Psychics

Give me your money and I will be your psychic.

My mother is a great believer in this stuff and took me to mystic rabbis once in a while. One told me I "shouldn't care so much what other people think of me", which is so vague and true about everyone that it's useless and yet at the same time probably applies less to me than it does to most; after the session I demonstrated the ridiculousness of this sort of thing by using a mathematical formula to tell my mother and each of her sisters which chapter of Psalms "best applies to them".

Years later I was taken to another mystic who blessed me with "health", which confused me because I wasn't sick. Well, I got sick the next day. So I facetiously told my mother I'm not going to psychics anymore. :p

Interestingly, my mother later consulted one about me during a dark period in my life, and he warned her about something ridiculous. But she didn't realize there was a second meaning to one of the words in the sentence, which perfectly applied to something I was doing at that exact moment on the other side of the world, about which she knew nothing. So, maybe there could be something to it? I'm a scientist at heart, so I'm inclined to disbelieve, but a truly honest scientist is open to being convinced should there be a preponderance of evidence. (One coincidence, though, is not a preponderance of evidence.)

Frankly, I won't believe in a psychic of any kind unless they can tell me the nature of my dark side without knowing about it first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No. I don't like encouraging con artists.

---

What about magicians?

---

Does anyone actually believe, and do magicians by and large seriously encourage the belief, that they are doing actual magic with mystical powers? I will cheerfully call any that do in order to lure in credulous dupes to be con artists. But otherwise I see that as a pretty clear distinction between the two groups (in general, as of course there can be exceptions). John Edward is among the most despicable, but his claims aren't any wilder than many self-labeled psychics.

---

Uri Geller is famous for claiming that he actually has mystical powers rather than just using it as a conceit. But he's also a bit of a jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sephex

This is kind of off topic, but I remember the time a friend of one of my exgirlfriends claimed to know all sorts of things about the afterlife/supernatural world. One of the points that she brought up was the "witching hour." She said this meant that there is a specific point in time where all spirits are more active across the world.

I then asked, "Do spirits know about timezones or daylight savings time? What about people that died before such concepts was introduced to society?"

She didn't like me much after that.

---

My mother-in-law believes in this ridiculous superstition (which several of my childhood friends also believed) that if you step over somebody they'll stop growing until you step over them again in the opposite direction. I once climbed over her to get out of a sofa and she started panicking, telling me I had to cross back over her. I asked her how much more growing she's intending on doing at the age of sixty. I then asked if it has to be the same person crossing over you in reverse or if anyone can do it; and what happens if you cross back over but offset the angle by one degree or five degrees or seventy degrees, and where the line is; and whether that means people who live around airports suffer from extreme dwarfism; and if there's a statistical correlation between being shorter and living on lower floors of an apartment building. She wasn't very happy with that :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No. I don't like encouraging con artists.

---

What about magicians?

---

Does anyone actually believe, and do magicians by and large seriously encourage the belief, that they are doing actual magic with mystical powers? I will cheerfully call any that do in order to lure in credulous dupes to be con artists. But otherwise I see that as a pretty clear distinction between the two groups (in general, as of course there can be exceptions). John Edward is among the most despicable, but his claims aren't any wilder than many self-labeled psychics.

---

Uri Geller is famous for claiming that he actually has mystical powers rather than just using it as a conceit. But he's also a bit of a jerk.

---

Really? You never saw the video where he got exposed?

I met one once. I was exploring some old ruins, when all of a sudden time stopped and this guy in funcky robes appears and starts talking about the world's inevitable doom unless I stop it, something about an Augur and how I didn't have much time before the end of all life or something.

I ignored him and punched a dragon, instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

No. I don't like encouraging con artists.

---

What about magicians?

---

Does anyone actually believe, and do magicians by and large seriously encourage the belief, that they are doing actual magic with mystical powers? I will cheerfully call any that do in order to lure in credulous dupes to be con artists. But otherwise I see that as a pretty clear distinction between the two groups (in general, as of course there can be exceptions). John Edward is among the most despicable, but his claims aren't any wilder than many self-labeled psychics.

---

Uri Geller is famous for claiming that he actually has mystical powers rather than just using it as a conceit. But he's also a bit of a jerk.

---

Really? You never saw the video where he got exposed?

---

"The" video? The man keeps getting exposed over and over again but somehow never gives up.

Wikipedia claims he changed his mind and his conceit in 2007, which I didn't know about, but then later in the article brings a quote from 2008 in which he still claims to have powers. It's impossible to keep a bad psychic down!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Does anyone actually believe, and do magicians by and large seriously encourage the belief, that they are doing actual magic with mystical powers? I will cheerfully call any that do in order to lure in credulous dupes to be con artists. But otherwise I see that as a pretty clear distinction between the two groups (in general, as of course there can be exceptions). John Edward is among the most despicable, but his claims aren't any wilder than many self-labeled psychics.

---

Uri Geller is famous for claiming that he actually has mystical powers rather than just using it as a conceit. But he's also a bit of a jerk.

---

Uri Geller is the exact sort of exception I was thinking about haha, although notably he also called himself a psychic, so I can still blame his con artistry and general douchebaggery on the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Really? You never saw the video where he got exposed?

---

What does that have to do with Geller being a jerk?

Also James Randi is my hero.

I really am psychic, though; it's not my fault that people have such a warped definition of what that means.

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Believe in clairvoyance, telepathy, synchronicity? Sure!

Believe in them being reliably perceptible by human beings for a business to be run that provides accurate service to each individual customer?

...That seems far-fetched.

The problem with the word psychic is that it is often an umbrella term to refer to a variety of preternatural abilities or claims that people make. As a kid, I read a lot about it and while I remain skeptical about many claims in general, there is a part of me that also entertains that certain areas are more credible than others.

Telekinesis/Psychokinesis: Moving things with your mind. A lot of these guys have been disproven. While it would be cool, I really doubt it.

Psychometry: Often said to be the simplest and easiest skill to develop, it is the ability to "read" objects. Basically, it is the ability to grab an object that has a strong connection to a person and glean information about the person from it. Seems to be a bit of cold reading going on here.

Telepathy: I think it is more of knowing someone really well and reading body language.

Mediums: Mediums, or other names, are historical and cultural present in many cultures. Many of them not only negotiate with the afterlife but also with other preternatural forces such as deities and spirits. It is a really interesting area of study. While I honestly of two minds regarding this (I think there are a lot of fakes out there), their roles in their respective cultures and societies are fascinating and often serve important functional roles.

Precognition: The ability to see the future. This I think is impossible since I believe that it is impossible to predict the future. Even if someone were able to, though unlikely, chances are they are merely seeing a possible future not the actual future.

Clairvoyance/clairaudience: The ability to see (or hear) events happening in the present (elsewhere) or in the past. Sometimes included: near future. Some old places have a feeling about them and a certain "energy"/atmosphere about them but that is about as far as I would go...?

Divination: Is distinct from precognition, but sometimes touches upon the same matter, divination is merely the consultation of usually, but not always, externals forces for advice or guidance. There are a lot of different traditions in this regard, though the most familiar to most is Tarot cards. I have a tarot deck that I use very sporadically. It is pretty accurate and I only use it as a tool of self-reflection. It is not going to tell me the winning lot numbers or anything like that, just give me another avenue of insight into a current problem. The more pressing/bothered I am by an issue the more complex the layout I use (traditional three card spread verses a full Celtic Cross spread).

So yeah, some info and my take on it. Kinda rushed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spooniest

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Believe in clairvoyance, telepathy, synchronicity? Sure!

Believe in them being reliably perceptible by human beings for a business to be run that provides accurate service to each individual customer?

...That seems far-fetched.

---

Any type of clairvoyance, telepathy, synchronicity, whatever, that actually exists can be analyzed to determine under what circumstances it does and does not work, to discover its limits, and to figure out exactly how to make it produce reproducible results. Science is not a mystical impenetrable magic - it is made of rules of logic. There is no such thing as something that "disappears when you try to analyze it with science" (and don't talk to me about the uncertainty principle, because that has reproducible results - we not only know what becomes uncertain, we can tell you in advance exactly how much of it becomes uncertain).

And of course, once you figure out the rules of something, even if it disappears and reappears under certain circumstances, you can still build a business out of it.

That doesn't, of course, mean that the business model must necessarily resemble the ones we see today. But if something exists, it exists whether or not you try to make money off of it.

"In your future you will die."


"Next!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi

There is no such thing as something that "disappears when you try to analyze it with science" (and don't talk to me about the uncertainty principle, because that has reproducible results - we not only know what becomes uncertain, we can tell you in advance exactly how much of it becomes uncertain).

And of course, once you figure out the rules of something, even if it disappears and reappears under certain circumstances, you can still build a business out of it.

---

I think the question of whether quantum particles or fields actually are real, exists in the material sense, is a very different question than discussing the viability of the standard model. It goes beyond just the uncertainty principle. There is something more fundamental at question regarding the existence (or non-existence) of quantum particles/fields. There is a really interesting article in the August 2013 issue of Scientific American by Meinard Kuhlmann, a German Physicist and Philosopher, that explores the metaphysical state of quantum particles and the discrepancies between what we see/calculate/do, what we infer, and what actually occurs.

Preview of Article mentioned above. Sadly, not the greatest blurb. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yerushalmi

There is no such thing as something that "disappears when you try to analyze it with science" (and don't talk to me about the uncertainty principle, because that has reproducible results - we not only know what becomes uncertain, we can tell you in advance exactly how much of it becomes uncertain).

And of course, once you figure out the rules of something, even if it disappears and reappears under certain circumstances, you can still build a business out of it.

---

I think the question of whether quantum particles or fields actually are real, exists in the material sense, is a very different question than discussing the viability of the standard model. It goes beyond just the uncertainty principle. There is something more fundamental at question regarding the existence (or non-existence) of quantum particles/fields. There is a really interesting article in the August 2013 issue of Scientific American by Meinard Kuhlmann, a German Physicist and Philosopher, that explores the metaphysical state of quantum particles and the discrepancies between what we see/calculate/do, what we infer, and what actually occurs.

Preview of Article mentioned above. Sadly, not the greatest blurb. :/

---

The whole point of science is that we come up with a theory to describe what's going on, that theory makes predictions about what will happen under various circumstances, and when those predictions are fulfilled we consider the theory to be correct.

Is it possible that the theory is wrong in some detail? Of course. It is even possible that the entirety of our conception is wrong but merely happens to coincide with the reality in most circumstances, and the moment we find a given discrepancy the entire edifice of theory we've built over decades or centuries will collapse, and we'll have to come up with something else entirely to match the facts? It's happened before.

But even if what we're describing isn't really real, and we'll find out exactly how wrong we are some day, that doesn't change the fact that the theory works for the things it was designed to describe. If particle-field duality doesn't actually exist, and we'll one day replace it with something else, that doesn't change the fact that computers and GPS satellites and particle accelerators and everything else we've built on the base of that theory works. Isn't that the whole point?

Mediums are amongst the scummiest people on the planet, imo.

"let's blatantly con people during their periods of grief".

smurf mediums, and smurf psychics in general.


Edit: Uri is kinda interesting in that he has claimed psychic powers for a long time, but has recently sort of loosened up and even appeared on the covers of magic (as in magic as entertainment) magazines and shown up at conjuring events. He will never admit to anyone that he uses common magician's tools and techniques but there is a sort of unwritten and unspoken understanding of sorts amongst the magical community as to what he does and what he is.

Oh, hucksterism? I thought we were talking about psychics.

It doesn't really bother me...con games are easy to beat. Don't get your wallet out. They say you can't cheat an honest man.