on, say, human vision. We know an awful lot about how the brain works, and none of it matches your theory.

Unfortunately, your theory is contradicted by the evidence, so this doesn't matter.

If, on the other hand, you could show us actual evidence of something supernatural - and mind reading would be a good example - then you would have evidence for your theory and evidence against our theory of how the brain works.
Please give evidence as to why you feel this way. What contradicts and disproves what I propose. I am well read on this topic and have found nothing that contradicts it. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I am proposing.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 04:47 PM

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 05:05 PM

You say that the brain filters and restricts our awareness of the world, right?

So animals with smaller brains would be more aware of the world, and animals with larger brains less aware? And plants, with no brains and only the most primitive ability to respond to stimuli at all, would be more aware than any animal?

The reverse is true. We know this from 5000 years of recorded observations and experiments. So your theory is wrong.
That is not what I am saying. It is not necessary for something with less brain to be more aware. I am not implying that the brain is a filter and that the more you have the less that gets through. Instead I wish to state that the restrictive properties of the brain create a judgement or an emotional tag relating to the situation so that when something is percieved a certain response and intention occurs. The brain is a compilation of intention and its use is to make us do what we do. A smaller brain does not have as complex a system of intention. Social animals have larger brains for their culture and lifestyle is more complex and requires more complicated intentions regarding relationships etc. Something with more senses requires more brain also because it needs a way to react to what it is percieving. The awareness of an individual is not dependant on brain size for if the creature has only one emotional tag and only one way to react to a situation instead of many it will be much less capable unless that one response is adequate. Awareness doesnt really come into the situation. For if that crab mentioned earlier does not have the opinion that allows him to escape the wires he will not get out. If all the crab wants to do is walk, he will not worry about the wires, for he does not percieve them to be of any consequence.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 05:17 PM

Apparently there is evidence that plants are more aware than people. Of different things ofcourse, but apparently they react to things accuring up to 300 miles away. Apparently the guy that found this out was the guy that invented the polygraph machine (lie detector).

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 05:19 PM

That is not what I am saying. It is not necessary for something with less brain to be more aware. I am not implying that the brain is a filter and that the more you have the less that gets through.
Okay then, what are you saying?

You said before:
I believe the brain actually does the opposite, instead of building our knowledge it restricts what we percieve and in doing so we are given a narrow focus which now gives us intention and direction.
This is wrong. The brain does not restrict what we perceive, it generates perceptions. The limitations of the brain restrict what we perceive; human vision is a field that shows very clearly how the brain handles perception, and it doesn't match your theory in any way.

Instead I wish to state that the restrictive properties of the brain create a judgement or an emotional tag relating to the situation so that when something is percieved a certain response and intention occurs.
What restrictive properties of the brain?

Jeff Corey

24th January 2006, 05:24 PM

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 05:41 PM

What are the restrictive properties of the brain?

A brain creates an emotional bias, a different equillibruim which results in different actions. This is all I propose it does. I try to illustrate that the brains purpose is to give a person or animal intention and direction and that this is all it does.
The brain restricts information regarding a certain situation. The consequence is that the situation becomes imbalanced in the eyes of the creature. One option becomes more desirable than the other because of the imbalanced perception. Thus one chooses the action more desirable because the scales have been tipped. This restriction is not necessarily caused by the intention of the creature. It is first created by genetics, the creature gains a basic perception relative to its path of evolution and during its life it changes what it percieves because of how it once percieved the world. Thus there is control of perception, but this control is based upon what one previously percieved. So the brain restricts infomation from either of two causes genetics/evolution or the life of the individual, for the individual changes ones mind as it lives.
This whole effect creates the situation we are in.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 06:01 PM

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 06:03 PM

A brain creates an emotional bias, a different equillibruim which results in different actions. This is all I propose it does. I try to illustrate that the brains purpose is to give a person or animal intention and direction and that this is all it does.
The brain restricts information regarding a certain situation. The consequence is that the situation becomes imbalanced in the eyes of the creature. One option becomes more desirable than the other because of the imbalanced perception. Thus one chooses the action more desirable because the scales have been tipped. This restriction is not necessarily caused by the intention of the creature. It is first created by genetics, the creature gains a basic perception relative to its path of evolution and during its life it changes what it percieves because of how it once percieved the world. Thus there is control of perception, but this control is based upon what one previously percieved. So the brain restricts infomation from either of two causes genetics/evolution or the life of the individual, for the individual changes ones mind as it lives.
This whole effect creates the situation we are in.
No. Your use if the word "restricts" is incorrect in every single case.

Jeff Corey

24th January 2006, 06:07 PM

Somewhat akin to "apparently".

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:11 PM

Well consider this.
When someone is in the process of acquiring a new skill they actually grow new brain cells(this was previously thought not to happen) and when a person reaches great skill the brain cells then disappear. This is consistant with what I am saying. Once someone understands a situation then there is no need for the cells anymore. I must also state that it is known that when someone does an activity and gains more perceptions of that activity more branches are created between the neurons. This is consistant with the further complication of the perception.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:13 PM

Somewhat akin to "apparently".
It is actually stated in many sources, and I'm sure you'll find it if you look it up. I in no way base my theory on this to any degree, it is just that if it is true it further sustains what I am saying.

Jeff Corey

24th January 2006, 06:18 PM

Hawk one

24th January 2006, 06:27 PM

Skepticism will never be replaced with "science of paranormal".

Why not?

Because basically, skepticism is the science of the paranormal.

OK, so that statement is over-the-top, which I'm sure most readers will understand. But here is the deal: The skeptics, by and large are the biggest proponents of using proper scientific testing in order to see, first of all, if a paranormal event exists in the first place. And if it does, then the skeptics will be the first to propose more tests and studying to see how it works.

So far, I have seen no proper scientific study that supports the paranormal. And the ones that does has been very flawed with problems as no real blinding (or double-blinding where appropriate) of the test subject, confirming bias, unsatisfactory protocols to keep other variables away... And of course, just plain old lying, or being delusional.

But as long as there are skeptics, there will be done proper testing of paranormal claims. And nobody will be able to replace that.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:32 PM

You say that the brain filters and restricts our awareness of the world, right?

So animals with smaller brains would be more aware of the world, and animals with larger brains less aware? And plants, with no brains and only the most primitive ability to respond to stimuli at all, would be more aware than any animal?

The reverse is true. We know this from 5000 years of recorded observations and experiments. So your theory is wrong.

There is no evidence and no information that suggests anything about the awareness of creatures. There is only evidence to suggest that a creature is worse at problem solving. A greater awareness does not mean better problem solving skills, a greater understanding does. A greater understanding requires awareness of the appropriate factors, if something is not aware of the appropriate factors it will simply not understand it. Anyways, one would not be more understanding with less brain, more aware...Perhaps. If a creature has any brain regarding a certain situation (inwhich it would through the process of evolution) it is just as blind to it as you are, perhaps even moreso. Understanding requires seeing the connections between the situation and how things relate to one another. Just because one has less brain does not mean that one will not have a restriction stopping them from connecting the dots. This restriction serves a purpose, intention. If someone understood the balance of a situation they would do nothing and would not mate, thus making it impossible to have evolved. Every creature on this earth has evolved to be confused so that it could mate and find food etc.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:41 PM

You really ought to try to cite some sources, other than that same guy who drools a lot.
Was on the documentary from the library called ... I cant remember. I will go to the library and then post the name of the documentary for you. Sorry, I will site sources next time.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 06:47 PM

Well consider this.
When someone is in the process of acquiring a new skill they actually grow new brain cells(this was previously thought not to happen) and when a person reaches great skill the brain cells then disappear.
That's a good and specific claim, but as far as I know it is completely wrong.

If you could point us to an article or a website or something with more information on this, that would really help.

Now, as to this:

If someone understood the balance of a situation they would do nothing and would not mate, thus making it impossible to have evolved. Every creature on this earth has evolved to be confused so that it could mate and find food etc.
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:50 PM

Now, as to this:

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
Welll think of it this way
If you do not find a girl or man sexy you do not have sex with them. One can't possibly say that seeing someone as sexy is the result of a balanced view of the situation

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 06:52 PM

Welll think of it this way
If you do not find a girl or man sexy you do not have sex with them. One can't possibly say that seeing someone as sexy is the result of a balanced view of the situation
Sure you can. Because that's exactly what it is.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 06:57 PM

Hey I just found a study that says part of what I am saying. About mind reading. I have not found the study of the brain growth yet but will site it later
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050427_mind_readers.html
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/051227_neuron_growth.html

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 07:02 PM

Uh, did you read that article on mind reading? Because it directly contradicts your position.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 07:03 PM

Sure you can. Because that's exactly what it is.
A balanced view would see more good than bad, that is why someone is sexy, for you dont see the bad, if you do you are quickly turned off

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 07:15 PM

Uh, did you read that article on mind reading? Because it directly contradicts your position.
No it doesnt entirely
If one interprets and has emotions relating to empathy they must have brain cells that create this view in my theory. So thus it in no way disproves my theory at all. My theory relies on the brain having activity for all the things we react to.
Just thought it was of interest because it strengthens my point on the supernatural being plausable.

I also think it is important for you to realise that it does not contradict my proposal because you obviously believe it does.

Jeff Corey

24th January 2006, 07:24 PM

I checked out your links and they have some good summaries of data that have been around for a while. But you seem use them to to make large jumps to nonfacts or generalizations. Sometimes this is called an inductive leap with consequent pratfall.
Try this problem. There are 2 cards on a table in front of you. Each has a bird (dove or crow) on one side and the bird's color (black or white) on the other. The cards show "Black" and "White".
Which one should you turn over to test the statement that, "All crows are black'?

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 07:31 PM

I checked out your links and they have some good summaries of data that have been around for a while. But you seem use them to to make large jumps to nonfacts or generalizations. Sometimes this is called an inductive leap with consequent pratfall.
Nah I was searching for the some info on what I said earlier about gaining skill and I thought you would be interested. Not using it to prove anything other than to support the side subject of mind reading.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 07:42 PM

Nah I was searching for the some info on what I said earlier about gaining skill and I thought you would be interested. Not using it to prove anything other than to support the side subject of mind reading. Blggle hrgd.

Read the article. It states that the brain constructs a model of the emotions the other person is feeling. This has nothing whatever to do with mind reading, the paranormal, or the brain restricting anything.

If it doesn't contradict your theory, it's only because your theory is completely incoherent.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 07:48 PM

Blggle hrgd.

Read the article. It states that the brain constructs a model of the emotions the other person is feeling. This has nothing whatever to do with mind reading, the paranormal, or the brain restricting anything.

If it doesn't contradict your theory, it's only because you theory is completely incoherent.

HAHAHAHA

It isnt incoherent. Like any theory it needs explaination for you to understand what I am talking about. You have yet to understand my point of view which means not that it is incoherent but that you have yet to understand the point. I am trying to help you out so you know what I am talking about. I will try to explain it again.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 07:56 PM

HAHAHAHA

It isnt incoherent. Like any theory it needs explaination for you to understand what I am talking about. You have yet to understand my point of view which means not that it is incoherent but that you have yet to understand the point. I am trying to help you out so you know what I am talking about. I will try to explain it again.
Then what on Earth is your point?

State it, in ten words. Or less. Once you've done that, we can proceed.

Jeff Corey

24th January 2006, 08:04 PM

Miss Anne Elk, "My theory about the brontosaurus was that they died as a..."
Presenter, "Sorry, that's more than 10 words. Go away."

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 08:19 PM

Hey, works for me. :)

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 08:23 PM

Then what on Earth is your point?

State it, in ten words. Or less. Once you've done that, we can proceed.
I have before but I shall try another way
1. The brain does not invent a view of reality
2. The brain works on what exists, and is affected by what exists
3. The way we can do what we can do is because we have an opinion of the situation. If we had no opinion we would do nothing.
4. The brain is for intention not awareness or understanding.
5. The brain is an accumulation of "opinions" or feelings or brain cells.
6. This is necessary because if there was no opinion or view of a situation that was imbalanced a person would decide to do nothing. Like a rock. Evolution demands this.
That is mostly my points I guess. I might have missed some
7. A view on a situation is formed by certain emotional keys clouding parts of a situation thus creating an imbalanced view which give us desire.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 08:56 PM

Just for interest I will explain some of what I learnt and how I learnt it

Well I'll go on to tell you about how I learnt to understand how something feels.
I am a martial artist of 11 years experience, I have numerous black belts in different arts. I have always loved martial arts and been a truly keen student. I remember getting into it because of all the cool stories about the wise masters etc. When learning techniques of the martial arts I worked on learning how to learn the techniques faster. What I did was try to imagine my arm where the instructors arm was etc, i think everyone does it to an extent. I spacially manipulated the feeling of my body into theirs, as i began to be able to do this well the first thing i could do was imediately copy a technique with the skill of the instructor. Then came other effects, as I did it I began to feel how they were feeling their attitude etc, I could soon understand how they were going to move and what it is they would think. I began to understand what they were feeling. I was to say the least, very intrigued. I began to theorise all about it. Then I realised that one could not hide their mental attitude and thoughts, for their physical stature always expressed their mental situation. If they were angry they must act angry, If they were angry and hiding it they must act angry and hiding it. Anyways I ended up doing some more research and I wondered if it was possible to read 2 people at a time. So I did so, although I did not stop at 2, I went on to read 5 people at once. I wondered how the hell that was possible, to think 6 thoughts atonce, how to exist as 6 people at once. I was puzzled, I began reading animals, trees and even brick walls, helicopters etc. It finally dawned on me, I wasn't spacially manipulating all this information and twisting it to understand it, I was simply allowing it to tell me how it was. I was allowing myself to be aware of the objects or ppeople. It was a result of not judging the situation, not putting my spin on it. This was part of the reason I began to understand the mind. Although many more things were to happen before I would understand it to my satisfaction.
To let you know how far I got with the capacity to read minds. I could go to the extent that i could begin to see what they saw(not the actual sight but their perception of what they saw *the emotional reaction to it), think there thoughts etc. It is important to realise that I was not reading their minds but rather becoming them by expanding my perception. I am sure this sounds unbelievable, and it is up to you to believe me or not, but you can do it too. Don't trust me, try it. Hope I gave you enough info. I would hope no one just believes me, be sceptical, but not close minded.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 09:00 PM

I do not know what it is you would see upon the complete absense of the brain, I would assume the nature of reality. Although I could not say that with certainty because there are still physical influences that occur even with the absense of a brain. I am sure that your perception would not encompass all things just because you lack a brain.
When I have focused less and allowed myself to see more I have experienced unexplainable things. None of them are supernatural, nor are they even difficult. Generally you see how things relate. Like if one listens to their skin and what they feel they will be able to feel the wind and air and be able to tell what it has done and what is in your surroundings. You will see its rhythym and what affects it and thus will know the situation better. Its pretty cool, you see clearly like sight but from all directions, but in the end it is essentially useless, well atleast in my eyes.
What I discussed earlier made me capable of much more than just what I have explained, it may help you answer some of the questions that you seek answers for.
Thanks for the response, generally the forum dies when I say stuff like that, I dont tell people I know about this stuff cuz it can have consequences. its just so much easier to write about to learn what people think of what I say.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:07 PM

I have before but I shall try another way
1. The brain does not invent a view of reality
What do you mean by this?

2. The brain works on what exists, and is affected by what exists
This is true.

3. The way we can do what we can do is because we have an opinion of the situation. If we had no opinion we would do nothing.
This is not meaningful.

4. The brain is for intention not awareness or understanding.
This is not true.

5. The brain is an accumulation of "opinions" or feelings or brain cells.
Well, one out of three ain't bad... No, wait, one out of three is an big fat F!

6. This is necessary because if there was no opinion or view of a situation that was imbalanced a person would decide to do nothing. Like a rock. Evolution demands this.
This is arrant nonsense.

First, you haven't defined what you mean by a "balanced" or "imbalanced" view or situation.

Second, people and animals alike can and do make decisions in every type of situation, whether the information they have is complete, partial, inaccurate, or actively fraudulent.

Third, rocks make no decisions.

Fourth, evolution doesn't demand anything, much less this spectacularly nonsensical bit of... whatever it is.

That is mostly my points I guess. I might have missed some
Thank goodness.

7. A view on a situation is formed by certain emotional keys clouding parts of a situation thus creating an imbalanced view which give us desire.
No.

Do you have any idea how the brain processes sensory data? Like vision, for example?

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:11 PM

I do not know what it is you would see upon the complete absense of the brain, I would assume the nature of reality.
We've run experiments on exactly this. Quite a lot of them, in fact.

Unfortunately, not a single one of the experimental subjects has ever reported back.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:17 PM

It finally dawned on me, I wasn't spacially manipulating all this information and twisting it to understand it, I was simply allowing it to tell me how it was. I was allowing myself to be aware of the objects or ppeople. It was a result of not judging the situation, not putting my spin on it. This was part of the reason I began to understand the mind. Although many more things were to happen before I would understand it to my satisfaction.

To let you know how far I got with the capacity to read minds. I could go to the extent that i could begin to see what they saw(not the actual sight but their perception of what they saw *the emotional reaction to it), think there thoughts etc. It is important to realise that I was not reading their minds but rather becoming them by expanding my perception. I am sure this sounds unbelievable, and it is up to you to believe me or not, but you can do it too. Don't trust me, try it. Hope I gave you enough info. I would hope no one just believes me, be sceptical, but not close minded. Uh, almost everybody in the world can do that. It's so universal that we have a special name for people who can't do it; they're called autistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism).

The point is, you are not reading anyone's mind, much less that of a helicopter or a brick wall. You are putting yourself in their place, mentally. This is a capability of the human brain, and is also believed to be present in some of the more intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins. It's called empathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Empathy_in_animals).

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 09:17 PM

If it were complete nonsense no one would get it.
It is a simple proposal that the mind shapes reality instead of creating it from scratch.
You disagree on certain points because I have yet to provide evidence of certain things which are impossible to prove philosophically and this is fine.

And LOL on the second last response

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 09:19 PM

Uh, almost everybody in the world can do that. It's so universal that we have a special name for people who can't do it; they're called "autistic".

The point is, you are not reading anyone's mind, much less that of a helicopter or a brick wall. You are putting yourself in their place, mentally. This is a capability of the human brain, and is also believed to be present in some of the more intelligent animals such as apes and dolphins.

Yep I absolutely agree. Except I am a point of difference because I can empathise to the extent that I can see what they are thinking and what they are going to do. Is handy in martial arts for it allows you to know your opponents move before they know it.

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 09:24 PM

Also the wind thing is not something people do normally and is often considered "supernatural" when it isn't at all.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:28 PM

Yep I absolutely agree. Except I am a point of difference because I can empathise to the extent that I can see what they are thinking and what they are going to do. Is handy in martial arts for it allows you to know your opponents move before they know it.
Yes, that is also very common. And there is nothing supernatural about it. It's just your brain learning from experience. It's what the brain does.

It's also why practiced martial artists dislike sparring with complete newcomers. The untrained people are unpredictable, and this can lead to someone getting hurt.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:30 PM

If it were complete nonsense no one would get it.
We've had a lot of practice.

It is a simple proposal that the mind shapes reality instead of creating it from scratch.
It is a simple proposal, yes. It is also completely unsupported by evidence, despite 5000 years of documented experiments. The mind does not shape reality.

PixyMisa

24th January 2006, 09:32 PM

Also the wind thing is not something people do normally and is often considered "supernatural" when it isn't at all. Even autistic people can feel the wind. The rest is your imagination.

steenkh

24th January 2006, 11:11 PM

TheGuyThat

24th January 2006, 11:56 PM

Yes, that is also very common. And there is nothing supernatural about it. It's just your brain learning from experience. It's what the brain does.

It's also why practiced martial artists dislike sparring with complete newcomers. The untrained people are unpredictable, and this can lead to someone getting hurt.

Newcomers are just as easy to read. I am not remembering from experience. The thing with this challenge and why it will be hard to find someone to do the challenge that is capable of "supernatural" is that those wise enough to understand themselves enough to do these things are wise enough to see no value in monetary gain. I however am different, I am not that wise unfortunately. LOL. I certainly don't mean to inflate my ego by constantly obsessing on what I can do or by trying to convince you of my skills. Its just that these "supernatural" things do not defy the laws of the universe and nor do they have to. Believe what I say or don't, or just think about, if that is what you want. It doesn't matter, I simply wanted to display a simple solution to the matter. The answer to whether these things are possible lies in the functioning and capacity of the brain. If we were to understand that it would clearly predict the outcome of this challenge. Certainly you can have some grasp of what I am saying. You need not believe it for that is up to you personally. But it would be a shame if you were to discount it without first understanding it.

PixyMisa

25th January 2006, 12:01 AM

I certainly don't mean to inflate my ego by constantly obsessing on what I can do or by trying to convince you of my skills. Its just that these "supernatural" things do not defy the laws of the universe and nor do they have to.
In which case they are not supernatural. That's my point. You're doing perfectly normal things everyone can do.

The answer to whether these things are possible lies in the functioning and capacity of the brain. If we were to understand that it would clearly predict the outcome of this challenge.
We do understand it, and you are wrong.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 12:18 AM

So, TheGuyThat, you essentially have no evidence whatsoever, but you have theories that can explain the non-existent evidence. Why on earth did you then start with asserting that the evidence supports your theories, when you are clearly looking for evidence?

Regarding the JREF challenge, please conduct the experiments yourself before you apply. It will save you a lot of trouble, and you will not waste the time of anybody else.
Incorrect
For the first question, there is other evidence aside from anything "supernatural". I stated that earlier.
To your second question. Why is it so clear that I am looking for evidence? I already know all I want to know about the subject. I have loads of evidence to back it up but I can only give you small summaries on the forum.

Regarding what you said about the challenge:
Are you somehow under the impression that I have not already done experimentation. I am already fully capable of what I say I can do and can do it consistantly upon command. It is more a skill than a power and am not even sure how the hell you could test it.
I fail to see how I can waste the time of the JREF. They invest their time in people whilst having the belief that everyone of them will fail.
I am thinking about the challenge, although I'd have to put in quite alot of hard work for that 1 000 000 dollars so I'm not even sure it is worth it. Not to mention the side effects of becoming perceptive enough to do these things. Doing things like this change your view of the world and change you and your personality. I stopped in 2004 because I did not want to be so balanced as not to have feelings of joy and pain. I am not sure I am willing to sacrafice that much just for a million dollars. However I will continue to think it over.

steenkh

25th January 2006, 12:21 AM

The thing with this challenge and why it will be hard to find someone to do the challenge that is capable of "supernatural" is that those wise enough to understand themselves enough to do these things are wise enough to see no value in monetary gain.
LOL! They can always donate the money to charity! I think they are wise enough to understand that they are frauds, and that it is bad for business to be exposed as such!

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 12:22 AM

In which case they are not supernatural. That's my point. You're doing perfectly normal things everyone can do.

We do understand it, and you are wrong.
Yep I am indeed. Yet it is for some reason called "supernatural". I can do more than what most of the psychics out there claim to be able to do and yes it is normal. It is just a skill people dont understand.

"We do understand it, and you are wrong"
Funny that wise people are never so definate in their statements as you.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 12:26 AM

LOL! They can always donate the money to charity! I think they are wise enough to understand that they are frauds, and that it is bad for business to be exposed as such!
Good point. Except that proving such things would open up a massive can of worms. I can imagine a massive surge of people becoming dedicated to learning how to do it. Most certainly cults would pop up all over the place etc. One doesnt need to read the future to know that people will have a strong reaction if the "paranormal" is proven.
Much suffering would probably result.
On a side note however, I dont believe any of those people in hollywood can do what they claim.

Soapy Sam

25th January 2006, 12:26 AM

I am a martial artist of 11 years experience, I have numerous black belts in different arts. I have always loved martial arts and been a truly keen student.

Oh. That explains a lot.

Tell me, since you have read widely on the subject, how did you manage to spell the term "Idiot savant" as "idio servant"? That seems the sort of error one would make only after hearing the term rather than reading it.

Would you mind listing some of the titles if your extensive reading please? Just so we can cross check. We may have read some of them too, you see. It's pretty clear that you did not read the sources you linked to, so I'm inclined to wonder if you read your other sources very thoroughly either.

How would your model of the mind explain reflex actions or operant conditioning, by the way?

PixyMisa

25th January 2006, 12:30 AM

Yep I am indeed. Yet it is for some reason called "supernatural".
Not by us it's not. We call it "perfectly normal things everyone can do".

I can do more than what most of the psychics out there claim to be able to do
No you can't. You may be able to do more than what they are actually able to do, but you can't do what they claim to do. (Neither can they, of course.)

It is just a skill people dont understand.
No, it's a skill we understand very well. You don't appear to understand it, which is why you have come up with this strange theory of decerebration.

"We do understand it, and you are wrong"
Funny that wise people are never so definate in their statements as you.
I'm not wise. I'm just right. It's a harder job, but the pay is better.

steenkh

25th January 2006, 12:36 AM

Incorrect
For the first question, there is other evidence aside from anything "supernatural". I stated that earlier.

Yes, you have stated it many times, but instead of evidence you just post more theories.

To your second question. Why is it so clear that I am looking for evidence? I already know all I want to know about the subject. I have loads of evidence to back it up but I can only give you small summaries on the forum.

The only time you have brought anything like evidence was in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1402157#post1402157), and it was not even evidence that supported your theories!

Regarding what you said about the challenge:
Are you somehow under the impression that I have not already done experimentation. I am already fully capable of what I say I can do and can do it consistantly upon command. It is more a skill than a power and am not even sure how the hell you could test it.

Unless I have missed something, you have not described anything like a power or a skill. And as you might know, the JREF is not interested at all in your theories, only in a demonstration of paranormality. My advice to you about testing it before you go the JREF is meant to be good advice. So many people have obviously not tried it, and once they engage with the JREF they lose interest when they are presented with rigorous controls, and if they are actually tested, their powers evaporate. I would certainly like to hear about a succesful demonstration of something paranormal in my lifetime, and if you can do it: thumbs up to you!

I fail to see how I can waste the time of the JREF. They invest their time in people whilst having the belief that everyone of them will fail.

You can waste their time by not being able to do what you claim to do!

I am thinking about the challenge, although I'd have to put in quite alot of hard work for that 1 000 000 dollars so I'm not even sure it is worth it. Not to mention the side effects of becoming perceptive enough to do these things. Doing things like this change your view of the world and change you and your personality. I stopped in 2004 because I did not want to be so balanced as not to have feelings of joy and pain. I am not sure I am willing to sacrafice that much just for a million dollars. However I will continue to think it over.
It sounds like you have some heavy side effects from you skills. Please be aware that the JREF will probably ask for three affidavits from professionals who have seen a demonstration of your skill. Make sure one of these is a psychiatrist. I am not implying that you need to see a psychiatrist, but that your claim will gain massively in credibility if you do.

PixyMisa

25th January 2006, 12:37 AM

Ddoouubbllee ppoosstt..

Eeddiitteedd ffoorr sslleeppiinngg..

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 01:36 AM

[QUOTE=steenkh;1402523]Yes, you have stated it many times, but instead of evidence you just post more theories.

The only time you have brought anything like evidence was in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1402157#post1402157), and it was not even evidence that supported your theories!
QUOTE]
Post 16 gives a summation of various things that support my claim.

PixyMisa

25th January 2006, 01:46 AM

Post 16 gives a summation of various things that support my claim. That's exactly the problem. What we want is evidence. Post 16 doesn't contain any.

If your theory is true, it would explain mind-reading - but so what, if mind-reading doesn't exist?

If you show us that you can read minds, and not in the conventional everyday empathic sense, then we might have reason to consider your theory. But you are presenting things to us backwards. Give us evidence that something is actually happening, then the theory that explains it.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 02:00 AM

That's exactly the problem. What we want is evidence. Post 16 doesn't contain any.

If your theory is true, it would explain mind-reading - but so what, if mind-reading doesn't exist?

If you show us that you can read minds, and not in the conventional everyday empathic sense, then we might have reason to consider your theory. But you are presenting things to us backwards. Give us evidence that something is actually happening, then the theory that explains it.
Sounds fair enough to me. Although the theory does not need to mind reading to be proven to be adopted as a theory. Which I am not trying or ever going to try to do(get adopted as theory). I merely need to elaborate and give more proof which is fair enough.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 02:03 AM

That's exactly the problem. What we want is evidence. Post 16 doesn't contain any.

If your theory is true, it would explain mind-reading - but so what, if mind-reading doesn't exist?

If you show us that you can read minds, and not in the conventional everyday empathic sense, then we might have reason to consider your theory. But you are presenting things to us backwards. Give us evidence that something is actually happening, then the theory that explains it.
It is not the empathy that science ignores but rather the capacity for empathy. Empathy can allow you to know someone thoughts and their personality almost as if it were your own. It is thought of as supernatural to know someone elses thoughts accurately. Empathy has no limit.

PixyMisa

25th January 2006, 02:05 AM

It is not the empathy that science ignores but rather the capacity for empathy. Empathy can allow you to know someone thoughts and their personality almost as if it were your own.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. That article you linked to on "mind reading" came from a scientific discussion of empathy.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 02:30 AM

I'm not sure what you're talking about. That article you linked to on "mind reading" came from a scientific discussion of empathy.
Yes but I believe there to be no limit to empathy

Dragon

25th January 2006, 02:55 AM

http://usuarios.lycos.es/nepalgves/sessio%20sites/winnie%20the%20pooh/pooh.jpg

brettDbass

25th January 2006, 03:16 AM

See evidence to support my theory and I have much more and can elaborate to great extent.
I still don't believe this is your own theory though:~

As for the rest of your post, do I smell a Krishnamurti influence there perhaps? Or maybe the "silent knowledge" passages of Castaneda?
Come on now, don't be shy.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 03:23 AM

I still don't believe this is your own theory though:~

Come on now, don't be shy.
Someone probably thought of it before me except I had no knowledge of their work. I came up with it all on my lonesome.

Can you give a link or any info on Krishnamurti or the passages of castaneda

brettDbass

25th January 2006, 03:37 AM

Someone probably thought of it before me except I had no knowledge of their work. I came up with it all on my lonesome.

Can you give a link or any info on Krishnamurti or the passages of castaneda
For which, if true, you should at least be congratulated.

Nevertheless, since these people I have mentioned (out of many who have made similar propositions) put their ideas forward many decades ago it would be expected that someone had given them some credence by now, if they (the ideas) deserved it.

I've read most of the work of both of these men, but sadly it is not going to be available for free online. How odd, huh?
Anyway, if I get inspired to do so I might dig out the books and provide you with the info, sure.

BTW, sorry for the harsh tone today, I'm just in a bit of a huff generally.

steenkh

25th January 2006, 03:37 AM

TheGuyThat, could you please at last tell us what paranormal skills you believe you have?

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 03:50 AM

TheGuyThat, could you please at last tell us what paranormal skills you believe you have?
I basically have the power to control my emotions and feelings.
I will tell you most of what I have done.

Mind control (persuasion) *Make them want what you want

Mind reading (empathy) *I've done 5 people at once

Seeing around me for 50m-70m by listening to the wind (wind seems chaotic until you understand it and then it all makes sense)

Precognition (seeing all factors that affect a situation) *With people and also certain events regarding my future

Umm... thats about it i think
I have control of my awareness and my emotions etc... which causes this.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 03:56 AM

For which, if true, you should at least be congratulated.

Nevertheless, since these people I have mentioned (out of many who have made similar propositions) put their ideas forward many decades ago it would be expected that someone had given them some credence by now, if they (the ideas) deserved it.

I've read most of the work of both of these men, but sadly it is not going to be available for free online. How odd, huh?
Anyway, if I get inspired to do so I might dig out the books and provide you with the info, sure.

BTW, sorry for the harsh tone today, I'm just in a bit of a huff generally.

Someone needs to prove the ideas to a very high standard. Then it needs to penetrate into the scientific media, if the idea is to be even seen let alone accepted.
I'm sure that if it is, a whole new wave of technology and scientific progress would ensue.

Bone_Vulture

25th January 2006, 03:58 AM

Good point. Except that proving such things would open up a massive can of worms. I can imagine a massive surge of people becoming dedicated to learning how to do it. Most certainly cults would pop up all over the place etc. One doesnt need to read the future to know that people will have a strong reaction if the "paranormal" is proven.
Much suffering would probably result.
On a side note however, I dont believe any of those people in hollywood can do what they claim.

http://www.efavata.com/CBM/images/spiderman2_finalposter.jpg

With great power comes great responsibility! :rolleyes:

drfrank

25th January 2006, 03:59 AM

Mind reading (empathy) *I've done 5 people at once

Do you think you could determine the symbol on a random card someone was looking at (out of a set of, say, 5), using your empathy?

If so, then that's definitely a demonstrable claim and easy to design a protocol for. Simply show that you can achieve this more than would be expected by chance alone and, voila, the million is your's :)

Also, if you get any wiser while you're doing the test and so cease to want the money, feel free to send it to me ;)

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 04:09 AM

Do you think you could determine the symbol on a random card someone was looking at (out of a set of, say, 5), using your empathy?

If so, then that's definitely a demonstrable claim and easy to design a protocol for. Simply show that you can achieve this more than would be expected by chance alone and, voila, the million is your's :)

Also, if you get any wiser while you're doing the test and so cease to want the money, feel free to send it to me ;)
I guess so. Never done that though so cant be sure. I may look into it if I can gain sufficient inspiration to make me willing. If I knew what the symbols were before hand I could most probably do it. I'd have to try it first. I may just do that, just need a friend to do it with. I've just recently told someone about what I can do (my best friend) so I could do it with him. I'll test it out when I get bored in martial arts class.
Are we certain that I could do the test in Australia for the whole US 1,000,000

DreadNiK

25th January 2006, 04:21 AM

I suggest you look into the competition rules, and probably have a look at previous examples of 'mind-reading' protocols and applicants, as well as other applications that may claim similar abilities to your claimed abilities. Then come up with a claim and a protocol to test your claim, and apply.

EDIT: Oh yes, and test it yourself as rigorously as possible first.

Mercutio

25th January 2006, 04:23 AM

Heya, TheGuyThat. Um...how much have you actually read or heard about how much we actually *do* know about how the brain works, and how we know it? It is fairly easy to dismiss what we know, if all that you know about what we know is the merest fraction of what we do know, you know?

You seem, though, very interested in your idea, and it looks like you have dedicated quite a bit of time and effort to this. So I am quite hopeful that you will be willing to spend a bit more time, and not much effort, in trying to understand more. It is not a complete answer, but nearly every speaker at this conference (just click here) (http://thesciencenetwork.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/) speaks to your theory. When PixyMisa says that your notions are wrong, it is only because it they contradict decades of solid research, not because he cannot conceive that you are right. Take a look at the research. The videos in the link I posted are fairly accessible, even to people with not a lot of experience with neurology, psychobiology, etc. They are long, but well worth it if you are truly interested in this topic.

brettDbass

25th January 2006, 04:25 AM

drfrank

25th January 2006, 04:39 AM

I guess so. Never done that though so cant be sure. I may look into it if I can gain sufficient inspiration to make me willing. If I knew what the symbols were before hand I could most probably do it. I'd have to try it first. I may just do that, just need a friend to do it with. I've just recently told someone about what I can do (my best friend) so I could do it with him. I'll test it out when I get bored in martial arts class.
Are we certain that I could do the test in Australia for the whole US 1,000,000

Yes, you'd know what all the possible symbols were beforehand - this means that there's no need for interpretation from description/drawing and thus gives a nice simple definition of a `hit' in a trial. Zener cards are the standard things to use on this kind of test, I think.

You should be aware, though, that even if you were successful on your friend, the preliminary test would likely insist on a different impartial person for you to read, given that you need to see someone to perform this feat (which is the impression I get from your claims, anyway): this would be to prevent the possibility of collusion.

If you did not need to be able to see them e.g. they could be in a different room, then you'd probably be allowed to use who you like.

IIRC Australia has some active skeptic groups, so I'm guessing there wouldn't be any problem with testing you there.

Of course, I am not a representative of the JREF (being just a random poster), but I am familiar with the way it operates and I can't imagine them having too many problems with the above scenario :)

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 06:55 AM

Something intruiging, that what I am saying suggests, is that the emotion of inspiration and understanding is more important than facts and logical pieces of the puzzle. One can understand and gain knowledge of a situation by merely feeling and being inspired one need not create and formulate a theory. This is something I studied in great depth, the "Eureka" moment. From my observation the emotion was more important than the information.
Something to debate about.

Removing assumptions is more important than adding them

steenkh

25th January 2006, 07:12 AM

Something intruiging, that what I am saying suggests, is that the emotion of inspiration and understanding is more important than facts and logical pieces of the puzzle.

More important in order to do what?

One can understand and gain knowledge of a situation by merely feeling and being inspired one need not create and formulate a theory. This is something I studied in great depth, the "Ureeka" moment. From my observation the emotion was more important than the information.

Whereas "Eureka"-moments (please note spelling) are very pleasant, I do not think you can bring evidence that they are necessary or indeed lead to a better understanding. I f oyu are purely looking for personal satisfaction, the emotion is probably better than the information, but is there is a problem to be solved, it is solved just as well without special emotions. Besides, I think you put the cart before the horse: the emotions usually come after you have gained the information, not the other way round.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 07:19 AM

More important in order to do what?

Whereas "Eureka"-moments (please note spelling) are very pleasant, I do not think you can bring evidence that they are necessary or indeed lead to a better understanding. I f oyu are purely looking for personal satisfaction, the emotion is probably better than the information, but is there is a problem to be solved, it is solved just as well without special emotions. Besides, I think you put the cart before the horse: the emotions usually come after you have gained the information, not the other way round.
Not necessarily. When you speak you do not think of the words but rather the emotion and idea you want to translate and then the words are secondary
Couldn't this also be true with information. The emotion is where you want to get to and the information slots into place.
I realise that it is controvershall but I believe this actually is the case.

thatguywhojuggles

25th January 2006, 07:46 AM

This has nothing to do with the topic. I got bored reading halfway through the thread. However, I am amused at the name "TheGuyThat" It never fails. I tell someone about my website thatguywhojuggles.com, and they come to me later saying they couldn't find it. I usually find out they typed "thatguythatjuggles"

A person is a "who", an object (like a rock-lol-) is a "that"

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nmYO-UlPekwJ:home.sandiego.edu/~kunkel/syllabi/The%252080-20%2520Style%2520Guide%2520F05.pdf+%22using+who+ve rsus+that%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
(Check page 23, 4.7)

Sorry for the derail... carry on. (Though I won't bother to read anymore)

steenkh

25th January 2006, 07:46 AM

Not necessarily. When you speak you do not think of the words but rather the emotion and idea you want to translate and then the words are secondary
Couldn't this also be true with information. The emotion is where you want to get to and the information slots into place.
I realise that it is controvershall but I believe this actually is the case.
When I speak, I sometimes want to convey emotion, at other times ideas. I actually do think of the words, but not as carefully as when I write (which explains all the "ahh's, errm's, and "you know"s in the speech). If I want to solve a problem, the information is where I want to get to, and the emotion slots into place if it is achieved.

Jeff Corey

25th January 2006, 08:03 AM

[QUOTE=TheGuyThat;1402974]Not necessarily. When you speak you do not think of the words but rather the emotion and idea you want to translate and then the words are secondary...[QUOTE]
Maybe for you, but not for me (and, I suspect, most people).

drkitten

25th January 2006, 08:14 AM

Not necessarily. When you speak you do not think of the words but rather the emotion and idea you want to translate and then the words are secondary
Couldn't this also be true with information.

Are you familiar with the Stroop effect? It's a well-studied (and cited) effect about the relationship between language, perception, and cognitive processing.

Basically, the idea is this: people are asked to look at a set of objects and name their colors. The trick is that the objects that are named happen to be printed words, for example, as follows:

red
yellow
blue
red

No problem, eh? And it's an easy task -- as long as the colors and the color-names are the same. If you mix them up, it becomes a serious, serious problem, as in the following. Remember that you want to name the color of the printing, not just simply read the word aloud -- so on the first line, you should say "Yellow."

green
red
yellow
blue
red

People have much greater problems with this. They make mistakes, they take much more time -- and the mistakes they make are exactly the ones you would expect if they are thinking [i]of the written word.

So I think your claim about how people think, that they think of the meaning and the words are secondary, is directly contradicted by some well-supported experimental evidence.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Science is built on the body of dead theories, brutally blugeoned to death by ugly facts. But that's why skepticism will not be replaced.

Mercutio

25th January 2006, 09:27 AM

Almo

25th January 2006, 10:23 AM

If someone understood the balance of a situation they would do nothing and would not mate, thus making it impossible to have evolved. Every creature on this earth has evolved to be confused so that it could mate and find food etc.

This is a bold assertion.

If it were the case that the creature in question thought its species a blight on the planet, then it might reach that conclusion. It is a subjective opinion that any creature who really thought about it would not mate. It requires a lot of assumptions.

For example, take a person who believes in God and feels that morals are necessary for society to function. Also suppose this person feels that morals are falling apart in their society. What can they do to help the situation? One thing would be to have 5 kids and make sure they have the correct morals, assuming that they will pass it on as well.

To say this person doesn't understand the "balance" of the situation, is to say that many of their basic assumptions are wrong. There's a whole lot of subjective ideas along the way that need to be dealt with.

I'm afraid the issue just isn't that simple.

I think I understand your assertion now, sorry if the crab example was insulting. I just didn't quite know what you were getting at.

If you're meaning that awareness is a thing seperate from brain function then:
I can't agree that awareness is not a result of the brain. What do you propose creates awareness then?

Ririon

25th January 2006, 10:52 AM

Hey, TheGuyThat! Have you met Ian? I think you would find his theories very interesting, and I am sure he would love to debate topics like this with you.

http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=2200

Tip: Click "Find all posts by Interesting Ian" to see which threads he is currently contributing to.

:whistling

Almo

25th January 2006, 11:18 AM

If it were complete nonsense no one would get it.

I'm afraid this isn't true. A great many people understand homeopathy, even though IT is complete nonsense. It's even been proven to be so, time and time again.

Note that my statement is not intended to imply that what you've proposed is complete nonsense; only that because people understand what you mean, it does not mean it isn't nonsense.

drfrank

25th January 2006, 11:49 AM

Hey, TheGuyThat! Have you met Ian? I think you would find his theories very interesting, and I am sure he would love to debate topics like this with you.

I'm trying to make my mind up whether that's overly cruel or justified, but either way it's hilarious :D

LordoftheLeftHand

25th January 2006, 02:10 PM

Well you threw out some interesting thoughts, but ultimately I'm really only interested if you have something that is testable. Can any of this be tested?

LLH

Guess not :(

LLH

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 05:56 PM

This is a bold assertion.

If it were the case that the creature in question thought its species a blight on the planet, then it might reach that conclusion. It is a subjective opinion that any creature who really thought about it would not mate. It requires a lot of assumptions.

For example, take a person who believes in God and feels that morals are necessary for society to function. Also suppose this person feels that morals are falling apart in their society. What can they do to help the situation? One thing would be to have 5 kids and make sure they have the correct morals, assuming that they will pass it on as well.

To say this person doesn't understand the "balance" of the situation, is to say that many of their basic assumptions are wrong. There's a whole lot of subjective ideas along the way that need to be dealt with.

I'm afraid the issue just isn't that simple.

I think I understand your assertion now, sorry if the crab example was insulting. I just didn't quite know what you were getting at.

If you're meaning that awareness is a thing seperate from brain function then:
I can't agree that awareness is not a result of the brain. What do you propose creates awareness then?
Awareness is achieved when the focus of an animal is broader. An animal with a smaller brain can still have narrow focus and thus be naieve and not be aware. Its all about relativity of focus. Certainly I say that the brain restricts what we see allowing us to focus but it is not an accumulative effect. The brain allows many different combinations of focus and intentions, opinions, emotions, etc I say that the brain does not hold information but rather attitudes about other perceptions. What I mean by attitudes is that it ignores certain parts of the situation to present a certain scewed perception.

Something interesting found in studies of brain function is that the neuron does not just react to the physical stimuli but its value. Now according to what I proposed earlier this further supports my claim. For everything that is percieved through a narrow focus must have an attitude related to it. This is supported in this study.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/LowQuality/Session2.mov
Is a very long video but near the middle it gives you the info on what I said.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 08:15 PM

Jeff Corey

25th January 2006, 08:19 PM

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 08:27 PM

[Yoda mode]This complete bull hockey is.{/Yoda mode}
Then you please explain intention, and what makes us decide something
Your answer if you are smart will be that you find something to be of more value or appropriateness. This can only come about if the positives outweigh the negatives. Imbalance is the cause to decision.

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 09:51 PM

Einstien once said
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

TheGuyThat

25th January 2006, 11:59 PM

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 04:07 AM

Something intruiging, that what I am saying suggests, is that the emotion of inspiration and understanding is more important than facts and logical pieces of the puzzle.
Well, then, you are wrong.

One can understand and gain knowledge of a situation by merely feeling and being inspired one need not create and formulate a theory.
What sort of knowledge? Practical, useful, scientific knowledge? No. Absolutely not. The world doesn't work like that.

Poetic, mystical, useless "knowledge"? Yeah, sure. But you can achieve much the same thing by getting hit on the head.

This is something I studied in great depth, the "Eureka" moment. From my observation the emotion was more important than the information.
Something to debate about.
Oig.

The Eureka moment comes when you have worked something out. You have the chain of causation backwards.

Removing assumptions is more important than adding them
Yeah.

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 05:05 AM

Well if what I said earlier was correct the logical chain and the emotional journey are the same thing. The emotion is the logical thought and the logical thought is the emotion. Perhaps more to the point of what I was saying is that you can do it either way because they are the same.

steenkh

26th January 2006, 05:22 AM

I think you have very hazy ideas about what emotions and thoughts are. And I believe that emotions and [B]logical/B] thoughts are exactly opposites. You may well reach the same conclusions, but the two are still very different.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2006, 05:27 AM

"...(L)ogical chain and emotional journey are the same thing..."
No, not in the way most people use those terms. They are not the same thing.

brettDbass

26th January 2006, 05:37 AM

There is a saying
"He who says cannot know, he who knows cannot say"
In my theory this is completely correct. For to have intention one must be deluded as to the situation. Thus to be aware is only possible when one has no intention. For intention is created by delusion.
Let's just look at one piece of this.
"to have intention one must be deluded as to the situation"

From Websters online...
intention : An anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs". (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/intention)

must : 1. Be obliged, required, or forced to; "She has to get her driver's license".
2. Be logically necessary. (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/must)

delude(d) : Be false to; be dishonest with. (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/delude)
{delusional : Suffering from or characterized by delusions. (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/situation)}

situation : The general state of things; the combination of circumstances at a given time; "the present international situation is dangerous"; "wondered how such a state of affairs had come about" (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/situation)

So, you're claiming that in order that they can make choices with a future goal in mind, it is inevitable and essential that every person is deluded as to their circumstances and surroundings at any given time?

Meaning, to cut it short, if I'm not deluded then I can have no intention?

That, sir, is Bunkum.

aggle-rithm

26th January 2006, 06:04 AM

I'm joining the thread late. Haven't had a chance to read everything, so I may be repeating what's already been covered.

I propose that there is another way to learn and gain knowledge with out the need for time consuming and labourious thought.

It is my understanding that after the process of logic the result is a clearer view of the situation.

One can see how certain things relate and thus they can understand the issue more clearly. Can't this now be attained in another manner that requires no linear progression?

This is a fancy way of saying what true believers have been saying for centuries: Stop thinking so much! (INSERT CHARISMATIC LEADER'S NAME HERE) will do the thinking for us!

Most people believe the brain builds our view of the world and that it somehow translates that view to us through some processing unit (if this is the case, what is "us"). I believe the brain actually does the opposite, instead of building our knowledge it restricts what we percieve and in doing so we are given a narrow focus which now gives us intention and direction.

What you're describing are the attenuating functions of the brain. They've been known about for a long time, too. Neuroscientists think that over half the neurons in the brain actually keep other neurons from firing, this keeping brain functions under control. However, this doesn't mean that the brain doesn't build our view of the world. Both functions are performed by different parts of the brain. One set of neurons creates a firestorm of activity, the other fine-tunes this activity into coherent thought.

If the designer, whoever he is, had studied boolean algebra, then perhaps he would have realized that some of the stimulation/attenuation pairs were redundant, and could have built a far meaner and leaner brain. Oh, well. Too late now.

aggle-rithm

26th January 2006, 06:14 AM

HAHAHAHA

It isnt incoherent. Like any theory it needs explaination for you to understand what I am talking about.

Actually, a theory IS an explanation. That's what a theory is. If you haven't explained anything, you don't have a theory, you have an untested hypothesis.

Hellbound

26th January 2006, 06:58 AM

Actually, a theory IS an explanation. That's what a theory is. If you haven't explained anything, you don't have a theory, you have an untested hypothesis.

Almost agreed. Even a hypothesis, though, provides an explanation...it's just tenuous and completely untested. Hypothesis and theory both are a framework to explain an event or phenomena, and predict future possibilities.

All he really has here is an idea. Completely unscientific, completely untested, and supported by (at best) references to "folk wisdom".

I think we all know the value of this one.

Dan Beaird

26th January 2006, 10:36 AM

There is a saying
"He who says cannot know, he who knows cannot say"

That "quote" is paraphrasing of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu the father of Taoism, and if you understood the context of the quote you would know just how much of an idiot you are to put it up to make yourself sound all wise and knowing.

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know.

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html#56

In short Lao Tsu is specifically talking about the Tao and warning people away from folks like you who pretend to have deep understanding.

In my theory this is completely correct. For to have intention one must be deluded as to the situation. Thus to be aware is only possible when one has no intention. For intention is created by delusion.
Not at all what Lao Tsu is saying. Since you're a martial artist you might want to think about the idea of the empty mind. Seeking premature explanation is a barrier to learning...understanding comes only with practice and experience.

aggle-rithm

26th January 2006, 11:17 AM

I basically have the power to control my emotions and feelings.

Well, hats off to your therapist!

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 04:47 PM

"...(L)ogical chain and emotional journey are the same thing..."
No, not in the way most people use those terms. They are not the same thing.
Fair enough, I am simply trying to illustrate that the value of every option is determined by an imbalance of something that is desirable and something that is not. One therefor has to have a view that is not well balanced in both positive and negative attributes to have intention. This applies even to the thought itself. I am saying that all things relate to desire. Every choice occurs because an imbalanced evironment or a shaped perception. Just like a scale tips because it has more weight on one side of the scale. Its all about equilibrium and forces.

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 05:03 PM

So, you're claiming that in order that they can make choices with a future goal in mind, it is inevitable and essential that every person is deluded as to their circumstances and surroundings at any given time?

Meaning, to cut it short, if I'm not deluded then I can have no intention?

That, sir, is Bunkum.
You seem to misunderstand my proposal. It is essential that a person is deluded as to atleast a smallest piece of the entire universe to have any intention. One needs to percieve value in an option to do it. If one thinks it is of no value they simply wont do it. I do not mean to imply that one must be deluded as to the world around them, just some of it.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 05:08 PM

One therefor has to have a view that is not well balanced in both positive and negative attributes to have intention.
Nope. Completely untrue.

We can make choices when the good and the bad are in perfect mathematical balance. We can make choices even when we know nothing about the situation at all.

Your theory is just plain wrong.

This applies even to the thought itself.
Nope.

I am saying that all things relate to desire.
Nope.

Every choice occurs because an imbalanced evironment or a shaped perception.
Nope.

Just like a scale tips because it has more weight on one side of the scale. Its all about equilibrium and forces.
Nice analogy. Pity it has nothing whatsoever to do with your point.

Hellbound

26th January 2006, 05:11 PM

I dunno, Pixy. He may have a point.

I mean, obviously, he has a strong desire to post here, which means he must be very unbalanced.

I think he's on to something :D

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 05:14 PM

I dunno, Pixy. He may have a point.

I mean, obviously, he has a strong desire to post here, which means he must be very unbalanced.

I think he's on to something :D
Gee... thanks
:D

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 05:24 PM

We can make choices when the good and the bad are in perfect mathematical balance. We can make choices even when we know nothing about the situation at all.

You can't be serious. Do you actually believe what you just said.
Anyways...I won't be pedantic. Okay lets consider a situation where a person has a hard choice to make where he thinks each option is just as bad as the other. First he tries to decipher which is better. (This ofcourse means that he found that not thinking was undesirable and chose to think). He makes no choice on the situation whilst his view on them is equal. (Instead he chooses to generate and explore a new opinion). He eventually sees that one is more favourable even if it is only due to time constraints. He did not have to be sure of a choices benifit, that I will give you, but he did have to make a choice and that choice relied on his perception. Indecision is a decision.
See balance had to come into the equation. If there is no imbalance within a balanced equation there is no equation.
Thus your claim is impossible.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2006, 05:31 PM

You can't be serious. Do you actually believe what you just said.
Anyways...I won't be pedantic. Okay lets consider a situation where a person has a hard choice to make where he thinks each option is just as bad as the other. First he tries to decipher which is better. (This ofcourse means that he found that not thinking was undesirable and chose to think). He makes no choice on the situation whilst his view on them is equal. (Instead he chooses to generate and explore a new opinion). He eventually sees that one is more favourable even if it is only due to time constraints. He did not have to be sure of a choices benifit, that I will give you, but he did have to make a choice and that choice relied on his perception. Indecision is a decision.
See balance had to come into the equation. If there is no imbalance within a balanced equation there is no equation.
Thus your claim is impossible.
Gibberish or not?
It's your choice, folks.

26th January 2006, 05:52 PM

Gibberish.

I've been there... still am, to some degree. I can 'read' people - entire roomfulls, in fact. I can 'feel' the wind. I have highly attuned positional awareness of my body. I can copy another's movements and pick up their skills rapidly. I can play a person like a finely tuned violin, make them react how I want them to, etc. And so on and so forth.

Does it require 'letting go of intention' or 'deluding yourself to the situation'? Nope. In fact, each of these perfectly normal abilities was refined, in my case, by application of logic and thought, not removal thereof. In fact, some of what I've learned to do - positional awareness, for example - I learned after studying more about human senses (there are more than the standard five, you know) and carefully applying that knowledge.

And I've never had martial arts training. But I bested a sensei in Korea, precisely because he found my movements 'unpredictible' and my mind 'blocked from his perceptions'.

Now, I know why he found me that way... Can TGT figure out why?

I'm not making wild claims, either. Nothing supernatural or paranormal. Nothing more unusual than being able to read over 600 wpm with 97% comprehension, or being able to type 120 wpm with 95% accuracy, blinded (as in, can't see the keys). The body can be an amazing machine, if you apply yourself and learn how it actually functions. But there's no need to 'zen out' and 'lose yourself' to do it.

TGT, you obviously have some interesting perceptions of how the body and mind work, but now you need to follow it up with careful research of the present state of scientific research in these areas. Then you'd learn something. Tossing together theories ad-hoc to 'explain' things that are really already explained doesn't do a lot for the world in general.

As to the more ridiculous claims, first, prove the phenomena exist; then we'll talk theories.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 06:07 PM

You can't be serious. Do you actually believe what you just said.
Absolutely. This sort of thing happens all the time.

Okay lets consider a situation where a person has a hard choice to make where he thinks each option is just as bad as the other.
Sure.

First he tries to decipher which is better.
Sure.

(This ofcourse means that he found that not thinking was undesirable and chose to think).
That's nonsense.

He makes no choice on the situation whilst his view on them is equal.
So stipulated, in this instance.

(Instead he chooses to generate and explore a new opinion).
Okay.

He eventually sees that one is more favourable even if it is only due to time constraints.
No.

You have already said that the two options are equally bad. You're contradicting youyrself.

He did not have to be sure of a choices benifit, that I will give you, but he did have to make a choice and that choice relied on his perception.
Not necessarily. As I have pointed out, you can make choices even when you have no information that could even potentially allow you to judge the values of the outcomes. This is a perfectly common situation that everyone in the world manages to navigate with ease.

Indecision is a decision.
Kinda sorta.

See balance had to come into the equation. If there is no imbalance within a balanced equation there is no equation.
Do you know what an equation is?

Thus your claim is impossible.
No. There's no possible logical argument against my claim, because it is a claim from observation. (Besides which, your argument is nonsense.)

People do make choices in the absence of information. It happens. So you are wrong.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 06:10 PM

Gibberish or not?
It's your choice, folks.
It's not gibberish, because the individual sentences have meaning. The just don't join up.

P1. All cows eat grass.
P2. Tofu is made from soybeans.
C. Therefore my dog has fleas.

All three statements are meaningful and posibly even true, but as an argument it lacks a certain rigour.

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 07:16 PM

People do make choices in the absence of information. It happens. So you are wrong.
Show me one example. If information from the physical world is non existant their is still information within yourself. Your claim contradicts itself. If I were not to know of a situation or anything remotely related to it I can not make a decision upon it for to me it does not exist.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2006, 07:55 PM

Show me one example. If information from the physical world is non existant their is still information within yourself. Your claim contradicts itself. If I were not to know of a situation or anything remotely related to it I can not make a decision upon it for to me it does not exist.
I think I would need to consult a large spliff to get into the convoluted word salad here.
Nah, I got to work tomorrow.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 09:18 PM

Show me one example. If information from the physical world is non existant their is still information within yourself. So what?

It is trivially easy to construct a situation where a person must make a choice with no information whatsoever distinguishing the choices. Yet people make the choice, so your theory is wrong.

Your claim contradicts itself. If I were not to know of a situation or anything remotely related to it I can not make a decision upon it for to me it does not exist. You know the situation exists. But that's all you know. You know nothing whatsoever about the possible outcomes. People deal with this every day.

Pick a box.

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 10:17 PM

You know the situation exists. But that's all you know. You know nothing whatsoever about the possible outcomes. People deal with this every day.

Pick a box.

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:
Thanks for that, it is important for clarification.
Well even in that situation a person will decide which one they would most like to choose.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 10:20 PM

Thanks for that, it is important for clarification.
Well even in that situation a person will decide which one they would most like to choose.
That's tautological.

They make the decision even though they have no information at all that distinguishes what they are choosing between.

With zero information, the choices are obviously balanced. 0 = 0.

So you are wrong.

Jeff Corey

26th January 2006, 10:23 PM

Thanks for that, it is important for clarification.
Well even in that situation a person will decide which one they would most like to choose.
Don't you understand that what you said is a circular meaningless whatchamacallit?

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 10:26 PM

Don't you understand that what you said is a circular meaningless whatchamacallit?
That it may be but my point is that there is always a perception of more value in an option even if they themselves create it.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 10:35 PM

That it may be but my point is that there is always a perception of more value in an option even if they themselves create it.
Nope.

:boxedin: Heads
:boxedin: Tails

Jeff Corey

26th January 2006, 10:35 PM

A wet bird rarely flies at night.

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 11:07 PM

Nope.

:boxedin: Heads
:boxedin: Tails

Even a heads or tail decision one has reason for choosing an option. Its pretty clear that there is always a reason for action. A reason is always necessary unless you do not believe in causation. In which case if you would rather attribute your decision to god then that is your descision.

PixyMisa

26th January 2006, 11:12 PM

Even a heads or tail decision one has reason for choosing an option.
Yep. Randomness. What one doesn't have is information.

Its pretty clear that there is always a reason for action. A reason is always necessary unless you do not believe in causation. In which case if you would rather attribute your decision to god then that is your descision.
Sure.

But that's not what you were saying before. What you are saying now actually makes sense.

TheGuyThat

26th January 2006, 11:28 PM

Yep. Randomness. What one doesn't have is information.

Sure.

But that's not what you were saying before. What you are saying now actually makes sense.
Well that happens with me. I'm not the clearest writer ever nor am I anywhere close. I often seem to put some other point across other than I intend.

Kiless

27th January 2006, 12:54 AM

Well that happens with me. I'm not the clearest writer ever nor am I anywhere close. I often seem to put some other point across other than I intend.

Um, which is why I'm having a bit of trouble here....

But I went back to your original post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1400097#post1400097) and saw this:

"Take for example mind reading, it is possible, I can personally do it myself, although I must admit that proving that I understand a situation is a bit of a difficulty. (If anyone has a solution I would immediately do this challenge) Now when I speak about mind reading I all I am really doing is reading body language or the situation."

Are you suggesting a challenge proposal here? Would you perhaps like help in seeing how it could be put forward? :)

Kiless

27th January 2006, 01:11 AM

Just read over the following post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1402349#post1402349)...

I spacially manipulated the feeling of my body into theirs, as i began to be able to do this well the first thing i could do was imediately copy a technique with the skill of the instructor. Then came other effects, as I did it I began to feel how they were feeling their attitude etc, I could soon understand how they were going to move and what it is they would think. I began to understand what they were feeling. I was to say the least, very intrigued. I began to theorise all about it. Then I realised that one could not hide their mental attitude and thoughts, for their physical stature always expressed their mental situation. If they were angry they must act angry, If they were angry and hiding it they must act angry and hiding it.

Not even actors? I can act terribly sad and yet not actually be sad...

Would you be able to copy a technique and get it checked later with the instructor that they were having exactly the same feelings that you were going through? For example, have a sequence of emotions on cards, have numbers on the back, have them jumbled up, handed to the instructor by someone who does not know which emotions the numbers refer to... then the instructor thinks of the feeling, executes the move.

You then note the number that they executed and write down what emotion you think it was. You might even like to try to emulate their move to help you out, as you said that in the action of copying them, you 'knew' what emotion they were going through?

Later, you get them all checked off to see if you're right.

(Is this a fair test, those who have tried/planned something like this before?)

Anyways I ended up doing some more research and I wondered if it was possible to read 2 people at a time. So I did so, although I did not stop at 2, I went on to read 5 people at once. I wondered how the hell that was possible, to think 6 thoughts atonce, how to exist as 6 people at once.

Well, perhaps just the one person might be best at first.... although perhaps you could extend the above test by having six people be given random cards with numbers (by a person who doesn't know what the numbers refer to), then you write down what you think each person has been told to feel by just observing the people.

I was puzzled, I began reading animals, trees and even brick walls, helicopters etc. It finally dawned on me, I wasn't spacially manipulating all this information and twisting it to understand it, I was simply allowing it to tell me how it was. I was allowing myself to be aware of the objects or ppeople. It was a result of not judging the situation, not putting my spin on it. This was part of the reason I began to understand the mind. Although many more things were to happen before I would understand it to my satisfaction.

Okay, what sort of things? :)

To let you know how far I got with the capacity to read minds. I could go to the extent that i could begin to see what they saw(not the actual sight but their perception of what they saw *the emotional reaction to it), think there thoughts etc. It is important to realise that I was not reading their minds but rather becoming them by expanding my perception. I am sure this sounds unbelievable, and it is up to you to believe me or not, but you can do it too. Don't trust me, try it. Hope I gave you enough info. I would hope no one just believes me, be sceptical, but not close minded.

No, I'd like to know more. Do you have to look at these people? Talk to them? I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you just have to look at them to know and probably not have them look at you? Like photographs, perhaps?

Kiless

27th January 2006, 01:27 AM

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 01:55 AM

Actually, had another idea...

You say you can mimic an instructor's technique, simply by watching them and 'reading' their feelings?

Does it have to be a specific move that you've done before or by simply watching them, can you emulate them perfectly? After one viewing?
Yes
Pretty much completely after one viewing
That is the thing I do best
It can be any movement, even one I have not done anything like before.

I only need to see them, I can do it through video or pictures.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 02:03 AM

It doesnt matter if they are actors. I could conclude who is acting and who is sincere. For someone is what they are and they cannot hide what they are doing.
Perhaps that is a possible test. Actors or True emotion. That would be a truly easy test for me.
I would like to know all the options u think I could do. I am considering doing the challenge.

steenkh

27th January 2006, 02:32 AM

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 02:35 AM

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 02:37 AM

Cold reading usually is a method of questioning and suggestion rather than a method of reading people.

steenkh

27th January 2006, 02:43 AM

Cold reading usually is a method of questioning and suggestion rather than a method of reading people.
Cold reading consists of using all the clues that are available, except of course knowing the answers in advance, because that would be hot reading.

aggle-rithm

27th January 2006, 06:08 AM

(In response to PixyMisa saying decisions can be made with no information at all: )

You can't be serious. Do you actually believe what you just said.

Ever play Minesweeper? That is a game where, at some point, you have to make decisions with no information about which choice is better. If you choose wrong, the game is over. Life isn't quite that hard, but there are comparable situations.

aggle-rithm

27th January 2006, 06:11 AM

It doesnt matter if they are actors. I could conclude who is acting and who is sincere. For someone is what they are and they cannot hide what they are doing.

You'd be an easy mark for a con man.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 07:17 PM

(In response to PixyMisa saying decisions can be made with no information at all: )

Ever play Minesweeper? That is a game where, at some point, you have to make decisions with no information about which choice is better. If you choose wrong, the game is over. Life isn't quite that hard, but there are comparable situations.
Yes, but you determinee which one you want to choose. There does not actually have to be value one has to percieve more value. Even if its value is I don't have to move as much or a superstition that the minesweeper on the right has never failed me. What I was saying had nothing to with what you are going on about. I said that one finds an option of greater value and chooses it. I did not mean to imply that the value is real but rather percieved.

Mercutio

27th January 2006, 09:15 PM

Something interesting found in studies of brain function is that the neuron does not just react to the physical stimuli but its value. Now according to what I proposed earlier this further supports my claim. For everything that is percieved through a narrow focus must have an attitude related to it. This is supported in this study.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/Events/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/LowQuality/Session2.mov
Is a very long video but near the middle it gives you the info on what I said.
Um...no. That is not what is supported by your link. I am very happy that you watched them, happier that you enjoyed them, but a bit sad that you misinterpreted them.

The talk you refer to is completely consistent with the Rescorla-Wagner model of learning, which operationally defines each concept (e.g., your "attitude related to it" is purely defined in terms of previous exposure to "it", expressed wholly in terms of environmental variables.

It is an easy mistake to make if you are not familiar with the research. I have reviewed textbooks that got it wrong (but fortunately corrected it before publication), so there is no shame in your misinterpretation. But it is, unquestionably, a misinterpretation.

I am very happy you accept this video as a reliable source of information. I agree with you that it is. It does not, however, support your claim.

Mercutio

27th January 2006, 09:21 PM

I've just finished watching them and I only can find supporting data to my theory and nothing that contradicts it.
I am overjoyed that you watched them. I am sad, though, that you did not comprehend them.
Maybe you are misinterpreting or do not fully understand what I am saying and implying.That is certainly possible. Could you, perhaps, explain [let's cut your task to a manageable size] how it is that your theory is supported by the information in the videos? Assume that I am quite familiar with that information--I am--so just cut to the chase: how do they support your theory?

Was entertaining watching so thanks for the link
You are quite welcome! I am very glad you enjoyed them. It was a wonderful conference.

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 09:24 PM

I said that one finds an option of greater value and chooses it.
Yes, you said that, and it was wrong before, and it's still wrong.

There is neither a known difference nor a perceived difference in the values of the options, and yet a choice is made.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 10:43 PM

Yes, you said that, and it was wrong before, and it's still wrong.

There is neither a known difference nor a perceived difference in the values of the options, and yet a choice is made.
For a scale to tip there must be unequal forces applied. Otherwise the forces are in equilibrium. There must be atleast some sort of perception of the situation if one is to make a choice. If someone saw all things equal they would do nothing. They would not even make a choice, for making the choice and not making the choice are equal.
One is affected by the forces applied to them. If all forces are equal they will be in equilibrium. A person is like a scale. A very complex one, but a scale none the less.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 11:00 PM

I am overjoyed that you watched them. I am sad, though, that you did not comprehend them.
That is certainly possible. Could you, perhaps, explain [let's cut your task to a manageable size] how it is that your theory is supported by the information in the videos? Assume that I am quite familiar with that information--I am--so just cut to the chase: how do they support your theory?

You are quite welcome! I am very glad you enjoyed them. It was a wonderful conference.

It is disappointing that you assume a lack of understanding on my part. If you were to assume understanding on my part you would see that my theory does not conflict with theirs. For this you must either believe me or not.
I am telling you that there is absolutely no conflict. My theory simply joins their dots. It is understandable that you do not believe that, and it would be near unbelievable if you understood it, but I do think when one wishes to learn they must have faith in the other and listen. Assume I am correct, so that you may follow down my path of thought and add your knowledge. The only option is to emerge with a superior understanding than you had before. Certainly I may be wrong but "wisdom can be found even in the words of a fool". I will freely admit that I am certain of nothing and do not know but I have been of your point of view before.
To me it was very clear that the theories on how the mind works brought forth by the very intelligent scientists researching this subject were incomplete and fragmented. Surely you must admit that they as of yet know little about the mind and that they are only scratching the surface.
First in science a subject is complicated but it is always simplified as you tie things together. This is what my theory is based on, the theories and evidence brought forth by researchers. It is in my opinion a way of saying all they say with one principle instead of a fractured system. I must admit it would be hard to see the correlation and I do not ask you to assume it to be there but I do ask that you do not assume it not to be there.
I hope that makes sense
Sure I do not share their same conclusions, but nor do they.

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 11:04 PM

There must be atleast some sort of perception of the situation if one is to make a choice.
They must be able to perceive that the situation exists.

But even if the situation is perfectly balanced, or the person has no information by which to judge it, they still make choices.

If someone saw all things equal they would do nothing. They would not even make a choice, for making the choice and not making the choice are equal.
Wrong again, and as many times as you say it, it will still be wrong.

Pick a box:

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 11:07 PM

It is in my opinion a way of saying all they say with one principle instead of a fractured system.
Your theory is wrong, the "facts" from which you derive it are wrong, and the things you propose to explain with it don't exist. So what's the point?

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 11:11 PM

They must be able to perceive that the situation exists.

But even if the situation is perfectly balanced, or the person has no information by which to judge it, they still make choices.

Wrong again, and as many times as you say it, it will still be wrong.

Pick a box:

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:
You continually make the assumption that one can exist when all things are balanced. You continually do not notice that when a situation is balanced it must be different than one that is not. In a completely balanced situation we would not be capable of existance. For where there are no forces or affects of any kind nothing exists that is of significance, for there is no effect upon anything.

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 11:16 PM

You continually make the assumption that one can exist when all things are balanced. You continually do not notice that when a situation is balanced it must be different than one that is not. In a completely balanced situation we would not be capable of existance. For where there are no forces or affects of any kind nothing exists that is of significance, for there is no effect.
That is either total garbage or a restatement of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. I vote for garbage.

Pick a box:
:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

There are three boxes. You know nothing about what each one might contain. Nothing at all. You have no way of distinguishing possible outcomes. Your knowledge of each box is zero, so the situation is in perfect balance.

Yet people - I won't speak for you, but normal people - are perfectly capable of choosing one of the boxes.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 11:26 PM

Your theory is wrong, the "facts" from which you derive it are wrong, and the things you propose to explain with it don't exist. So what's the point?
The point is that none of the things you said were true. Surely you will not believe that paranormal things are possible by me simply saying so. Infact I would be dissapointed in you if did. My theory's purpose is not soley to prove paranormal. True that the paranormal would exist if my theory is correct but one could prove I am right without the need to prove the supernatural.
And by the way, the theory proves it possible but not practical. For all intents and purposes the theory does not support the countless numbers of those who believe they are supernatural. It merely shows that one can not that one does. Personally I have seen many who believe they can do things but they are convinced by themselves and others that they can do something, they are never convinced purely by what they can do. It is wishful thnking on most peoples part.
Personally I believe that power comes only from great wisdom. There is perhaps only one thing that gives power to the foolish and that is technology. Many are allowed to use the power gained from the wisdom of others.

TheGuyThat

27th January 2006, 11:30 PM

That is either total garbage or a restatement of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. I vote for garbage.

Pick a box:
:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

There are three boxes. You know nothing about what each one might contain. Nothing at all. You have no way of distinguishing possible outcomes. Your knowledge of each box is zero, so the situation is in perfect balance.

Yet people - I won't speak for you, but normal people - are perfectly capable of choosing one of the boxes.
Yes!!!!
but you know of the advantage in the actions you can choose from. Whether you move this way or that way, or have superstitions or you convince yourself of the choice you still find an option you prefer.

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 11:36 PM

but you know of the advantage in the actions you can choose from.
No you don't. You don't know anything about what might be in the boxes. Nothing at all.

Whether you move this way or that way, or have superstitions or you convince yourself of the choice you still find an option you prefer.
Your knowledge of the situation is zero, so it's in perfect balance. If you can "convince yourself of the choice" then what you said before about not being able to choose when a situation is in perfect balance is wrong. You've contradicted yourself.

Pick a box:
:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

I'm serious. Pick one of the boxes.

PixyMisa

27th January 2006, 11:52 PM

And by the way, the theory proves it possible but not practical.
No. Your theory doesn't prove anything at all.

For all intents and purposes the theory does not support the countless numbers of those who believe they are supernatural. It merely shows that one can not that one does. Personally I have seen many who believe they can do things but they are convinced by themselves and others that they can do something, they are never convinced purely by what they can do. It is wishful thnking on most peoples part.
Yes. Wishful thinking is what it is.

Personally I believe that power comes only from great wisdom.
Why do you believe that? What evidence is there that any power comes from wisdom at all?

There is perhaps only one thing that gives power to the foolish and that is technology. Many are allowed to use the power gained from the wisdom of others.
That's because technology actually works. In fact, technology can be defined as what works, so the whole thing is tautological again.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 12:47 AM

No you don't. You don't know anything about what might be in the boxes. Nothing at all.

Your knowledge of the situation is zero, so it's in perfect balance. If you can "convince yourself of the choice" then what you said before about not being able to choose when a situation is in perfect balance is wrong. You've contradicted yourself.

Pick a box:
:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

I'm serious. Pick one of the boxes.
If your knowledge is zero you will not make a choice regarding the boxes for you do not know them to exist. You continue to misinterpret me. You estimate the value of your action, it has nothing to do with the boxes. Even though you have no knowledge of the boxes you have knowledge of the room you are in and the situation regarding you being asked to choose. You always have knowledge to choose from, cant you see what I mean.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 12:51 AM

No you don't. You don't know anything about what might be in the boxes. Nothing at all.

Your knowledge of the situation is zero, so it's in perfect balance. If you can "convince yourself of the choice" then what you said before about not being able to choose when a situation is in perfect balance is wrong. You've contradicted yourself.

Pick a box:
:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

I'm serious. Pick one of the boxes.
I have not contradicted myself. I have purposely given you perspective to my claim. You in your stuborn belief that you know what I am talking about more than I do have confused yourself. I am speaking of the same thing, there is no contradiction. You think I contradict myself only because you do not see what I am saying .

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 12:54 AM

If your knowledge is zero you will not make a choice regarding the boxes for you do not know them to exist. Your knowledge of what is in the boxes is zero, so the situation is perfectly balanced.

You continue to misinterpret me. You estimate the value of your action, it has nothing to do with the boxes. No you don't. You simply choose.

Even though you have no knowledge of the boxes you have knowledge of the room you are in and the situation regarding you being asked to choose. As I said, you have no knowledge at all about the situation you are actually making your decision on. None. Zip. Zero. That you have knowledge of other situations is irrelevant.

You always have knowledge to choose from, cant you see what I mean. No you don't. You know nothing whatsoever of what is in the boxes, or of what the outcome may be. Nothing. Perfect balance.

And yet, you can choose. Or I can.

If you are simply defining "perfect balance" to mean "non-existent", then we can ignore your entire argument, because you yourself are saying that it only applies to situations that never happen.

So which is it?

Oh, and,

Pick a box:

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 12:54 AM

Why do you believe that? What evidence is there that any power comes from wisdom at all?

When your leg is numb and you are not wise or knowledgeable to its state you find it hard to move or be coordinated. When you regain feeling and are aware of the leg you regain control.
Awareness of a situation gives you the ability to understand how to change it. This is what wisdom does and this is why knowledge is power.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 12:58 AM

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 01:01 AM

I have not contradicted myself. I have purposely given you perspective to my claim. You in your stuborn belief that you know what I am talking about more than I do have confused yourself.
No, I don't think so.

The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, then you would be able to write a coherent explanation of it, which is something you have not done in all your 82 posts.

What I am doing is forcing you to nail down exactly what you mean. Kind of like nailing jelly to a tree, but whatever.

I am speaking of the same thing, there is no contradiction. You think I contradict myself only because you do not see what I am saying.
So, what are you saying?

And pick a box:

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 01:03 AM

When your leg is numb and you are not wise or knowledgeable to its state you find it hard to move or be coordinated. When you regain feeling and are aware of the leg you regain control.
Awareness of a situation gives you the ability to understand how to change it. This is what wisdom does and this is why knowledge is power.
That's not wisdom, that's sensory perception.

"Knowledge is power" is metaphorical. It means that knowledge can be applied to real-world situations, something everyone knows. It doesn't mean that knowledge allows you to accomplish things that others cannot.

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 01:09 AM

Pixymisa

I never said you needed knowledge of the boxes. I challenge you to find where I said anything that mislead you to that belief. Honestly if you cannot see that you are talking about a completely different thing than me then...there is no hope of you understanding what I am saying

You said this:

The brain restricts information regarding a certain situation. The consequence is that the situation becomes imbalanced in the eyes of the creature. One option becomes more desirable than the other because of the imbalanced perception. Thus one chooses the action more desirable because the scales have been tipped.

Then you said this:

If someone understood the balance of a situation they would do nothing and would not mate, thus making it impossible to have evolved. Every creature on this earth has evolved to be confused so that it could mate and find food etc.

You have contradicted yourself.

Which is it?

Do you need knowledge of the situation, or not? Was everything you said earlier meaningless drivel?

If you have no knowledge of the contents of the boxes, it follows that your knowledge of the situation is in perfect balance. You claim that this would result in no choice. This is not what happens.

Therefore you are wrong.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 01:18 AM

No, I don't think so.

The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. If you did, then you would be able to write a coherent explanation of it, which is something you have not done in all your 82 posts.

What I am doing is forcing you to nail down exactly what you mean. Kind of like nailing jelly to a tree, but whatever.

So, what are you saying?

And pick a box:

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:

No matter what, in any situation there are factors influencing your desire to do certain actions. Such is the nature of a situation. If you have no information on the boxes and are told to pic one this does not affect which one you will pick. What will influence what you pick will be dependent on your life experience. Your life and all you have experienced will make you choose your choice of the boxes. You will not pick a box if it does not feel appropriate to do so. You will produce a perception of the situation and you will choose an option you feel is the most beneficial to your beliefs.
Now if you find that you have nothing in your past that will make you prefer an option you will turn your attention away from the choice of the boxes and go to something else like what movement is more desirable to select a choice. Will I move to the closest or to the furthest.
No matter how complex or simple the situation becomes you will always prefer an option. Isn't that just common sense? A person will pick an option because they prefer it, it doesnt matter what that reason is, it can be something as trivial as the wind pushed my arm a little. One will always, always have more forces and influences making them choose one option over the other. It is a very simple point, infact almost blindingly obvious, it is even near taughtological. It has to be that way. The only thing you can argue against is my use of language.

The left one

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 01:34 AM

No matter what, in any situation there are factors influencing your desire to do certain actions. Such is the nature of a situation.
No.

If you have no information on the boxes and are told to pic one this does not affect which one you will pick.
Right.

What will influence what you pick will be dependent on your life experience.
No.

Your life and all you have experienced will make you choose your choice of the boxes.
No.

You will not pick a box if it does not feel appropriate to do so.
No.

You will produce a perception of the situation and you will choose an option you feel is the most beneficial to your beliefs.
No.

You do not have any information about the boxes, so it is impossible to "choose an option you feel is the most beneficial to your beliefs".

All this is, is post-hoc rationalisation. We choose. We know we make choices. To say that the choice is driven by "your life and all you have experienced" is worthless, because this is true no matter which box is chosen, even if the box is chosen by tossing a coin or rolling dice. It doesn't tell us anything at all.

Now if you find that you have nothing in your past that will make you prefer an option you will turn your attention away from the choice of the boxes and go to something else like what movement is more desirable to select a choice.
You know nothing of what is in any of the boxes. So nothing in the past makes any of them preferable to any of the others.

Will I move to the closest or to the furthest.
They are on the computer screen, so they are equidistant.

No matter how complex or simple the situation becomes you will always prefer an option.
No.

Isn't that just common sense?
No.

A person will pick an option because they prefer it, it doesnt matter what that reason is, it can be something as trivial as the wind pushed my arm a little.
That doesn't mean they preferred it.

One will always, always have more forces and influences making them choose one option over the other. It is a very simple point, infact almost blindingly obvious, it is even near taughtological. It has to be that way. The only thing you can argue against is my use of language.
As I said, the best you can say about it is that it is a post-hoc rationalisation. The person makes a choice, and only then, after the choice is made, do you say that the box they chose is the one they preferred.

But this is not what you said. If it is what you meant, then it is pointless; it tells us nothing about either the world we live in or your views of it.

And more than that, it contradicts your earlier statements, or at least renders them equally meaningless:

If someone understood the balance of a situation they would do nothing and would not mate, thus making it impossible to have evolved. Every creature on this earth has evolved to be confused so that it could mate and find food etc.
This is clearly nonsense. We can understand the balance of a situation and still make choices, as you have said here. There is no need to have "evolve confused"; we make choices no matter what.

Here's the thing: You have, finally, stated what you meant with some degree of clarity, but only because I have pushed you for three days. And after those three days, we find that all you are saying is that choices are choices, which you admit is tautological.

The point is, your entire "theory" is like this, either meaningless, pointless, or false-to-fact. Shall we deconstruct the next part?

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 01:51 AM

You do have information about the boxes!!!!
There is one to the left, one in the middle and one to the right. They all look the same.
See you have information on the boxes.
Now you base your descision off which one you prefer to pick.
I picked the one to the left because I read left to right and felt like picking the first I noticed.

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 02:01 AM

You do have information about the boxes!!!!
There is one to the left, one in the middle and one to the right. They all look the same.
See you have information on the boxes.
This is information that cannot be used to judge the situation. That's the point. You made a choice, even though you are completely unable to evaluate which choice is preferable.

Now you base your descision off which one you prefer to pick.
No.

I picked the one to the left because I read left to right and felt like picking the first I noticed.
Fine.

The box was intended for Washington Zoo but somehow got misrouted to JREF. It contains live specimens of every species of venomous snake in Australia. Irritated at finding themselves in Florida, they all bite you. You become famous as the first person in history to die of instantaneous total coagulation.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 03:03 AM

This is information that cannot be used to judge the situation. That's the point. You made a choice, even though you are completely unable to evaluate which choice is preferable.
It is very clear that you will not get my point. You are being incredibly pedantic and are in no way attempting to understand anything I say. Anything can be disputed. Even that statement. The reason it is hard to explain is because I made a statement that was about something that must happen. If I explain it I am just being taughtological. A flower is a flower.
You are still just skewing off on tangents from my words instead of seeing the one point I put across. I really don't want to discuss it any further. Either display your point or retire, I don't care. If you can't see how one makes a choice about a box then I pity you. Although I will withold my pity for I do not believe you are unable to see what I am saying just unwilling.
Well it really doesn't matter anyways dude so lets discuss something else instead of rambling on like two madmen.

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 03:29 AM

It is very clear that you will not get my point. You are being incredibly pedantic and are in no way attempting to understand anything I say. Anything can be disputed. Even that statement. The reason it is hard to explain is because I made a statement that was about something that must happen.
No.

You made a statement about something that did happen. The choice is made; you are then making a post-facto rationalisation about the reasons for the choice.

You are still just skewing off on tangents from my words instead of seeing the one point I put across.
No, I am addressing what you actually wrote. If what you wrote doesn't represent your point, that's not my problem.

I really don't want to discuss it any further.
You could hardly discuss it less.

Either display your point or retire, I don't care. If you can't see how one makes a choice about a box then I pity you.
You were the one who made the claim that the choice could not be made. You seem to have abandoned that claim. I can accept that.

Although I will withold my pity for I do not believe you are unable to see what I am saying just unwilling.
I understand what you are saying. As I pointed out, you have either contradicted your own statements, or as you say, revised them into meaningless platitudes.

Well it really doesn't matter anyways dude so lets discuss something else instead of rambling on like two madmen.
You do realise that I am not going to let you get away with nonsense on any other point either, right?

Kiless

28th January 2006, 08:55 AM

No that would not be a possible test. Where would you get people who could show true emotions like being sad instead of acting? You could perhaps find some severely depressive people whose natural condition is sadness, but normal people would also be able to spot the difference from depressed people and actors without paranormal abilities.

Great point! :) Thanks for helping clarify, I'd like to get better in thinking about how to test a claim. I'd also like to see if something could be put together as a test, but clearly this will need some work and I would urge TheGuyWho to reflect further upon it.

I guess I'm just interested in Australians giving the challenge a go...

But after reading this response by TheGuyWho...

It is disappointing that you assume a lack of understanding on my part. If you were to assume understanding on my part you would see that my theory does not conflict with theirs. For this you must either believe me or not. I am telling you that there is absolutely no conflict. My theory simply joins their dots....... Assume I am correct, so that you may follow down my path of thought and add your knowledge. The only option is to emerge with a superior understanding than you had before....

I'm not confident that this will be the case... :(

Damn.

PixyMisa

28th January 2006, 05:35 PM

Yes. It seems that everything in ThatGuy's claims boils down to empathy and imagination, with nothing that can actually be tested. It's just that empathy and imagination are magical. :confused:

Mercutio

28th January 2006, 06:52 PM

A lot of stuff here. I will try to limit my comments...

It is disappointing that you assume a lack of understanding on my part. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion, based on what you have said here.
If you were to assume understanding on my part you would see that my theory does not conflict with theirs. For this you must either believe me or not.
I am telling you that there is absolutely no conflict. My theory simply joins their dots. It is understandable that you do not believe that, and it would be near unbelievable if you understood it, but I do think when one wishes to learn they must have faith in the other and listen. Assume I am correct, so that you may follow down my path of thought and add your knowledge. The only option is to emerge with a superior understanding than you had before. Certainly I may be wrong but "wisdom can be found even in the words of a fool". I will freely admit that I am certain of nothing and do not know but I have been of your point of view before.
To me it was very clear that the theories on how the mind works brought forth by the very intelligent scientists researching this subject were incomplete and fragmented. Surely you must admit that they as of yet know little about the mind and that they are only scratching the surface.Um...these past two sentences are enough to know that you did not understand.

First in science a subject is complicated but it is always simplified as you tie things together. This is what my theory is based on, the theories and evidence brought forth by researchers. It is in my opinion a way of saying all they say with one principle instead of a fractured system. I must admit it would be hard to see the correlation and I do not ask you to assume it to be there but I do ask that you do not assume it not to be there.
I hope that makes senseI understand what you are saying. I also understand that you do not understand the videos. I wish it were otherwise.

Sure I do not share their same conclusions, but nor do they.???

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 08:04 PM

[QUOTE=PixyMisa;1409121]This is information that cannot be used to judge the situation. That's the point. You made a choice, even though you are completely unable to evaluate which choice is preferable.
[QUOTE]
This is why I say you are not listening. For several posts I have been trying to illustrate that all information one has allows them to make a choice of the situation. If a person knows nothing of what is in the box then they will use other information. I certainly would not abandon my point, but I would agree that the point you percieve to be mine is incorrect.
A choice is made upon all the information one is aware of.

Sorry for my previous posts, but it was my attempt to stop what happens often in threads. When two start going on about one point forever it does not allow others to put across fresh ideas on the real topic. Typing is a very fragile medium for communication and is often misinterpreted, this is what I know has happened. There is no fault on your part and there is nothing wrong with your point.
For some reason...I have a feeling that you will deny this aswell. ;)

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 08:18 PM

I understand what you are saying. I also understand that you do not understand the videos. I wish it were otherwise.
???
And how are you so certain of my comprehension of these videos. You say they contradict what I say, but they have not in my opinion. Show me an example so that we may be clear.

Wheezebucket

28th January 2006, 09:26 PM

It is very clear that you will not get my point. You are being incredibly pedantic and are in no way attempting to understand anything I say. Anything can be disputed. Even that statement. The reason it is hard to explain is because I made a statement that was about something that must happen. If I explain it I am just being taughtological. A flower is a flower.
You are still just skewing off on tangents from my words instead of seeing the one point I put across. I really don't want to discuss it any further. Either display your point or retire, I don't care. If you can't see how one makes a choice about a box then I pity you. Although I will withold my pity for I do not believe you are unable to see what I am saying just unwilling.
Well it really doesn't matter anyways dude so lets discuss something else instead of rambling on like two madmen.

It seems to me like Pixy is the one making points, not you. I don't want to sound like a jerk, and I'm no scientist, but I have NO idea what you're talking about and I've read this entire thread twice over. It seems like you got some ideas from some things that you read and then immediately jumped to believing them and expanding on them without evidence. Here's what your position looks like to me -

"I read something, thought of something else, and decided that the something else was also true. Now I've just gotta figure out the evidence for it to make it work."

Again, I'm no scientist, but I don't think it works like that. Maybe you should go back to step one and go through all of the evidence parts first. Though I should warn you, in doing so you may just discover that your original theory was the result of crazy pills.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 11:08 PM

It seems to me like Pixy is the one making points, not you. I don't want to sound like a jerk, and I'm no scientist, but I have NO idea what you're talking about and I've read this entire thread twice over. It seems like you got some ideas from some things that you read and then immediately jumped to believing them and expanding on them without evidence. Here's what your position looks like to me -

"I read something, thought of something else, and decided that the something else was also true. Now I've just gotta figure out the evidence for it to make it work."

Again, I'm no scientist, but I don't think it works like that. Maybe you should go back to step one and go through all of the evidence parts first. Though I should warn you, in doing so you may just discover that your original theory was the result of crazy pills.

Thanks for your honesty.
Really that is not what has happened. I figured this out over 2 years of study. Alot of time went into understanding this stuff. It is hard to explain in a way that makes sense because it is too simple to describe. I personally didnt believe it and constantly tried to disprove it but I couldnt. Nowadays it has replaced my previous point of view which was that of mainstream science. I don't mean to try to convince anyone at all, I only meant to see if anyone had heard of this before and what they thought of it. Dissapointingly for me I could not get it across clearly enough. I have anwsers for every question about it because I understand it completely. I fail to see why so many view me as a quack on this forum where in reality speaking about it to lecturers and people with majors in science produces good results. Its probably because I have not re read the thread that my point may seem scattered, but I assure you they all make the same point. I merely attempt to come at it from different angles.

TheGuyThat

28th January 2006, 11:29 PM

Mostly all my responses are an attempt to resolve peoples assumtions of what I mean. I must thank all of you for your input. Each of your input allows me to see where I have insufficiencies in my explanation and allows me to better explain it in written word in the future. I look forward to even more of your comments.

PixyMisa

29th January 2006, 01:00 AM

This is why I say you are not listening. For several posts I have been trying to illustrate that all information one has allows them to make a choice of the situation. If a person knows nothing of what is in the box then they will use other information. I certainly would not abandon my point, but I would agree that the point you percieve to be mine is incorrect.
The point I perceive to be yours is the one you actually posted, which was utter nonsense.

The point you are making now is effectively null; it doesn't say anything about anything. It is, at best, tautological, which is what you said yourself.

A choice is made upon all the information one is aware of.
No, that's not true either.

PixyMisa

29th January 2006, 01:08 AM

Dissapointingly for me I could not get it across clearly enough. I have anwsers for every question about it because I understand it completely. I fail to see why so many view me as a quack on this forum where in reality speaking about it to lecturers and people with majors in science produces good results.
That's because your explanation of what you think is incoherent nonsense. As far as we can tell, your theory is incoherent nonsense too. But it might just be your explanation. We can't tell. And this is a skeptic forum. We are very much anti-nonsense. Lecturers and people with majors in science aren't necessarily skeptics, and can be drawn into nonsense as much as anyone else.

That's why I've spent so much time addressing what you actually posted. We all looked at it, and came to the conclusion that it was meaningless. So I have tried to get you to clarify some of it, any of it, by pointing out exactly where and why it is wrong, confused, or as I said, nonsensical.

You certainly can write clearly when you choose, but your initial post was anything but clear. Pick one point, and explain what you actually mean by it.

Oh and no, you cannot read the mind of a helicopter. They don't have minds. Whatever it is you are doing, or think you are doing, it is not what anyone else on the planet would call "mind reading". So again, you completely fail to communicate with your audience.

TheGuyThat

29th January 2006, 04:46 AM

The point I perceive to be yours is the one you actually posted, which was utter nonsense.

The point you are making now is effectively null; it doesn't say anything about anything. It is, at best, tautological, which is what you said yourself.

No, that's not true either.

Yeah, its taughtological cuz i stated a point that was true by definition to allow you to follow my thoughts. Then you denied it and said no. So I tryed to explain it to you and you still said no. I see a pattern here.
With the helicopter and brick wall thing, you can become aware of them in just the same manner as people. All that is necessary to read someones mind is become aware of their thoughts. It doesn't matter how you do it.
You just have to learn how to broaden your focus, which is what you do when inspired or on the brink of discovery. I realise you will deny this but eh.

Mercutio

29th January 2006, 07:18 AM

And how are you so certain of my comprehension of these videos. You say they contradict what I say, but they have not in my opinion. Show me an example so that we may be clear.
Just as two examples, the behaviorist whose name I don't recall spoke on "consciousness is nothing but a word", and Susan Blackmore's conclusion that consciousness is an illusion both directly contradict any claims of "how the mind works" that you have made. With no common ground. And they are the ones citing evidence, not you. Note also that the other speakers agreed with them (although they sometimes spoke of mind metaphorically in their brain studies).

Either you did not understand them, or you are misstating your own position.

Kiless

29th January 2006, 07:57 AM

TheGuyThat

29th January 2006, 08:55 AM

:dolphin: ....I'm getting deja vu.

I can't really contribute to this as the third video from the skeptics site didn't work for me (I'll try again next weekend when I have some more time) - but in regards to 'TheGuyWho': I hope you consider working on a challenge in the future? All the best.
I might, but first I must consider all the pros and cons and work out whether I am willing to do what it takes to do this challenge. It is certainly an option I am considering but not something I would choose to do lightly. I proved it to one person when I was discovering this stuff but after I discovered it I found it had no use. It is actually quite ironic, when you are little or in high school you might fantasize that you know someones thoughts so that you could have power over them etc but to have that power you must understand that person and in doing so you remove your desire to use it against them. I found that pretty funny a while back. What buddhist monks and that say is right, powers are of no use they are merely a side effect of understanding the world.

Wheezebucket

29th January 2006, 02:49 PM

Wait...you proved it to one person by accident with information you had no use for, but to try and prove it here with the right info to us would be too difficult? Honestly, I may have just read it wrong, but I wanted to be sure.

PixyMisa

29th January 2006, 03:57 PM

It is actually quite ironic, when you are little or in high school you might fantasize that you know someones thoughts so that you could have power over them etc but to have that power you must understand that person and in doing so you remove your desire to use it against them. I found that pretty funny a while back. What buddhist monks and that say is right, powers are of no use they are merely a side effect of understanding the world.
EVERYONE CAN DO THIS. There is nothing unusual about it. This capability is built into our brains.

The better you know someone, the better you can judge how they are feeling, the better you can predict their thoughts and actions. And yes, understanding someone gives you a certain power over them.

But it's not mind reading, not in the sense that the rest of the world uses that expression. It's empathy; it's imagination. It's what every human being - and many of the smarter animals - do every day.

Almo

29th January 2006, 04:18 PM

Yes, but you determinee which one you want to choose. There does not actually have to be value one has to percieve more value. Even if its value is I don't have to move as much or a superstition that the minesweeper on the right has never failed me. What I was saying had nothing to with what you are going on about. I said that one finds an option of greater value and chooses it. I did not mean to imply that the value is real but rather percieved.

Sorry dude. When I reach that point in Minesweeper, I just pick randomly. There's no value judgement, since I'm a programmer and know that there's no real way to know where to go. Each choice is a good as the other. I want to finish the game, and I might guess correctly. So I just pick one. The choice of which to pick is not based on any information. I just hope I win.

Almo

29th January 2006, 04:20 PM

EVERYONE CAN DO THIS. There is nothing unusual about it. This capability is built into our brains.

The better you know someone, the better you can judge how they are feeling, the better you can predict their thoughts and actions. And yes, understanding someone gives you a certain power over them.

But it's not mind reading, not in the sense that the rest of the world uses that expression. It's empathy; it's imagination. It's what every human being - and many of the smarter animals - do every day.

Yeah. I have an uncanny ability to know what Trena is thinking. We've been together since 1992, so we've leaned each other's signals rather well. I would never claim it to be more than reading body language, vocal cues, etc.

TheGuyThat

29th January 2006, 08:45 PM

Yeah. I have an uncanny ability to know what Trena is thinking. We've been together since 1992, so we've leaned each other's signals rather well. I would never claim it to be more than reading body language, vocal cues, etc.
What I mean to say is that when you become aware of their movements you understand the causation and thus understand their thoughts just like you and your gf except even more accurate. Everything is rythmical because their is a reason behind every movement, its like a dance. When you don't know whats going on it is chaotic but once you are aware of their movements it is rythmical and you can understand the cause and effect. If your focus encompasses the whole body you understand their rythm and know exactly what they will do and what they are thinking. When I say that, I mean that you feel what they feel in their body and then you feel their personality and then you experience their thoughts. It is quite different to as you would do with someone you know. It makes women unattractive because you can no longer see what makes them sexy. It makes you see that they are like you, it makes you see that they have their reasons for doing things it makes you see that they are you and it makes me realise that I live a lie. The people I know are not who I think them to be, it is quite disturbing and for that reason I don't like to read people for it makes this world very lonely. Because of the nature of how I do read minds I cant just quickly remove it, it continues on until I regain judgement and bias and that has taken me several months. It is a very serious thing that I do not take lightly.
When you understand someone almost completely you know what you can do to control them. It is quite daunting to know that you can control someone utterly and I personally do not want to take on that resposibility, I have in the past but I am not ready for that sort of thing. I am not sure whether I will do the challenge or not because I must find a way that I am wiling to do something to prove the paranormal. I am thinking about it.

PixyMisa

29th January 2006, 10:29 PM

What I mean to say is that when you become aware of their movements you understand the causation and thus understand their thoughts just like you and your gf except even more accurate. Everything is rythmical because their is a reason behind every movement, its like a dance. When you don't know whats going on it is chaotic but once you are aware of their movements it is rythmical and you can understand the cause and effect. If your focus encompasses the whole body you understand their rythm and know exactly what they will do and what they are thinking. When I say that, I mean that you feel what they feel in their body and then you feel their personality and then you experience their thoughts. It is quite different to as you would do with someone you know. It makes women unattractive because you can no longer see what makes them sexy.
:confused:

It makes you see that they are like you, it makes you see that they have their reasons for doing things it makes you see that they are you and it makes me realise that I live a lie. The people I know are not who I think them to be, it is quite disturbing and for that reason I don't like to read people for it makes this world very lonely. Because of the nature of how I do read minds I cant just quickly remove it, it continues on until I regain judgement and bias and that has taken me several months. It is a very serious thing that I do not take lightly.
When you understand someone almost completely you know what you can do to control them. It is quite daunting to know that you can control someone utterly and I personally do not want to take on that resposibility, I have in the past but I am not ready for that sort of thing. I am not sure whether I will do the challenge or not because I must find a way that I am wiling to do something to prove the paranormal. I am thinking about it.
Except for two things - the "no longer sexy" part and the "control someone utterly" part, this is simply the nature of relationships between human beings.

The "no longer sexy" statement is a matter of personal feelings, and certainly doesn't apply universally.

The "control someone utterly" part is simply untrue. Try it. You can't do it. Knowing someone well allows you to influence them, yes, but that's all.

TheGuyThat

29th January 2006, 11:50 PM

:confused:

Except for two things - the "no longer sexy" part and the "control someone utterly" part, this is simply the nature of relationships between human beings.

The "no longer sexy" statement is a matter of personal feelings, and certainly doesn't apply universally.

The "control someone utterly" part is simply untrue. Try it. You can't do it. Knowing someone well allows you to influence them, yes, but that's all.
To control someone you make them want to do what you want them to do this is the only way. Everyone does it to some degree but you can gain almost complete control. If you are aware of the situation you can change it.

PixyMisa

30th January 2006, 12:02 AM

To control someone you make them want to do what you want them to do this is the only way. Everyone does it to some degree but you can gain almost complete control. If you are aware of the situation you can change it.
There are people who are particularly charismatic or persuasive, and there are people who are particularly easily charmed or persuaded. And there are ways to get people to do things they would not normally do.

And none of this is supernatural in any way whatsoever. It's just normal people doing normal people stuff.

TheGuyThat

30th January 2006, 12:33 AM

There are people who are particularly charismatic or persuasive, and there are people who are particularly easily charmed or persuaded. And there are ways to get people to do things they would not normally do.

And none of this is supernatural in any way whatsoever. It's just normal people doing normal people stuff.
That is my point, nothing is supernatural or even that far from what we do now. These skills are dependant upon how someone sees the world and what they are aware of, great masters get powers because they are changing themselves and their perceptions. The masters are not as different from you or me as so many believe, they really don't achieve a huge amount except a mastering of themselves. I was very suprised when I could do these things and thought it was funny that everyone thought up wild theories to explain them and were far off. In the martial art of aikido there is a thing called unbendable arm, everyone that does this explains it with Ki and regards it as a mystical ability when really it is a thing of biomechanics. I can do it better than anyone I have met and people say I have unbelievably strong Ki (I can stop say 5 men trying to bend my arm) but it is from biomechanics that it happens. Ki is a way of saying energy or feeling, if you understand the biomechanics through your sensitivity you can do things like this, it is nothing mystical but it does remain a mystery to almost all.
I guess one could do a test on that to cuz it is considered supernatural, except i just explained to you that it is biomechanical. I could explain it in person in a couple of minutes it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
A skill is gained through an awareness of the factors involved. There are no need for other planes etc to do supernatural things it is a matter of simple causation.