Psychic readings

takman

Peter333 wrote: »

:eek: Oh no, you did NOT just say that! How rude! :eek:

I think it needed to be said to just make a point how damaging it can be to let unsubstantiated beliefs to be used to make money.

I really don't see why people think it is acceptable in society for people to be able to go round making unsubstantiated claims about messages from dead relatives and then even expecting money for this?.

The funny thing is that people find it comforting to think there is an afterlife and that their relatives are there waiting for them when they die. That sounds absolutely awful!, that means when you die you become a spirit that wonders the earth forever. You are able to see all your living relatives such as your sons and grandsons but are not able to communicate with them at all. You seem them crying and upset at your funeral and in extreme emotional distress and you can't even say one word to them. That sounds like a punishment to me and why anyone would find that comforting is beyond me!.

Yet what is even more outrageous is that even though all these dead spirits can see everything that is going on and get one chance to send a message through a psychic to a loved one. They choose to gossip about what member of the family is pregnant and hasn't told anyone. They seem intent on spreading personal information about loved ones or telling them secrets about themselves they already know. Or maybe sending a message about the location of a watch a relative lost years ago. Those definitely aren't any of the subjects i would choose for such a message.

Why are these spirits not talking to other spirits from the past and instead of looking for lost objects. Why are they not looking for ancient stashes of gold and treasure and passing the location of this on to relatives?.

It could almost be the plot of a comedy film because when you really think about it logically it really does make you laugh :rotfl:

reehsetin

Peter333 wrote: »

Despite some people believing that someone with a psychic ability can know what you're thinking, or know the lottery numbers; it's not about that; it's more about relating to or denoting faculties or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by natural laws.

When someone says to someone who claims to have psychic abilities 'what am I thinking then?' or 'tell me the lottery numbers then!' it shows their ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject.

I don't claim to know what their abilities are, I don't know if they know the lottery numbers I wouldn't ask for it either. I'd want them to tell me what they believe their ability is e.g. telepathy, clairvoyance, psychic healing, channeling and design a test reliably for that one thing, the only thing they'd need to show is they perform better than chance i.e. a random person guessing wouldn't do any better

reehsetin

Jagraf wrote: »

But everyone believes things without evidence surely? You believe the foundations to your house are built properly, you believe that security checks are done before a flight, you believe the dentist really is a dentist

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence quote

cyantist

reehsetin wrote: »

I don't claim to know what their abilities are, I don't know if they know the lottery numbers I wouldn't ask for it either. I'd want them to tell me what they believe their ability is e.g. telepathy, clairvoyance, psychic healing, channeling and design a test reliably for that one thing, the only thing they'd need to show is they perform better than chance i.e. a random person guessing wouldn't do any better

But you’re completely misunderstanding the abilities some people have. It’s not a case of having a card behind your back and they can guess which one. Suggesting that it’s down to chance in that way and can be easily tested as such is as naïve as believing outright that they have amazing psychic powers without even questioning it.

Take my sister’s friend: she knows things about people that she couldn’t have realistically found out elsewhere but how do you design a test that would prove conclusively that she’d found out through a psychic ability and no other way? It is surely impossible to prove that. She knew something about me that I had told no one, and she has never met me, but how can she prove that she hasn't? She knew where something my sister had lost was, how can she prove she didn’t know it was there all along? Maybe she broke into my sister’s house, guessed the alarm code, searched for her passport and then hid it somewhere obscure so she could psychically find it at a later date to impress her friends. Maybe while she was breaking in there she saw a card addressed to me so knew my address and based on location guessed my medical practice, then bribed a worker there to hand over my medical details. Then she could have driven 400 miles and broken into my house as well, hacked into my computer and got personal information that is only stored there. There may not be any evidence she did this but that doesn’t mean that is conclusive proof it didn’t happen and someone would always say that these ridiculous scenarios were the most likely explanations rather than accept she might just be able to sense these things.

This woman has a respectable job, why should she put all that on the line by standing up and allowing her skills to be tested when really there is no way to ever conclusively prove that she couldn’t have found out these things by some other way, no matter how unlikely that other way is.

And someone suggested earlier there being someone independent who she tells this information to who can then verify that it’s firstly correct and secondly that it couldn’t have been found out any other way. But if she got in touch with me and asked if she picked up on any more information about me, would I mind her telling someone independent who could verify it all. I’d say no way. I hate the fact she knows these things and there’s no way I’d want her telling other people who then have to tell other people in an attempt to verify it all.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I first became aware of this Sally Morgan entity on a day off work, idly flicking through the digital channels and muttering to myself about how daytime telly wasn't what it was in my student days. I ended up watching quite a bit of a show, with fascination and mounting horror. I found the shots of the audience, nearly all women, and many visibly raw with grief and desperate hope, quite shocking. The vagueness with which Morgan starts off is so ridiculous it's laughable; "I'm getting a message here from a man...called John....has anyone here ever known a man called John?" Depressing that so many defend this cynical manipulation of the vulnerable bereaved.

BarryBlue

cyantist wrote: »

But you’re completely misunderstanding the abilities some people have. It’s not a case of having a card behind your back and they can guess which one. Suggesting that it’s down to chance in that way and can be easily tested as such is as naïve as believing outright that they have amazing psychic powers without even questioning it.

I think many people do understand the abilities these people have. They are illusionists, magicians, call them what you like. A magician doesn't guess your card or he would only get it right by chance about 2% of the time. Yet he gets it right 100% of the time. The fact that you don't know how he does it is the whole point. But we all know it's a trick. Psychics are no different. They carry out tricks, and the fact that you don't know how it's done doesn't make it any less of a trick.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I first became aware of this Sally Morgan entity on a day off work, idly flicking through the digital channels and muttering to myself about how daytime telly wasn't what it was in my student days. I ended up watching quite a bit of a show, with fascination and mounting horror. I found the shots of the audience, nearly all women, and many visibly raw with grief and desperate hope, quite shocking. The vagueness with which Morgan starts off is so ridiculous it's laughable; "I'm getting a message here from a man...called John....has anyone here ever known a man called John?" Depressing that so many defend this cynical manipulation of the vulnerable bereaved.

People like her have made millions out of exploiting such people with their trickery. It would be fine if they actually admitted it was all an illusion rather than preying on vulnerable people. You have mentioned something I alluded to in my post above, and that is the fact that the vast majority of audiences and clients are women. Why is this? Are women generally more gullible to scams, or is there more to it?

cyantist

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I first became aware of this Sally Morgan entity on a day off work, idly flicking through the digital channels and muttering to myself about how daytime telly wasn't what it was in my student days. I ended up watching quite a bit of a show, with fascination and mounting horror. I found the shots of the audience, nearly all women, and many visibly raw with grief and desperate hope, quite shocking. The vagueness with which Morgan starts off is so ridiculous it's laughable; "I'm getting a message here from a man...called John....has anyone here ever known a man called John?" Depressing that so many defend this cynical manipulation of the vulnerable bereaved.

I don't think many people are defending this. I think this type of stuff is horrible and shouldn't be allowed and is preying on the vulnerable. But just because there are some very obvious fakes out there isn't proof that everyone is a fake. Especially those who don't make any money out of or take advantage of anyone.

BarryBlue wrote: »

I think many people do understand the abilities these people have. They are illusionists, magicians, call them what you like. A magician doesn't guess your card or he would only get it right by chance about 2% of the time. Yet he gets it right 100% of the time. The fact that you don't know how he does it is the whole point. But we all know it's a trick. Psychics are no different. They carry out tricks, and the fact that you don't know how it's done doesn't make it any less of a trick.

How do you know this. I read a lot about the techniques they use and nothing makes sense in the scenario I have explained, and no one has come up with a feasible explanation. Can you tell me how you know this woman is a fake? You don't know her. Oh but all of them are fakes, right? Well how do you know? Because there's no such thing as psychic ability? You can't know this. Or because there have been lots of people proven to be fake? Most people being fake is in no way evidence that everyone is.

BarryBlue

cyantist wrote: »

How do you know this. I read a lot about the techniques they use and nothing makes sense in the scenario I have explained, and no one has come up with a feasible explanation. Can you tell me how you know this woman is a fake? You don't know her. Oh but all of them are fakes, right? Well how do you know? Because there's no such thing as psychic ability? You can't know this. Or because there have been lots of people proven to be fake? Most people being fake is in no way evidence that everyone is.

Interesting that you mention evidence. Since there is not a shred of evidence to show that a single one of these psychics is genuine. That is where the onus of proof lies. Until any of them can perform under scientific conditions it is reasonable to conclude that they are all nothing more than illusionists. None ever has, and none ever will.

You, of course, are perfectly entitled to accept what you regard as evidence if it is what you want to believe, which it clearly is. I prefer to look at facts then draw a conclusion, not the other way round.

NewShadow

BarryBlue wrote: »

Interesting that you mention evidence... I prefer to look at facts then draw a conclusion, not the other way round.

Blegh.

The trouble is, there's too much evidence out there and almost no facts.

We don't have a unified theory (see what I did there:p) to explain much of anything from an astro or meta physics view.

The idea that it's ghosts is about as plausible as anything else...

For example. Light. We all know it exists.

The double slit experiment supports the theory of light bouncing of 'something' we can't see.

This is the basis for the early experiments into antimatter, dark energy, dark matter - all the stuff that physics believes must exist, but can't prove (basically at all)

Some have used this experiment and the assumption of the existence of this 'stuff' (which is completely unmeasurable in any way...) to argue the many worlds theory (which is not completely scientifically or philosophically bupkis) and furthermore to evidence energy can leak across these worlds (which is what the light bounces off) .

If you sub (as some do) many worlds for afterlife (i.e., our energy or soul slips between 'worlds' at death), you get a scientifically valid (possible) argument for the possibility of the existence of 'spirits'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Additional reading of interest may include:

Dark matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Dark energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

A dozen peer reviewed (if a little soft science) articles on why the theory of relativity doesn't work in space/with quantum physics: https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/

Study providing evidence of out of body experiences - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html

Peer reviewed book, by one of the most prominent scientists in the field of stem cell biology, - discussing that life after death is very plausible - http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/

Peer reviewed study from Cornel university suggesting some have some psychic powers (precognition)- http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2010/12/study-looks-brains-ability-see-future


Functionally - Science doesn't have the answers - no more than spiritualism does.

Quantum physics says the theory of gravity is wrong - Doesn't mean we're all going to go flying off into space, but it does mean we can believe a force (previously understood to be gravity) is keeping us attracted to the ground.

There's just no scientifically verifiable evidence (given empirical observation doesn't seem to count :rotfl:)

ElefantEd

The double slit experiment in no way implies that light is 'bouncing off' something - just that it is acting as a wave (even when there is just one photon passing through the slits at a time).

Nor does quantum mechanics say the theory of gravity is 'wrong', just that there is more to it than it was first believed, and scientists are searching for evidence of gravitons as the exchange particles. In the same way special relativity didn't prove Newtonian mechanics wrong, it refined it. But Newton's laws are perfectly valid at velocities which are only a fraction of light speed. Tying up relativity with quantum mechanics is a huge challenge but it doesn't mean either theory is wrong, just not complete.

Empirical evidence is the only thing that counts - the theory is there to explain it and to make predictions about other situations. But ultimately evidence is the bedrock of the scientific method.

There is plenty of evidence for gravity. There is none for pyschic abilities.