Psychometry

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Silvermane wrote:

Attachment EC28D756-8A6D-4988-A0B3-6065E545CD95.jpeg not found

This is also horrible advice. Failure is an ever present specter in our lives and just as valuable a teacher. There is a difference between valid pursuit and meaningless pursuit and we need to be able to recognize that at times when the motivation to keep struggling no longer outweighs the suffering. Victory is never assured in our lives just because we "do not give up". We also need the courage to know when to give up. This causes reward not external to us but internally in our own personal growth.

I agree with Kyrin here. There is merit in not giving up, but also some in knowing when to change focus, understanding your resources and knowing how to best spend them. If every tunnel led to diamonds, everyone would dig. But sometimes the riches one seeks is in the heavens, so one must have the strength of character and humility to put down their pick axe and learn to fly.

It is also true that not everyone is a digger and not everyone is made to be so.

But then of course, there is this book:
Who Moved My Cheese?: An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life https://www.amazon.com/dp/0399144463/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_eunoCb3F021NS

Which discusses how to respond to change

When considering whether something is watching you, a false negative can much more swiftly cost a life than a false positive. Subconscious awareness is part of this intuition of being watched, but superstition is arguably an even bigger one. Naivete is costly compared to superstition which is why we are even debating things like magic and ghosts. People wouldn't so easily believe in any of that were it not a natural consequence of those being overly cautious surviving to become our ancestors and pass on what ever part of their credulity was genetic.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote: Good excuse to keep at it then! In the absence of effective tools to strike oil, keep digging with ones hands

No, that's a horrible excuse to keep at it. Its an utter waste of time and energy and resources. Either develop better tools or find a different source of fuel. That is effective.

Saying no while ignoring the conditions of a conditional statement is not a negation of the statement, but negation of the conditions... which makes it not a reply but a new statement. And obviously taking the metaphor too far is not related to the post.

I'd say your new point that (isn't really a reply to my post let alone a negation of it) seems to be that there are tools, and they should be used. OK fair enough, there might be! There are certainly techniques to test the action of it, but understanding the deeper actions that might be behind such a phenomena might explain why its no so easily tested (assuming it is real). So to your apparent point; what are these tools you suggest would explain if this phenomenon worked? Or do you propose that because none exist there will never be any? Or were you saying none of those things and just not making sense in a failed effort to be argumentative?

My point was there might not be tools enough to understand something, and so one must work with what they have until they find a way to develop tools. Whether its a waste of time for them is up to them and only determined by the future, not the past or present.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: As for sensing attention, that is a proven natural process of the brain. Its developed in us over millennia through evolution and its why we survived as a species in a world full of predators out to eat us. Its not supernatural or psychic, just effective subconscious awareness of our environment.

I'd agree but ask how you think it might work. In the absence of obvious cues it still seems to happen over moderate distances (from personal experience)? Any ideas?

A tool is not the same as an instrument here. When we are dealing with claims deliberately made so vague as to evade critical analysis, our inability to test them is not a limitation of our technology. And if when ever on accident a claim is made that is testable and turns up negative over and over and over again, and the claimants keep shifting the goal post on a whim, pretending that their ever less falsifiable claims were what they had meant all along, that too is not a limitation on any current assembly of "tools".
It is one thing to be stumbling through the dark in the absence of a torch and in the search for a safe path through to the light. That's not the problem we are having here, though. What we have is more akin to inviting someone to stumble about blindly in the dark with no indication of any path toward any light, and to blowing out any torch they ignite to assist themselves if they accept the invitation.

@adder, oh was that a conditional statement??!! Because I failed to see any conditions in it. To try and now map your statement to this thread is just backpedaling. You made no such reference and you offered a metaphor that is meaningless in this threads context.

Given these facts there is really no reason to reply further to your inquiry of specific tools for this specific job, however I will indulge you somewhat here. These tools you suggest I provide have already been utilized. It is called the scientific method. Observe a phenomina, make a hypothesis as to function, test the hypothesis, examine the results. In every case where this phenomina has been tested it's been shown to produce results no greater and often times even less than simple guessing. This shows the phenomina is not driven by some mysterious power but by chance. In other words it's not real but people convincing themselves it's real through bias.


As for the sensing attention, eyesight and hearing and smell are the tools most used. Ever wonder why a rabbit has big ears and eyes on the side of his head but the fox has forward facing ears and eyes in front of his head? They evolved that way because one is prey and the other is predator. Nothing "magical" about it. We sence things all the time we are not consciously aware of and that has kept us alive.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @adder, oh was that a conditional statement??!! Because I failed to see any conditions in it. To try and now map your statement to this thread is just backpedaling. You made no such reference and you offered a metaphor that is meaningless in this threads context.

Given these facts there is really no reason to reply further to your inquiry of specific tools for this specific job, however I will indulge you somewhat here. These tools you suggest I provide have already been utilized. It is called the scientific method. Observe a phenomina, make a hypothesis as to function, test the hypothesis, examine the results. In every case where this phenomina has been tested it's been shown to produce results no greater and often times even less than simple guessing. This shows the phenomina is not driven by some mysterious power but by chance. In other words it's not real but people convincing themselves it's real through bias.


As for the sensing attention, eyesight and hearing and smell are the tools most used. Ever wonder why a rabbit has big ears and eyes on the side of his head but the fox has forward facing ears and eyes in front of his head? They evolved that way because one is prey and the other is predator. Nothing "magical" about it. We sence things all the time we are not consciously aware of and that has kept us alive.

Very true. However, as we've seen through history, until we can discover a viable test we, humans, guess. Our myths turn to theory and eventually we can figure it out. Do we have evidence now? No, just subjective observations. But we are far from being able to say our science of detection is above reproach. We have no clue why gravity works, can't figure out where all the dark matter and energy is, let alone what the hell it is, and we've barely penetrated the surface of our own planet. I'm not supporting anything as fact, just admitting that we are very ignorant to some very important factors.

The difference in those things spinner is that two of them have been proven to exist and one has not. We can prove gravity exists and we can show that dark matter exists. We cant see it or touch it or taste it and yet we know it exists. We are not guessing on whether it exists or not. And with psychimetry the guessing is not whether it exists but the act itself of doing it. Any test of psychimetry being performed boils down to chance. It's no different than you holding a card up from a deck of cards and me trying to tell you which card your holding up. Sometimes I may get lucky and guess right but most times I wont. It's not a mysterious power it's just good guessing and ultimately meaningless and useless because it has no predictive power.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The difference in those things spinner is that two of them have been proven to exist and one has not. We can prove gravity exists and we can show that dark matter exists.

Scientists can't even agree on what Dark Matter is atm, right now their theories regarding dark matter is very much like grasping at straws. Not exactly a good model to use in this instance...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/23/rotating-galaxies-could-prove-dark-matter-wrong/#452cf5df66ed
https://www.space.com/42892-dark-matter-around-galaxies-constant.html
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

Zenchi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: The difference in those things spinner is that two of them have been proven to exist and one has not. We can prove gravity exists and we can show that dark matter exists.

Scientists can't even agree on what Dark Matter is atm, right now their theories regarding dark matter is very much like grasping at straws. Not exactly a good model to use in this instance..

No it's the perfect model to use in this instance. Even better than gravity because we dont know what it is exactly. There is a difference between exploring something that has been proven to exist to learn more about it like dark matter and pretending something exists there is no proof of because every test ever done has shown it to be imaginary like psychometry.