On Jul 11, 2:08Â am, "Tim"
q.con> wrote:>
gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:859f01de-f4b1-4b92-b294-644d86a46145@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 10, 7:01 pm, "Tim" q.con> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> "Tim"
q.con> wrote in message news:...>
>>>>>A very interesting programme started of Aus TV last night, where seven
>>>>> psychics are put through their paces, where a membmer of the Aus
>>>>> sceptics, and a npwn psychic sit in judgement.
>
>>>>> The first one involved a child being hidden in dense bush, whee each
>>>>> oner in turn was given 15 minutes to locate.
>
>>>>> There was a y shaped track, and the child was hidden so it could not
>>>>> be seen from the track. Actual contact had to be made.To make it more
>>>>> interesting, a tracking device was screened, showing the location and
>>>>> the movement of the subject.
>
>>>>> One made it in a couple of minutes, one in about forteen, one was 30
>>>>> seconds away, and dead on track, two were also dead ontrack but
>>>>> missed
>>>>> by a few minutes, and two were totally off track.
>
>>>>> The sceptic was asked about the first one. "Just lucky" was the
>>>>> reply.
>>>>> The face of the other judge spoke volumes with her big wide grin.
>
>>>>> Should be an interesting series.
>
>>>>> My prediction has already started accurately. There is no way on
>>>>> "lifes" earth, that the sceptic will admit even slightly, that there
>>>>> is any validity to. To a neutral, he looked like a dogmatised
>>>>> believer. (Belief of disbelief are two sides of the same coin)
>
>>> But don't you then also predict that there is no way a believer will
>>> accept
>>> the fact that so often these psychics fail. They simply argue that
>>> telluric
>>> currents were out of phase or some other nonesense.
>
>> Of course not. Ask a person who has used a psychic to solve a crime.
>> Just because one didnt doesnt mean the other wont, as often
>> happens.There are many police authorities that use such people, but
>> are reluctant to talk of the subject. Again, perfectly understandable.
>
>> Ever heard of writers block? Does that mean th guy is a phoney?
>
>> I see many examples of "one way valves", where the sceptic will not
>> accept for reasons I mentioned, as in the example of this programme
>> (so far).
>
>> BOfL
>
>> -----
>
>> I didn't see the program, but it seems more likely to me that those who
>> found the child merely stumbled upon him/her. How could you prove that
>> they
>> used psychic sense and not just plain old eye-sight and trial & error.
>
> To do so in this example, (as did the sceptic judge) is to deny the
> evidence of your own eyes. People do, naturally, for reasons I pointed
> out.
>
>
>
> What evidence? Yesterday I found a pen I misplaced several days ago - can I
> conclude that I'm psychic? Problem is there is no objective evidence to show
> that psychic powers located the child as opposed to the regular senses.
Of course not. Objective evidence is just a collaboration of temporary
viewpoints.
Wayne Dyer wrote a book many years ago called "Real Magic" which talks
of how he came from the position of "Ill believe it when I see it" to
"Ill see it when I believe it". That is at least a step regarding
beliefs and their role in the 'group consciousness'.
Problem for most, is letting go of 'one' belief, actually undermines
their whole belief structure. One 'bad priest', and the whole faith
takes a hammering.
> Don't tell me that a big grin on the other judges face proves anything.
> Instead tell how you can distinguish psychic powers from the regular senses.
What would constitute proof for you, and are you really enthusiatic to
find out?
>
>> Ever heard of permanent writers block, ie someone who has never wriiten a
>> book etc, claims to be a writer, but has writers block.
>
> No, but I havent ever come across a dyed in the wool sceptic who would
> not claim that, in spite of the hard evidence of the auther.
> ---------
> That's the problem,"the author" has no evidence to show he/she's an author;
> they've never written a book.
What about the book or books? How do you know it was really them?
Would it have been them if they wrote it under a hypnotic trance?
> It's like me claiming to be an artist when I can't draw a straight line nor
> trace a figure let alone draw one free hand. When questioned I say: listen
> I'm really a great artist capable of great works of art, unfortuneately I've
> suffered all my life from artists block, so I can't show you how good I am
> because I've never created any art.
Thats not artists block, thats self delusion.
> ----------
>
> Sceptisicm is healthy. It is actually a 'bar' against second hand
> information. Problem is, one has to lift the bar to gain first hand
> knowledge, which is a real threat to a persons comfort zone.
>
> BOfL
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
