|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Millard123 Regular user Millard Longman 174 Posts 
|
The major reason that I read this forum is to read the comments (pro and con) about psychic stuff. I truly appreciate the thoughts of everyone that takes the risk of sharing with us. Christopher Carter, Bamba, Darmoe (hi Craig, good to read your words again), and especially skeptics like Bill who actually think about what they are saying, and all you others that I did not name here, stimulate my own mind to explore areas that I would not have thought of on my own.
My goal is to improve my own understanding of my own mind and I must risk exposing some of my thoughts in order to do that. I am grateful that most of the people on this forum respond in a way that helps me achieve my goal. My clients, whose lives I touch in a very intimate and lasting way, are grateful also. Thanks to you all. Millard Longman http://www.psychic-skills.com |
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
I am way too tired to write anything too clever right now.
But I will say this: Bill, I'm sorry my message was unclear in that it, upon my rereading it and considering the context it was in, seems very much like everything in it is directed solely at you. This constitutes an apology in the off chance anything I said offended you. From your reply I would say it doesn't feel that way, but I would like to apologise anyway. I believe this is an important issue for a mentalist forum, and was for the most part trying to contribute in a general way. Although, from skimming your answer, I am pleased to say we will have a great time discussing this now I understand your viewpoint better. I will clarify everything that came out hasty tomorrow. Now, it is bedtime in Scandinavia. take care y'all /bamba who is a bit older than the picture but why not use the best picture available? |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
My belief is that science is only a part of the picture. I read somewhere that reality is like a dozen blind men all trying to describe an elephant. One would say an elephant is just a piece of rope while feeling the tail, others would say it was like a solid wall, while others would describ the trunk tusks or whatever....
Even scientists disagree on what proves what .. A number of years ago there was a Horizon program on TV here in the Uk. The program attempted to explian some of the new scientific discoveries made in quantum physics. One of the topics was how the observer creates the reality. To illustrate this they had a well known skeptic scientist conduct a controlled experiment on esp or Pk (not quite sure it while ago wished I'd taped it). As expected this scientist "proved" that the ESP or Pk didn't exist. However they also repeated the experiment with another scientist who beleived that such things do exist. The experiments were exactly the same controlled environment and conditions. However the results were dramatically different. The second set of experiments suggested that there may be something in the possibilty of ESP. The evidence was strong enough for the first skeptic scientist to admit on TV that indeed the results "proved" that ESP may exist. I really wish I had taped this program so I could go more into detail it was some time ago. But the intersting thing is not whether ESP exists or not. But that peoples beliefs and expectations have an influence on reality. |
|||||||||
|
Darmoe Special user Ohio 741 Posts
|
I recall a similar Tv "documentary" type thing in which a group of UK Researchers were out to disprove Astrology and to their chigrin, once everything was compiled and reviewed and weighed, their research proved a validity vs. the point they were trying to make...
"I firmly believe that of all the Arts and Crafts of Mentalism, there is nothing more satisfying than one who is a first-class Reader. It is the ultimate in Mentalism..." - Tony Corinda * 13 Steps To Mentalism
|
|||||||||
|
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts
|
Polly Birdsell, the owner of a magic shop in Cailfornia, did a masters thesis on the opinions of magicians and ESP. In polling a group of magicians, she found that 82% of them believed in ESP.
Not sure how many she polled or if it was just in California, but I find that number a little high. |
|||||||||
|
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts
|
I would have to agree that 82 percent sounds, high for the magic community in general. But I'm only basing my judgements on anecdotal evidence and science requires more than that
 On the other hand, as far as the mentalism community is concerned, it sounds about right.
I think it would be an interesting topic if Polly could explain her findings to us. Would you talk to her about it? --Christopher Carter |
|||||||||
|
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts
|
I do not know Polly, but I understand this thesis is in book form somewhere. This information is from an article by George P. Hansen that was in an issue of The Linking Ring some years back.
Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena is the title. You can read it here: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/MagWhoEndors.htm In fact, I think our good friend Darmoe here pointed this out on another forum. JR |
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmatary New user Burbank (LA), Ca, USA 47 Posts
|
There's so much to respond to... and no time to do it, so I must make just one deep brooding soul searching comment that will surely send everyone who reads into a mind blowing spiral changing all of their beliefs and reconsider reality as we know it:
Any woman named Polly Birdsell shouldnt be selling magic, she should be selling parrots. Im off to the river for camping. I really wish I had SOT by now... because I could mess with people all weekend! |
|||||||||
|
Darmoe Special user Ohio 741 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-06-28 11:54, Jim Reynolds wrote: Actually I've posted links to this in sevreal forums as well as in my articles @ Visions... I'm not certain which in the series will be put out next but I dedicat a full month's focus on this tome, the "ulterrior motives" of the CSICop and other such organizations, etc. Those that follow the series will undoubtedly be screaming loudly upon its release... 
Not to blow my own trumpet, but I would recommend folks to read the Visions articles to better understand my position in all this... Like any "magician" I'm all for exposing the frauds and protecting the public. I just don't like the "lump all the freaks that believe in such things into one pile" attitude certain "scoffers/skeptics" like to do. It is simply a moralistic and ethical manifestation of being wrong in my opinion, and limiting what most of us consider to be limitless. 
"I firmly believe that of all the Arts and Crafts of Mentalism, there is nothing more satisfying than one who is a first-class Reader. It is the ultimate in Mentalism..." - Tony Corinda * 13 Steps To Mentalism
|
|||||||||
|
Bambaladam Special user 636 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-06-27 12:07, Bill Palmatary wrote: I'd like to answer this by saying I I felt the energy before in the sense she is very much what I had already given up ever hoping to find. This is most sweet and I am very proud/feel very fortunate to have that, but it's not part of this discussion really. Quote:
I haven't called anyone fraudulent or a quack. I have set up a situation in which variables play out. Most psychics have referred to some sort of proof or evidence. Those guys have nothing to fear by that exposition. I'm just trying to draw it out, or not. I didn't mean you had called anyone a fraud specifically. I just meant that such accusations are extremely complex, and generally not worth the effort. A possible explanation of the phenomenon (i.e. recreating the miracles of Jesus or Uri Geller) does not compete with the experience of the phenomenon. I.e. the believer who wishes to believe will look at the explanation and then say "but my guy IS genuine". Quote:
I don't assume your beliefs, probably best not to assume mine. But,if you are referring to the very important ability of someone to make a hypothesis in order to test it (without fear of being laughed at for its merit) you have to remember that a good hypothesis is based on some known quantity. You don't just blurt out something without any support at all. You have to have some... any... basis for it. (and it would be good to base it on more than what someone else told you, or at least some verifiable fact. But yes, the vast majority of knowledge is derived from negative discoveries (wrong), weeding out the bad, from the gems that turn out to be true. Both are equally important. I wasn't refering to hypothesis-deduction thinking. I wasn't even meaning to assume anything concerning your beliefs. I was responding to the almost exactly word-for-word similarity between your statement and Platos theory of knowledge (which says that he who (a)believes something to be true, (b) has valid reasons to believe this, and (c) is correct in his belief, can be said to KNOW something). It is an interesting theory, but not waterproof. Good cause for belief is the weak link, and that is where I was "attacking" your statement. The classic example is to see someone drive by in what you know to be "his" car, and then for amusement's sake make the statement: "there goes Bill in his car, OR my wife is an Alien". The OR operand means that as long as any one of the two clauses is true, the statement is true. So, with belief, cause for said belief and truth to the statement, KNOWLEDGE could be assumed. The toying with thought comes into play if your friend just sold the car and then immediately borrowed it, AND your wife is actually a Venusian. Truth yes, belief yes, and the faith would be well invested. But KNOWLEDGE? It feels wrong. My example was less tricky. If I claimed to be a genuine remote viewer, had passed every test so far, AND remote viewing was then "proven" to be true, I would never have lied or acted in a fraudulent fashion. I think beleiving in one's abilities, even without just cause, is sufficient to disqualify behavior as fraudulent. Quote:
When did I confuse empirical and rational? I dont think I did. I'm pretty familiar with both. And out of anything in my posts you could possibly miss, the hardest thing would be my constant request for anyone to start exercising their right to draw conclusions empirically.... because that is when I will finally get evidence that is testable, recreatable, and verifiable. I have no idea how my overriding invasive theme was missed by you. Quote:
I feel the arguments need to be made in a more truthful and emotional way, as there is nothing meaningful anyone can say about this issue that is "detached" or "rational". Referring to things like scientific method (which IS a compromise) and "evidence" does not make a statement an objective statement. This ties in with "science is a compromise and I will respond to this below. Quote:
truthful and emotional? well, truthful just means people arent lying, and emotional... well, please explain how that helps an argument. I mean, in this case, where we are discussing matters so subjective empirical observations have time and time again proved to be insufficient to state anything conclusive, the relating of subjective experience is more fruitful. I believe a better way for sceptics and believers alike to communicate their thoughts on this issue would be to include the personal rather than exclude it in some vain attempt at "objectivity". Quote:
When you say science is a compromise, you don't explain why. If you could point out which points is science compromise things, that would be interesting. Why is it that the words 'detached', 'rational', and 'evidence', are in quotes... perhaps like outcasts. It really is OK to use them normally, and even the ideas they represent. I won't even accuse you of 'swinging them around'. I think we all can agree that when you take the central tenet of an idea and say they "swing it around", its only a ploy to get them to be sheepish about using it again, and generally is easily recognized as such a ploy (i.e. "why do those minorities always swing around words like discrimination"). Several things here. "Science is a compromise" is me reacting to the fact that no satisfying rebuttal of the thoughts of Sextus Propertius, Berkeley and Hume has appeared. The fact is empirical evidence is unreliable to the true sceptic, i.e. the one who would doubt even his senses. And science as we know it is based upon drawing negative (i.e. excluding) conclusions from empirically observed data. We "know" only that which can be empirically shown to NOT be the case, and to those who will not accept empirical observation, not even that. Only logic and mathematics evade this problem, and they are not scientific fields in the strictest sense. Add to this the post-modern era and the veritable autopsy it has performed on the "discourse" mankind previously accepted to be the "sharing of knowledge" (remember Tesla?), and my point of view becomes more obvious and more essential to the consideration of the merits of scientific thought. I think it is safe and within reason to accuse the scientific community of disregarding this problem more than it can afford, and therefore "swinging" certain words around. I feel they should be made aware of this, even if at the expense of some people feeling sheepish. The struggle for authority and the right to dictate truth is no less desperate in the age of science than it has been in previous eras in the history of humanity. I apologize for stooping to using a ploy, however. I would like to think I'm better than that. Thanks for pointing it out. Quote:
Actually, phenomena is quantitative by nature. It is something happening, right? And wow, you really hang yourself with the underlying of human thought. Do you still feel the same way about dedcoding human DNA? Did you think we couldn't do that? There were still many that thought we couldn't up till the project finished mapping. Your memories are a series of chemicals in caverns stored in your brain (you call the ethereal idea of it the mind) and although it may never be figured out in any of our lifetimes, time and time again these things have been figured out. Could this be the one that stumps everyone... yep. Is it probable.... not by experience and histories standards. I think charting the chemistry of the brain and "decoding" it, would be as useful as studying a language through detailed analysis of the ink that is used to print a word. You are free to disagree, but to me the idea of any distilled formula conveying the "I AM THAT I AM" that creates (pun intended) and qualifies human existence is less likely than the idea of me bending metal by supernatural means. This is, naturally a matter of point of view. I do, however, not see how doubting it is any more ridiculous than doubting the possibility of a scientific discovery to prove some psychics are legitimate. I hope the way I am approaching this discussion with you can convince you I do not wish to "stop thinking". Heisenberg and demons, germs and man on the moon, all of these ideas excite my mind. As does this opportunity to test my thoughts. Heisenburg doesn't tell us to stop looking, he tells us to realise our looking affects the results (incidentally a claim many "exposed" psychics have used to discredit test results not found to be in their favour). Quote:
I guess you can decide if this is an oasis from thought or for it. I personally see a very important opportunity here: I can either 1. Find out how real psychic power works, or 2. I can find out how people believe that real psychic powers work (thus fooling them more with those priciples). When people say that this topic should be kept out of a metalism forum, I wonder how they could not be interested in both of these ends. I suggest this is an oasis for thought, and an oasis for the sharing of ideas. I hope I have succeeded better in conveying this in this message than I did in my last. Peace, /bamba |
|||||||||
|
Leeo New user Manchester, UK 99 Posts
|
Wow. A really interesting debate going on here, I'm thoroughly enjoying it - though I won't pretend I undertand it all! I can offer no words of wisdom on this topic other than ultimately, to me at least, it comes down to personal belief. Even if something is "proved" it does not mean that everybody will believe it anyway. Everybody's insight has some excellent points for thought. Keep it up please.
|
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Ive read numerous books on cold reading including the "Full Facts". I found Ian's book to be a good over view of cold reading but not specific enough to learn any depth from.(but then Im not sure that was reason for writing it). Ive never read anything that totally explains what JE does in his presentations. Unless there is some really good pre-show work or research going on there is no way he only uses cold reading techniques, He is either genuine or uses some hot reading.
Either way he is very good and worth watching. Not only that, people who take part seem to get a positive outcome from their association with him. If people want to believe and are getting some personal value or comfort out of these shows is it ethical for anyone to try and take that away from them? (you won't be able to anyway). Live and let live and respect other peoples model of the world. As long as no one is being abused I don't see any problems with shows such as JE. |
|||||||||
|
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-07-01 16:31, shrink wrote: I very much agree. Except that I would amend your statement to say "respect other people's rights to their own models of the world." I can think of many world views that aren't worthy of respect. Still, the topic is useful here, because it does help some of us examine the limits of theatrical expression. To me, Mentalism is a theatrical craft that walks perilously close to the edge. At some point we might lean over to far and fall into the abyss. I guess I'm just interested in finding out where that balance point lies. --Christopher Carter |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-07-01 16:44, christopher carter wrote: I have no problem with your views or the views of skeptics. I respect your model of the world that you express in the above post its just your subjective reality. I enjoy shows like JE and the controversy that goes with it. With or without his show people will believe in life after death and out number those who don't. The real issues are, are the people who take part getting something positive from it and does anyone have the right to try take that away from them.? Ive done cold readings for friends and told them I can't read minds or have no psychic ability but they just say I'm modest and I am psychic. Who am I to take that away from them. |
|||||||||
|
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-07-01 17:54, shrink wrote: I think I must not have been clear. I was suckled on pseudo-doccumentaries narrated by Leonard Nimoy. I love this stuff!! In my performances it is absolutely my goal to have people go away thinking that I have "powers." I absolutely support the idea of presenting our work as psychic. The fact that there is a very fuzzy dividing line between theater and life as far as mentalism is concerned is exactly what attracts me to it. I was trying to stress that respecting everybody's right to a point of view is not at all the same as respecting their point of view. If, for example, it turned out that you were a vile racist, I would not respect you. Even if you didn't abuse anybody. I would hope you would have the decency to do the same to me, were I that sort of person. In these forums we talk a lot about the sort of "evil psychic" who likes to take advantage of little old ladies. I've never actually met one of these sorts, I'm afraid they're generally more myth than reality, but I love them anyway. It's a great vicarious thrill to be able to associate with the sordid underbelly of the world without actually being stained by it. I love all fakes, fraud, and cons. I just don't respect them. --Christopher Carter |
|||||||||
|
Darmoe Special user Ohio 741 Posts
|
Let's consider what it "really means" to be "Psychic"... according to Edgar Cayce himself it simply means that one is born with or developes a means of looking at the world/reality beyond the mundane... to go beyond the surface. To see more than just what is right in front of your face.
Some of the explanations used by magicians and investigators include "subconscious awareness" e.g. the Water Witch can find the place for the well because subconsciously he/she picks up the subtle vibration of moving water from under their feet...they see things in the terrain that indicate where water might be close to the surface, etc. (we'll ignore my opinion here... my paternal step-grandfather was a well known Water & Coal Mine Dowser long ago... then again, Channing Pollack (yes, the dove magician of legend) helped John Ghetty find oil wells using a pendulum and map... but hey! It's all fake and nonexistent... right?) Anyhow... in "knowing" the logical side of "how it can be done" we must ask ourselves if in fact, that understanding and how we use it, devalues what it is e.g. an understanding beyond the carnal and mundane... Being Psychic! I've tried to explain this in other posts here and there... just because we can "explain" something or even prove it, like Muscle Reading, people's unique bio-electrical rhythms, etc. DOES NOT MEAN IT'S FAKE... this mentality is right up there with those 2cd and 3rd graders at the schools how telling you "Hey, that's just a trick, it's not really magic..." 
The majority of people in the world believe in something other than physics, chemistry and the other aspects of science. Some, like myself, see the spiritual as being an adjunct to science (which was seperated a few centuries back for the sake of politics and theolgical oppression...-see DARK AGES and how they begain & why-)The point being, that either side of this issue is "right" just as much as they are "wrong." The "immorality" of the psychic thing comes from those who are consciously targeting specific elements in society as a "mark" and using superstition, fear, guilt, etc. to manipulate them... other than organized religion, politicians and certain other corporate entities protected by federal law, this is wrong  This is also the group of bad apples WE, as "magicians" are obliged to expose FOR THE SAKE OF CONSUMER/ PUBLIC PROTECTION -- bar none!
Just some food for thought...
"I firmly believe that of all the Arts and Crafts of Mentalism, there is nothing more satisfying than one who is a first-class Reader. It is the ultimate in Mentalism..." - Tony Corinda * 13 Steps To Mentalism
|
|||||||||
|
christopher carter Special user 660 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-07-02 11:42, Darmoe wrote: I could not agree with you more! I'm less convinced, however, on our obligation to go after fakes and cons. Clearly there are times when it is warranted, but I think that by and large people have to take responsibility for their own belief systems. In Uri Geller's case, however, he sort of brought in on himself by insisting upon the imprimatur of the Scientific Establishment. Once he's made that leap, I guess he's fair game. I suppose if John Edward is doing the same, then he'll have to contend with the same level of scrutiny. It just seems to me that there comes a point where the campaign against irrationalism turns into a purging of any semblence of mystery from our craft. I support many, if not most aspects of the skeptical movement, but it does become a sort of artistic or aesthetic taliban at times. --Christopher Carter |
|||||||||
|
mysticz Special user D.C. metro area 680 Posts
|
Darmoe said: "This is also the group of bad apples WE, as "magicians" are obliged to expose FOR THE SAKE OF CONSUMER/ PUBLIC PROTECTION -- bar none!"
I agree with much of what has been said concerning the harm unscrupulous individuals may cause using the techniques of the craft to defraud unknowing individuals. However, under no circumstances should we ever condone the exposure of magic/mentalism techniques or concepts in some kind of misguided effort to convince the public of the existence of these con artists. The secrets of our craft should stay just that -- secret. It's a shame so many "vigilante" magicians have done so much damage through this kind of exposure for so little actual good. Just my two cents, Joe Zabel
Joe Zabel
"Psychic Sorcery" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare's Hamlet I.v. 174-175 |
|||||||||
|
wert Regular user 164 Posts
|
Quote: But you also have to look at it conversely.
On 2002-07-02 11:42, Darmoe wrote: We have claims of paranormal powers here, none of which have ever been fully verified by double blind testing. If someone says they have parnanormal powers, it's up to *them* to prove it to me. I don't need to debunk them. They need to prove under proper controlled circumstances that their power actually exist. Randi's been offering a cool Million for this kind of evidence and no one has been able to claim it. "psychics" like Edwards and Praagh will *never* apply for the million because frankly, I don't think tye could prove their talents under the bright lights of a true double blind test... Remember, to repeat a well know phrase.. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" |
|||||||||
|
shrink Inner circle 2609 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2002-07-02 19:12, wert wrote: Performers like JE don't have to "prove" anything to skeptics, they have enough believers who will defend them no matter what. Even exposure doesn't change the beliefs of the believers. Needing to beleive in something supernatural seems to a part of human nature. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » More on J. Edward and Van Praagh (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jun 27, 2002 05:18 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|