Force Powers

forceuser wrote: ... you risk me being kicked off or banned for life from this site by expressing true stories or what I believe based on witness them

There is no such risk.

Like many before me

Well I have been on this site only since 2011 and can't recall one person who was temporarily or permanently banned from it for merely expressing their beliefs or what they think are true stories. I can't vouch for the six years the site existed before my registration, but if there were problems like that back then, there seem not to have been many like it in recent times. Nobody is getting banned for sincerity or openness alone. For getting aggressive about it, maybe. But unless you plan to do that, I don't see what there is to be afraid of, nor why you waste any time pushing that excuse.

OK even if I destroy my name and make everybody mad and angry but yet help one person understand it is well worth it.

Alright, good. Let's get on with it, shall we.

This may sound odd but out of all the things that I have seen and experienced in my life it is actually only through TelekinesisI was able to convince myself these things were possible or even remotely true
Because at least through telekinesis everyone who was around can bear witness to it actually happened

And even that is not seriously without question

So I guess it's some time there will become a point were you just have to have faith

That does not compute. You say yourself that telekinesis is transparent and obvious. Everyone around an instance of it could witness it. Sure, we could always question whether our sense can be trusted and whether we did enough to rule out alternative explanations. But why on earth would we not ask such questions and just believe one conclusion before making the investigation? And that's assuming that we are discussing an event anyone of us actually witnessed. As it stands, you are inviting faith not even in concrete evidence you are sharing, but in mere tales of evidence existing somewhere out there. Is there some point at which one just has to have faith? Well, as someone trained to doubt (which really started here, I might add!) I for one would be hard to convince of that, but even if I were to entertain that there might be such a point, can we honestly say that were are anywhere near it yet, when we have nothing to go on, when there is not even a concrete recorded case we are talking about... when there isn't even a "there" there?

It's like if your family members told you your grandfather was dead from a car accident they can show you the tombstone they can show you the car that was physically smashed but really how do we know was it scientifically proven that it happened even if we dug up his body 20 years later Doing DNA testing
We still couldn't be sure because maybe when he was alive they took a test from someone else by accident or another family member and mixed up the records right
Or what type of equipment did they use for the testing was it 2 years old and outdated OK who's certified the equipment We can go on like this forever and ever and really we would never know if Your grandfather was really dead.

I agree, scepticism can go really far, and reasonable doubt can be far less than all doubt. There are however two points in which this example differs from the telekinesis claims you believe in:

First of all, people do actually die. It happens every day, some days more than others. All else being equal, people of advanced age, who are vastly overrepresented in the fraction of people who have grandchildren, tend to die more readily than their younger contemporaries. This is the case from deaths by car accident, too. If someone tells me my grandfather was dead from a car accident, while I may have my reasons to doubt that, we are at least talking about something that doesn't outright violate all of our understanding of physics. The reservations I might have about believing that an old man died from a severe injury or stress frankly do not compare to the reservations I might have about believing that somebody can move inert objects without mechaniclaly interacting with them.

A second problem is with the quality of the evidence presented. Yes, if we want to be really pedantically sceptical about it, then presenting a car wreck bearing a familiar license plate, a tombstone to commemorate the deceased, and a DNA lab report may not be absolutely conclusive, but how does this compare to the evidence of telekinesis? Where in your case - or anyone else's who thus far tried to make it here, indeed - are the items that have the sort of evidentiary weight that is akin to a funeral invitation or a death certificate?

It may be a matter of discussion whether such evidence is sufficient to substantiate a claim as mundane as an old man passing away, surely either position may be defensible. But if we have far, far less than that for a claim far, far more extraordinary than that, what really even is the argument here?

Glad To hear from you .
It's really not important even just on this thread the 1 or 2 people whose comments are gone same with their account.

But moving forward
I was only sharing just a few things And abilities that I have experienced with a handful of witnesses.
I try not to share anything else with you here that I don't have witnesses for.

As far as telling you did I have scientific test equipment strapped to me and my friends back every time we did something no.

I understand it goes against what you believe I understand we were all raised the same way and taught the same things in school I get it

I used to believe the same way

It's just after years of seen crazy things
For me it was nice to at least have other people witness even if it's only one simple ability of the force people Could at least see and verified at least with their eyes.
And for me that was great because at least it gave me a small hope I wasn't totally crazy
That at least I had a few witnesses to see some things
Before their eyes and not just mine.

But either way it seems kind of stupid and pointless to to talk about it when it goes against everything we believe and even.
The most trusted and spiritual and educated people on this forum can only see how it has no practical purpose.

But not even thinking about it very hard what about healing and giving people comfort in their mind healing their bodies
Easily taking contaminants out of water to make it pure to drink.
healing the Earth

And no I don't want to get into a debate about whether I've done that in the past I'm just making a very very simple observation.

But I think it's way more important that people on this forum just focus on their selves may be eating a good diet to live longer,
Go to school and work hard
And maybe add a little philosophy in for flavor

It takes literally a $20 camera to show basic proof. If you can't replicate it, the powers are pointless. I work with metrology, so if you want to ask questions about how data acquisition and interpretation works, I've written memos on it.

Also doing basic self improvement is definitely not more important than force powers, if you're true.

You're not persecuted by the man, you're just dealing with reasonable objections to your frivolous ideas.

Sometimes things cannot easily be controlled enough to replicate or even recreate... but that doesn't mean they didn't occur, or seemed to have occurred. Nor does it mean they did (if mis-truth is involved), and nor does it mean they occurred in the way they seemed to have.

Hearing premonitiory voices is rather common actually. I only a few days ago was listening to a recording from my partners now deceased great grandmother and she mentions a couple of 'warning' voices which saved her life. I myself have had them a few times, but it's not something I created, or seemingly can create myself.

I think the way to walk this line is to assert ones belief as their own, as a belief. And not assert ones belief as a truth. Elevating something to a truth really does invite some evidence to support it.

But its a fascinating topic, and I think it's more productive to support peoples interests, if its telepathy etc then so be it.... so long as it's not promulgated as some truth etc etc. But people express their interests with motivation usually, so its not unusual for the experience of ones interests to be an exaggerated experience. Each person should have the right to decide how they spend their time I guess, but the risk is if unsupported claims are presented as truth, then it is asking someone to believe without evidence - something which is never a good idea if it can at all be avoided. Asserting something instead as ones own belief based on personal experience doesn't degrade the potential validity or interest to others necessarily, it just makes it clearer to everyone what it is that is being discussed, so it can better be discussed, imo.

While you have some salient points, a lot of people don't have the requisite control to have consistent results. However, that paired with confirmation bias leads to misunderstanding the causal relationships of your results to your actions. While we could quibble over the induction problem or asking "what really is truth?", we all pragmatically make assertions about truth all the time.

I'm not going to touch your warning voices example.

Adder wrote: Sometimes things cannot easily be controlled enough to replicate or even recreate... but that doesn't mean they didn't occur, or seemed to have occurred. Nor does it mean they did (if mis-truth is involved), and nor does it mean they occurred in the way they seemed to have.

Yes, I completely agree with that, actually. It may well be that an occurrence (or alleged occurrence) is (or would be) strongly unique and nothing like it ever happens again. Little can be concluded from that uniqueness. However, insofar as we live making choices with it in mind, it may still be important to consider whether we have sufficient information to warrant believing that it had occurred. This is of course the sort of reasoning that may occasionally produce things like holocaust denial or flat earth beliefs in people who find historical records and artifacts or measurements unconvincing, at least in the amount or consistency they were presented with. I would argue that this is a risk worth taking, seeing as the alternative would be believing or disbelieving things before putting any thought to them.

Hearing premonitiory voices is rather common actually. I only a few days ago was listening to a recording from my partners now deceased great grandmother and she mentions a couple of 'warning' voices which saved her life. I myself have had them a few times, but it's not something I created, or seemingly can create myself.

Common or not, it still seems to be something extraordinary enough to be worth mentioning. It's not common enough to where we pay no more mind to it as just another mundane, ordinary thing. In light of that consider a few points:

With all due respect (and, as applicable, condolences), we are dealing with what sounds like recollections. Perhaps in the recording your partner's grandmother goes through notes she took when ever she perceived the warning voices; so far it sounded like she merely remembered them. Setting aside questions about the reliability of human memory in general (and its fading with the advance of age also), do we actually have information - accurate or otherwise - about the timing of the alleged perception and how it relates to the event it was "warning" about? Sometime before may actually not be enough. If the voice is being unspecific and too long in advance of the event in question, then it is more akin to a prophesy than a prediction, and we can only reinterpret it as relevant long after the event. If however the premonition was specific or in a timeframe just long enough to take action, there is the problem of confirmation bias Rex just mentioned. How many times did your partner's grandmother fail to react to a premonitory sense like that? Would she be reporting memories of sensing something coming that never actually came in the end? And of the times she took action that she says saved her life, just how certain are we that she would have been at the risk of losing it, had she ignored the warnings? Speaking of such events, how many times was her life or well-being under severe threat without any voices to warn her?

All in all I'm not saying your partner's grandmother wasn't clairaudient (though, needless to say, I have my doubts). But generally speaking I would invite to ask oneself questions like these about anyone claiming such powers, including oneself, before relying on voices of this sort. In fact, I think one is well advised to seek out medical attention, if one hears voices of any sort, benevolent or helpful or otherwise, before assuming that it must be divine communication or a psychic power.

Quite simply, I think people should be able to talk about their beliefs more freely then when asserting things as being true, because asserting something as true is usually taken by others to mean it also applies to them...... both in regards to how much the person can explore the belief themselves, but also how much it can be communicated about by others with different amounts of belief (incl. none). The only other thing that comes to mind is to be as specific as possible, because the stranger something is then harder it will be for anyone to comprehend what is being spoken about.

What is true? What is wrong?

If a person affirms a thing, that he believes in this thing can we say that it is true or that he is lying?

Religions are a belief based on someone who saw something and people who believed that person.

We ask for proof, a photo? Does the camera cover all image spectra?

Our life is largely based on science but is it a truth? Several reliable scientific "Truths" that turned out to be false several years later.

Are our mathematics correct? We think they are because qualified people tell us it was true. Maybe everything is wrong and we are teaching nonsense to all the children of the world. Nothing is really true, nor totally false.

The phenomena of life cannot always be explained and even when they are verified, nothing proves 100% that it is the right answer because it is an explanation compared to what we know.

If people don't believe in something, you stop progress. Currently there are no more real advances, we are content to improve what already exists.

If he believes that what he did is true, maybe he is right or that he is wrong but we cannot say that it is false because even with proof we would find the means to say that it is wrong because we cannot explain it.

Personally, I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are lying. Lots of things that are done today, exists only because people who were believed to be mad or accused of lying believed it.

Can man fly? Of course not, you are lying! Can man go underwater? Of course not, you are lying! Does God exist? Yes of course ! At the time, who was right and who was wrong? And today who is right and who is wrong?

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

Can we say that someone is wrong, only because we believe that what we have been taught is true? Again, it is belief, we believe that the teachings we have received are true but can you prove that this is the truth?

The answer only answer true and no. No one is really right or really wrong. What decides is the number of people who believe in it.

Cheb wrote: Religions are a belief based on someone who saw something and people who believed that person.

Not necessarily. There doesn't have to be anything a religion's initiator actually had to see. It can be enough for them to profess it with confidence and charisma. Scientology comes to mind as a religion the beyond-mundane beliefs of which were openly and transparently not based on the witness of any actual events of entities.

We ask for proof, a photo? Does the camera cover all image spectra?

It does not. What's your point?

Our life is largely based on science but is it a truth?

In my opinion, no.

Several reliable scientific "Truths" that turned out to be false several years later.

If I were to ask you to name two, chances are they'd be outside of my field, so I couldn't comment firmly. So I'll take this one from another angle. Let's say some scientific model accepted in the past is seen as "false" since some a later time. Did that change happen because we learned something new, gathered more evidence and constructed a new model? Or did it "turn out to be false" in virtue of the bulnk experts in relevant fields giving up the scientific enterprise altogether in favour of gut instincts or religious sensibilities instead?

Science is not (or at any rate not merely) just a set of propositions, handed down from men in lab coats as alternative "revelations" to be held as reliable capital-T Truths. It is first and foremost an approach to figuring things out, a method by which we go about studying nature. I tend to be careful about saying that anything we find this way is "true", but if we want to say that some scientific findings failed the test of time eventually, they are pretty much always replaced with better, more robust models, based in yet a vaster body of evidence and yet stronger, more conclusive reasoning.

Are our mathematics correct? We think they are because qualified people tell us it was true.

There is nothing to stop you from constructing a consistent set of inference rules and reformulating mathematics from the ground up. The reason you listen to mathematicians instead is because you have other, more pressing things to worry about in life. That's fine, most of us do. Most of us defer to the opinions of experts in some areas while focus on building expertise of our own in others. And most, indeed, believe mathematical theorems because they are presented as true by their teachers. Many never stop to think about the insufficiency of that again. But for those who do, the doors are open to prove each and every one of them on their own, or to review complete proofs written up by experts for convenience. Unlike with woo, most mathematically savvy people will not get offended at your questioning their theorems. Unlike with religious texts, most maths lectures don't contain threats of a fate worse than death to those who stray off the "faith".

Maybe everything is wrong and we are teaching nonsense to all the children of the world.

Sure, maybe. I'd say the chances are good that our best understanding is not perfectly complete. But again, a decent and honest teacher wouldn't try to present it as if it was. Some of the arguably best teachers will try to teach children by engaging their curiosity, encouraging them to discover what works well on their own, rather than just throwing down a stack of dry facts for the students to swallow. That being said, you and I are communicating through signals transmitted by radio-communication relays that would not work (the same) if Maxwell's equations were complete nonsense. Those relays could not be in space orbiting our home world (the same way) if Kepler's laws (and the rocket equation that helped us get them there) were complete nonsense. The computer devices we use to interface with the communications network would not exist (as they do) if our understanding of quantum mechanics in periodic potentials was complete nonsense. I can't speak about what type of screen you use for display, but mine wouldn't function (the same) if our understanding of fluid dynamics as it applies to liquid crystals was complete nonsense. And we couldn't have developed any of these fields anywhere near as far or as swiftly, were it not for those who did having enjoyed a firm training in mathematical reasoning. The point is that these things work. They produce results. Does that make them true? No. Are they the same kind of less-than-true as claims of telekinetic powers? No. Not even close.

Nothing is really true, nor totally false.

What about that statement itself?

Currently there are no more real advances, we are content to improve what already exists.

What do you mean by a "real advance", though? This state of affairs describes pretty much every time in all of recorded human history. Every advance ever made seemed more or less incremental at the time. It is only with hindsight that we get to forget most progress and to shrink time down so much that the rest seems like huge sudden leaps. The first wheel was far from perfectly round. The final printing press was more sophisticated than any of its prototypes. The first steam engine was loud and lethal. The first space flight was sub-orbital. At the same time, of course, there never used to be a carriage with only half a horse. There never used to be a computer processor chip with one and a half working cores either. Some advances are inherently leap-like, most are inherently gradual. What's the distinction between an "improvement" and a "real advance"? Would someone in five hundred years' time not look back at the turn of the millennium and speak of a huge leap from the wooden abacus of a century ago to the hundreds of many megahertz cores of today's graphics cards? Or would they have to say that even the processors of today are mere improvements upon the computational aids that already existed for the last four and a half thousand years?

Can man fly? Of course not, you are lying! Can man go underwater? Of course not, you are lying! Does God exist? Yes of course ! At the time, who was right and who was wrong? And today who is right and who is wrong?

A poor comparison, in my opinion. People who doubted that submarines or air planes could be constructed were doubtful that the technical challenges could be surmounted. Nobody said that it was impossible for a thing heavier than air to fly, because everybody had seen birds fly every day. Nobody said that it was impossible for a boat to be watertight and withstand the pressure, because fish are swimming at almos all depths every day. If you want to make the entrepreneurs of those days sound like the woosters of today, they should have said that man can fly by sprouting wings from taking a miracle wing growth drug, or go under water by growing gills a week after praying to god that they would. The nay-sayers who believed in a god might then well not have been quite so negative about the latter, ironically.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

And yet here you are, saying that some, most, or all of the knowledge we acquire or forego by any means is just as illusory as any other, that ignorance is really the only thing we actually have, and the pursuit of knowledge is in some sense a futile one.

Can we say that someone is wrong, only because we believe that what we have been taught is true?

Sure. Why not?

Again, it is belief, we believe that the teachings we have received are true but can you prove that this is the truth?

Depends. In some senses of the word, yes.

For some reason this challenge only ever comes up when defending wholly unwarranted beliefs, though. When we discussed the shape of fundamental particles a few weeks back and I asserted that they were point-like, upon challenges to my claim I never asked my interlocutor how they know anything at all, or whether they could prove that they were not a brain in a vat. I just linked to the publication of relevant measurements, referenced the plots most illustrative of my position and explained how I had to interpret the data to come to my conclusion. But when someone claims magical powers and I ask them for anything to substantiate it, someone's bound to get all existential and philosophical about it, and wonder what even is truth and knowledge, and how do I really know we don't live in a matrix. I don't. Neither do you. To bring back the example of the grandfather and car accident: Neither of us have reviewed the corpse. But one of us has a DNA lab report, while the other has the ramblings of a stranger on the street. To paint it like the playing field is level, like we are in the same state of relative ignorance, just because neither has "absolute knowledge" (what ever that would even look like) is frankly preposterous, even if it was not a complete digression off the topic at hand.

The answer only answer true and no. No one is really right or really wrong. What decides is the number of people who believe in it.

In matters of public opinion, yes, public opinion decides. Like whether the public at large perceives the idea that the earth is flat as really right or really wrong, that is a matter of public opinion. However, if we are going to say that there actually is an earth that really has a shape, that shape will be what it is, entirely irrespective of what its population believe it to be or decide to call it. I hesitate to call that its "true" shape, but if we are going to pretend that it makes any sort of sense to speak of reality at all (again, something nobody bothers questioning when ever there is actual evidence on the table), then it would have to be - among other properties - something that really doesn't give much of a damn whether or not people believe in it.

It's going to be hard to sell force powers on this site. That is, in part, because we all have to contend with the possibility of people coming here for other reasons; whether that might be trolling or scams or just someone catfishing people. It's not impossible that calling themselves "forceuser" is playing on their perception of our beliefs; assuming that we believe in force powers, and therefore using that to get attention and maybe even followers. However, this site is full of smart people. Most of the people I've interacted with on this site are very intelligent and that's one of the reasons why I love them.

But even calling yourself "forceuser" makes it sound like you have control over some form of "magical" force/ability. So it's not odd at all that people would question you about it because instead of telling the news media and becoming famous by convincing the world that magic does indeed exist, you come here, to a community of people who you believe are more susceptible to that idea. And in a way, we could feel mocked by that, as a community. Because if you can't prove it, why even say it? ...except that you thought we would believe you anyway... because we just want to believe in force powers like Christians want to believe in miracles and believe anyone with a good story involving such because they want to believe miracles exist.

Of course it is also possible that Christians do have experiences they cannot explain and cannot prove. Not having a camera handy when one is hit by lightning is perfectly understandable. But if you frequently get hit by lightning then people would naturally think you would set up cameras all around your house to capture it if it ever happened again. There are plenty of setups where a camera could record once movement is detected. Invest in something like that. If you're not even willing to do that; if you're not willing to invest in your own belief that you have powers and are a "forceuser" then you shouldn't expect anyone else to invest in that idea or belief either. And then what's the point of saying it? Saying it relies too heavily on other people believing you and they have no choice but to weigh your credibility. And if all you really talk about is having force powers then it looks all the more suspect.

So here is my honest recommendation.

1. Don't treat the community like a bunch of wizards with no powers; as if we all are desperate to believe magic exists, because we are intelligent adults who know the difference between fantasy and reality. Being a part of a star wars inspired community doesn't mean that we take star wars content as gospel.

2. Don't say you're doing experiments without any cameras set up. If you want to try to use telekinesis set up cameras first. If you believe it's real then you need to take it seriously before you expect anyone else to. And that requires that you get equipment and you set it up. If it were me and I had moved even a pencil 3 inches, best believe I would be trying every day for the rest of my life.

3. Science. We can trust science because it uses evidence and is falsifiable. In other words, if you can't prove it false (if it is) then it isn't science. If you aren't investigating other things that it could be, other than "force powers", its hard for me to take you seriously. And that's not me being hard on you. That's just common everyday sense. A ball has air inside. It can be picked up and moved by a sudden gust of wind. There might not be enough wind at the surface of the ground to move it, but when kicked into the air; especially where the wind can get underneath it, that's when even a little wind can produce radical results. Ever flown a kite? And maybe you don't remember that there were was any wind that day. Maybe your kid brain forgot that part because you were totally convinced that you did it all by yourself.

4. But that wouldn't even be consistent with the mythical "force powers" from star wars lore. I'm not saying if it really existed it would have to work in the same way as a work of fiction. However, your depiction is less like "The Force" and more like the God of the bible or Koran. Prophets claimed to be able to perform miracles. If you're not controlling it with your will then you are presenting it as more of an outside force doing it; but lacking communication skills so that it can respond on command. Almost, like you can hear it but it can't hear you. "The Force", in Star Wars, is not a person and therefore doesn't "talk" to anyone. It's will is an echo of the life forms that it binds together; sort of a "collective consciousness" of the universe. It is the CONNECTION between people that Star Wars focuses on and that connection is made to extend to inanimate objects. So if you hear a voice you should explain why its not Allah or Yahweh or some other mythical deity; but why you feel it is "The Force". Because this shows us your level of bias.

5. Normal participation. Don't try to get in the spotlight. If you make yourself the subject of conversation you cannot control where that conversation will go or how negatively it may shape perception of you. It also adds to the idea that you're probably doing this to get attention and therefore using what you believe is our desire to believe in "The Force" to manipulate us into giving you that attention in a way that you might suspect could be more positive than negative. But as I stated before, that would be a mistake. What you have to say would be taken more seriously if you were taken more seriously; meaning that you built up your credibility as any normal user would; by undertaking the IP, and becoming part of the community as an equal member of it; not as the "Chosen One" because you have powers and we don't.

6. Recognize that we are not here for mystical powers. We're here for self-improvement of a "spiritual" variety. That may have different meanings to different people and yes, occassionally there's always someone trying to prove that Reiki is some kind of "Force Power", but that's not why this community exists nor what it is built on.

I commend everyone for showing a lot of patience and restraint in this thread.

I think Forceuser believes in him and what he says. What I am trying to tell you is that although you do not subscribe to its history, it may not be useful to question everything.

He just wanted to speak on something personal that seems to be close to his heart. The way you question everything (something I appreciate) is not going to make him want to open up.

What would you say to people who believe in the theory of evolution and those who believe in religion? Adam and Eve vs The theory of evolution?

The theory of evolution is constantly changing because new discoveries which are added to accentuate or refute other discoveries. We could therefore say that this theory is neither true nor false.

Some religions tell us (In a nutshell) that God created man in his image. What is the evidence apart from the writings?

Would you say that the whole planet is wrong? Or according to your belief, would you say that only a part is wrong?

You could also say that everyone is right because you can neither refute nor validate everything.

Forceuser thinks that he has faculties, he also thinks that they are powers of Force.

Although like you I do not agree with what he says, neither will I tell him that he is lying or that he is wrong. Maybe in these words, he tries to tell us something else.

As a Jedi we must be intelligent and critical, but we must also let people believe.

Do you ask all the believers you know (maybe you are) to give evidence of the existence of their god? You can give all the arguments you want, they will tell you that God exists and that he created man in his image.

It would be an endless debate until the answer to all questions is known.

Gisteron wrote: <snip>...All in all I'm not saying your partner's grandmother wasn't clairaudient (though, needless to say, I have my doubts). But generally speaking I would invite to ask oneself questions like these about anyone claiming such powers, including oneself, before relying on voices of this sort. In fact, I think one is well advised to seek out medical attention, if one hears voices of any sort, benevolent or helpful or otherwise, before assuming that it must be divine communication or a psychic power.

You raise an interesting point about medical attention, not because the medical community is not really in a position to understand the function of the brain sufficiently to deploy particularly effective therapeutic application IMO, but because in my limited experience in this there is a distinct difference between hallucinatory voices and prophetic voices. Not just the peculiar and useful timing but the nature of the experience of them, for they again only in my experience, are distinctly clear and precisely timed. Versus hallucinatory voices which are often extended, on the periphery of intelligibility and variability in clarity and content. Reading that back it sounds a bit trivial, but in terms of the experience of voice it's like those things represent very distinct energy levels such that they almost feel entirely different types of experience (but not necessarily as I've only very limited experience with this stuff).

In regards to the mental health advice, it might be worth nothing that the medical community seems to be only really capable of providing a basic level of care rather then an effective systematic cure, and as such they have tended to a definition of mental disease which is less characterized by the presence of how society might define 'unusual' symptoms - to instead a place of providing care for people who need it.... the inevitable by-product of the slow pace of developing knowledge and technology in these complex fields causing a disproportionate awareness and capability in treating symptoms rather then causes. To the extent that a Doctor might ask a person presenting with mild symptoms if it is a problem, and if not..... do nothing. So I think it's more effective advice to tell someone who has symptoms you might classify as abnormal to visit a Doc if its giving them concern, rather then making a blanket assertion that the presence alone of symptoms which you yourself might consider to be abnormal associates their difference to what you consider unhealthy or damaged. Otherwise it can come off to others as you sneakily telling them they have a mental health problem, and its obvious to others.... which for most people is fine, but runs the risk of making actual vulnerable people feel more pain, because when it comes to psychological unsolicited advice your words can be equivalent to a prodding finger in an open wound; ie it's not like a nasty cut, where it's useful advice to tell someone they should get a Doc to have a look at that wound. IMO it's much better to promote the empowerment of the person you might think has a probem, by keeping the topic distinct from their identity as a healthy person - unless your a qualified medical practitioner of course!?

Sidetracked, but I only mention it because on these topics its easy for less well meaning folk to pick up on that habit of purporting to offer helpful advice in such a way as to actual demean and depower a person in an argument. Not to suggest you gave that impression to me.

But back to the topic, the 'power' as such in this case seems very inconsistent which is why it couldn't be called a skill. It's existence remains without clear cause so falls into the god of the gaps. Which I'm not sure is a bad thing if one has an interest and application in closing that gap.

Adder wrote: ... in my limited experience in this there is a distinct difference between hallucinatory voices and prophetic voices. Not just the peculiar and useful timing but the nature of the experience of them, for they again only in my experience, are distinctly clear and precisely timed. Versus hallucinatory voices which are often extended, on the periphery of intelligibility and variability in clarity and content.

Yet, who is to say that only one kind is prophetic? Maybe the clear and well-timed ones are the ones we can most easily link to events happening at later dates. But just because such links are easier to draw - and of course they would be, if the content of the voice's message is so much clearer - does that mean that they are less actual in what you call the hallucinatory voice? Perhaps there is research into it that I am unaware of. Even recognizing the qualitative distinction you are drawing, I'm hesitant to recognize "prophetic" and "hallucinatory" as more than classifications for now. What testable and successful theory predicts that supernatural revelations would not come in vague or extended sensations? What is the reason that a clear and conveniently timed message cannot be but a trick of one's mind, healthy or otherwise?

So I think it's more effective advice to tell someone who has symptoms you might classify as abnormal to visit a Doc if its giving them concern, rather then making a blanket assertion that the presence alone of symptoms which you yourself might consider to be abnormal associates their difference to what you consider unhealthy or damaged.

Well... Granted, hearing voices is not something I would personally think of as a mark of mental health. However, I am not qualified to make a diagnosis about such matters, so I don't go around telling people that they have a problem, let alone what sort of actions they need to take to remedy it, though, admittedly, the passage you quote from my post sounds very much like that's exactly what I'm doing. What I'm recommending is for people most of whom would be as unqualified in the area of mental health as myself to refrain from diagnosing themselves and to instead seek out the opinion of a trained professional. Perhaps there is bias in my perspective, as I happen to live in a country where healthcare is both affordable and excellent. To me, the question of whether or not some abnormality gives the patient worry is a secondary one, because I overlook that in some places even getting looked at by a doctor already counts as a form of treatment and comes with a bill attached. Moreover, to me the mere recognition - or perception, as the case may be - that something out of the ordinary is going on is already an admission that there is something there worth having a look at. Where I'm coming from, I'd rather have someone visit a doctor and walk away assured that there was nothing to worry about, than decide for themselves beforehand that there wasn't, and fail to find out while there was still time.

Sure, but it seems your assuming whomever it was intended for haven't already.... and while I like the better to be safe then sorry angle, its only when its not running the risk of causing its own harm. Anyway, I know what I mean lol.

But the early intervention has merit on its own as from what I've read psychosis has a distinct initial phase called prodromal, which if addressed within could have a better chance of avoiding an enduring psychosis. Neurons that fire together, wire together, so grinning and bearing mental health 'problems' might not be the best course of action. But everyone is different, and different is not unhealthy... unless it causes problems for the person and/or their contacts, AFAIK. As obviously what we call normal is because its been through a process of normalization! :silly:

What would you say to people who believe in the theory of evolution and those who believe in religion? Adam and Eve vs The theory of evolution?

The theory of evolution is constantly changing because new discoveries which are added to accentuate or refute other discoveries. We could therefore say that this theory is neither true nor false.

I appreciate your insight. Here's how I would answer that question.

The theory of Evolution is still a "theory" because theory means a little bit more when used in science. Evolution has actually been reproduced in laboratory conditions with bacteria. The point you were trying to make is understandable. However, when someone makes a claim that unicorns are real, for example... I'd like a little more evidence than just their word because there's no zoo that has ever had one, no safari that's ever spotted one, etc. And people sometimes spend years looking for "Nessi" or Big Foot because they are believers.

But to me, these mythical creatures fall in the category of "very unlikely". Because it's not outrageous to think that a horse could grow a horn like a deer. But if you tell me its a magical horse, now you've crossed the line. Now you are supporting the existence of a unicorn based on a belief in magic. Prove magic exists. Do that first. Then let's talk about your unicorn. I'll be much more persuadable.

There are people who can easily believe a human can walk on water. They don't question how. Someone says it happened and they don't question that person's credibility. They believe because they want to believe in magic. And they believe in magic because they want to believe in God as the ultimate genie and magic user... or "forceuser" if you will.

But magic came about because of human ignorance; because we saw things we couldn't explain. But as we developed tools and intelligence we created science to investigate and explain those things we didn't understand and thus superstitions were replaced by knowledge and experience. Man can fly now, not because of levitation and some magical ability to defy gravity, but because of understanding aerodynamics and lift; by understanding and working with, not against, the laws of physics.

But there always seems to be two camps. Those who want to believe and those who want to know. And believers often believe so strongly that they compare their belief to knowledge and experience. They tell you they saw an angel or an alien ship. But chances are these things were in their minds as possibilities before they saw them. I simply think of this as confirmation bias. Biases do affect science as well, but the difference in science is that it is falsifiable. It's trying to prove something is true by testing it, not by saying "oh there's some things we should just take on faith". No, science classifies those things and makes sure that we know it hasn't been proven to an absolute certainty. Doesn't mean it isn't true, but that we can't say 100% this is why it works that way. Our "math" could still be wrong.

I'm still seeing things in science that feel like magic so that wonder is still there for me. I've seen levitation, but levitation caused by magnetism which is one of the forces of nature. So I simply don't buy into the idea that some ideas simply cannot be explained. There could be things you can't prove. But can you explain how you can control the physical forces between objects with your mind? It's too convenient to say, "I can do it, but... I don't have control so I can't prove it." Well then, how do you know then that YOU are the one doing whatever you perceive is coming from you? To me that is simply another bias. If you want to have super powers and believe its possible, how far a stretch is it really? ... to imagine that something caused by other forces is actually being caused by you?

Like I said, if you kick a ball high enough into the air, air currents can act on that ball to change its trajectory. I've seen it. When I play basketball I know that if I spin the ball a certain way I can make it come back to me. That's not magic or the force. That's physics. I can spin a basketball on my finger long enough to see how more skilled people can do it much longer. That's not the force. That's the physical force you apply to the ball and the balance of how its weight shifts on your finger. A lot of people use spin when bowling to perform strikes. Some use a curve so sharp it almost goes into the gutter. I use a slight curve that looks more like its going straight because I only need the head pin to fall at within a particular degree span. Again... that's physics. It can be amazing to watch (well not me, but other bowlers and athletes), but its still based on physics.

And when everything we know for sure is based on certain laws or premises, and someone comes along and tells you those basic fundamental premises can be circumvented by just the mind when the mind exerts no physical force... sorry but I need a LITTLE MORE to buy into something so WORLD CHANGING, than just the word of someone on the internet. I remember not long ago I was commenting on a video about how game changing Unreal's new 3D engine is because of its unlimited polygons. And someone was like "you're just a guy on the internet". And that's so true. It's important to understand that. It helps keeps things in perspective. So my interest in game development, even though older in age than many gamers, my experience with both programming and 3D graphics... all has to be taken with a grain of salt. I haven't built credibility with everyone and no one needs to believe me. That's so very true. And I'm not asking anyone to, because I understand that I'm just a guy on the internet.

But likewise, so is forceuser (with all due respect to him). So if we keep that in perspective the burden of proof is on the believer, not on science or more science-minded folk to try and prove the believer wrong.

I am only a very small dot on this screen. Nothing more

For those very few who can see something might not be as it seems.
Maybe for a laugh look into the placebo effect.

And just maybe you will find some thing science can't explain where others have totally healed them selves of things that could and should not be possible.
Only by the thought energy of one person.

For some this will be the tip of the iceberg.
For others it will be a giant wall that can't be overcome

forceuser wrote: I am only a very small dot on this screen. Nothing more

For those very few who can see something might not be as it seems.
Maybe for a laugh look into the placebo effect.

And just maybe you will find some thing science can't explain where others have totally healed them selves of things that could and should not be possible.
Only by the thought energy of one person.

For some this will be the tip of the iceberg.
For others it will be a giant wall that can't be overcome

In my opinion, and with all due respect, you are simply trying to use the placebo effect outside of its context.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-sense/201201/the-placebo-effect-how-it-works#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20the%20placebo%20cure,pain%2C%20mood%2C%20or%20attitude.

If this placebo effect could explain (even remotely) any sort of "magical ability", then it would be reasonable that we could do an experiment in which a certain percentage of us would be able to levitate objects with our minds.

"In some respects, the placebo effect offers the best of all possible alternatives: therapeutic effects without the risk of negative side effects. That's why dozens of brain researchers are working to sort through the complexity of the numerous brain regions and neurotransmitters that produce placebo results. Theirs is no easy task. The placebo effect is not a single phenomenon, but the result of the complex interplay of anatomical, biochemical, and psychological factors. The same can be said for all our perceptions, I suspect. We see, hear, taste, touch, and smell pretty much what we expect to."

The mind, I'll be the first to say, is an extremely powerful biomechanical computer. That being said, no matter how amazing a PC gets it cannot perform real magic. You could increase the processing power by orders of terraflops and it still wouldn't be able to exactly predict the future, only probabilities.

But the amazing thing is that anyone can make predictions, even with a normal brain, that will sometimes come true. All the experience you have in your brain applied to your knowledge of history and the result is what you think will happen. This is an educated guess and you're likely to be more right than if you were guessing blindly. And even if you are very wrong, perhaps someone else will be very right. A million people making a million different predictions, someone is most likely going to get it right just like someone is likely to guess the right number and win the lottery.

These effects are due to statistical anomalies, not magic, not ability or foresight. The person who guessed the future isn't suddenly Nostradamus. And we shouldn't suddenly follow them or ask for their wisdom.

I can hit a half court shot backwards. I've done it more than once. Can I do it on command? Is it magic? Absolutely not. So what does it mean? Nothing. Just that I grew up trying to make crazy shots so I adapted different techniques to make it more likely to succeed. Does that make me a magician? No.

The article I posted talks about the fact that headaches go away on their own. So even though people should know that many people might equate the pill they're taking to headache relief; ESPECIALLY if the pill says that it may take 20-30 minutes to "work". How then do you know it was the pill, and not the headache going away because of the conditions for making the headache, much like a thunderstorm, have subsided.

And to me, that's what a headache is like. It's simply like a thunderstorm in your brain.

Nothing I'm saying is meant to dismiss you or say that you're lying or whatever else. I don't know you hardly enough to say any of those things. What I'm saying is that perhaps you are like those people in the study that thought their headaches going away was the result of the pill they were given because that was the idea in their own heads... their "belief".

You can believe something with absolute certainty. And you convince yourself so strongly and thoroughly that you convince others by your sincerity. But that doesn't mean there isn't another logical explanation for what you experienced. That's all I'm saying.

It seems like we are talking about two different things.

So I guess its possible you made a basketball shot from half court.
But some people want to believe they can make that shot so bad they actually talk themselves into believing they made it.
Maybe even your friends want to support you so much they even believe you made it.

I guess we could all set around all day and belittle
Every thing that has happened around the world

For example if you saw a man lift up the car you are driving with one hand.

You would talk yourself and everyone around you into believing it was because helium in the tires. Or on a calm day maybe it was the wind.

Or maybe it was the heavy bag the small girl just put in the trunk that offset the balance of the car and made it possible .

See I guess that was easy. now we have it all figured out how the guy did.

It seems we have hit that wall we cant get over again.

So for me anyway I'm just going to take a few steps and walk around it.

But that doesn't mean there isn't another logical explanation for what you experienced.


From cannon -
There was a Jedi master who could Force lightening a different color. When presented to the Council he was told - that’s yours do with it as you will - aaaaaand he disappeared in meditation for quite some time.


Results may vary as well as definitions and labels and identifications

Too sure
Some of us are - I know I get too sure some times. Almost about anything after a while. It’s a student thing. Think about it - the longer some one learns - the harder the hubris fall or the higher they build. It’s pretty common.


Logical or not - there seems to be MORE than one explanation for a few things.
Hope this helps

I think you are a 100% right on 99.9% of things that happen in life there is usually a good explanation for it even if we are unable to see or understand it at the time.
Even if we don't understand it. I would say you are right I'm sure there's anomalies or things that just happen that we don't understand but still explainable.
From others with far more knowledge or experience.

And I'm sure it is hard to understand unless you have experienced things for yourself but I am talking about the 0.001% of things that.
Just don't make sense physically scientifically or mathematically.

You Would have to throw it in the category of an act of G-d ,
Witchcraft
Sorcery
Paranormal.
Using drugs or alcohol
Hallucinations.
Or a psychological disorder.
or force power just because I don't really know how to define it.

I guess you would have to systematically go through and deduct what happened very thoroughly on each one of these possibilities.

And most of the time I try to only give accounts of things that multiple people have also witnessed.

Because some of the things I've experienced you would swear was science fiction .
And That it's hard to believe.

And of course I dare not say anything.

I'm pretty sure the few people who can relate to what I'm saying are people who have experienced something similar. Or they have strong Telepathy/Psychic abilities.

I'm sure for everyone else I don't blame you this totally sounds like someone who's on drugs or heavy medication. Or
Severe psychological problems.

I totally understand and I don't mind the hate mail.
I'm not looking to change people's minds or make friends
I have to say it would be nice to find someone else who had similar experiences who can relate to What I'm saying, because it can be a pretty lonely place.

That's why life seems to go so much better when one's mind is focused on work and the immediate things around us.

Like
Getting more education the environment . politics . work.Religion.etc.