To think psychics are all fakes?

[LambinsideaDuckinsideaTrout]

I don't like that they take peoples money when they are in a vulnerable place, lost loved ones etc. It's immoral. Just my opinion.

Thoughts? Opinions?

'Nuff said.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

"You can't prove they don't exist 100% any more than I can prove they do."

No. But as I said, bring me a psychic and I can prove them either deluded or fake. And I can keep doing that until there aren't any left!

makes me laugh Misspixietrix I dont have an ipad or use predictive text but auto correct was somebody taking the piss

Evidence one for anything is a personal account.

We don't take anyone's word for anything though - we look for supporting evidence.

I can say I love my son but in order to prove it, I have to present further evidence.....which I can.

Your position:

I believe......xyz.

Evidence that it's true? Zero.

But you believe it anyway. Which is not normally how a rational mind works.

No, ANormal - that article says that chemicals are probably involved in how people respond to one another. Which is true. But I still cannot actually prove that I love my children - they just have to take my word for it.

You need to understand what an "emotion" actually is, Lottie. When you do, you can see that it has physical expressions.

What physical expressions Hetti? And how can you prove that those physical expressions are conducted out of love and not duty?

There is a difference between saying "you can't prove that you love your children" (I agree,by the way, I can't) and saying "You can't prove that this person isn't psychic". Than I can do.

It's worth pointing out that not all emotions are rational reactions too. Most of us know that even about ourselves.

But I'm not asking anyone to prove that anyone is or is not psychic. But rather that sometimes your own experience through your eyes is all you have as proof of something.

But rather making the point that*

The article also provided information on how we're developing the ability to demonstrate when someone is experiencing love, via brain mapping.

Can you be angry without "feeling" angry, Lottie?

Anger is as much an emotion as love.

Lots of biological responses come into play when we're angry - they make us go red in the face, they raise our blood pressure, increase our heart rate, change our facial expressions.

All of those things are measurable.

We can only ever "feel" something when there are physiological responses to feel. And physiological responses can be measured.

Same with love.

But emotion is most detectable through actions - so actions, which are evident to anyone, are the best evidence that the emotion known to provoke them is present.

"But I'm not asking anyone to prove that anyone is or is not psychic. But rather that sometimes your own experience through your eyes is all you have as proof of something."

That is not proof.

No experiment is ever going to be able to quantify an emotion though. You may be able to see that someone experiences some reaction from a brain scan but there is no way to prove beyond doubt what that feeling is.

I didn't say it was proof - read below

But an experiment can prove whether someone has psychic abilities or not.......

You don't need to 'quantify' an emotion to prove that you're experiencing it.

The main point I was trying to make is that an experience you have does not make you crazy or delusional, necessarily just because you cannot provide concrete evidence for your own perception of it to other people.

Similarly - there is no proof that we all see colours the same way.

There is a huge prize for anyone who can prove paranormal communication. It has been on offer since 1964, growing in size and is now a million dollars.

no-one has even got past the preliminary test, which is designed to weed out the obvious fakers.

all psychics are either crooks or deluded. Some are both.

Derek Accorah has just been done for careless (i.e. dangerous) driving. Didn't see that coming, did he?

I don't even get what we're debating anymore or what relevance it has to the OP.

a normal

Is it not true though , psychic abilities aside for a second, tht many choices people make are not based on fact alone.

I mean sure we can have the evidence right in front of us. We can have all the numbers or explanations etc. But still make the decision based on a "feeling" .

Like choosing a home. You have the pictures you have the measurements and you have the spiel from the estate agents. It may seem perfect on paper but "feel " all wrong. We can't always explain where these feelings come from or why we have them and often they make no sense because everything you wanted is right there.

Obviously Thats no proof of psychic abilities but isn't it proof that sometimes we have the ability to "just know" things despite what is written or appears in front of you.

As an aside of cours.

Lottie

Here's what I'm getting at:

Would you believe me if I told you that I flew to the supermarket this morning on the back of an invisible dragon?

No. You wouldn't. You'd ask me for evidence. If I provided you with none, you'd rationally conclude that this didn't happen.

That's how your mind works 99.99% of the time. You don't believe everything people say just because they say it - people can say anything, right? And the more outlandish their claim, the more evidence we look for.

In other words, if I told you my Granny is called Doris, you wouldn't demand evidence....lots of Grannies are called Doris, that's not an outlandish claim.

If I told you my Granny was called Doris and lives on the moon - you'd want evidence to believe that.

However, you are completely willing to believe, without any evidence at all - and in the face of an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary, that dead people come back to tell their relatives that they are OK.

This claim is as unlikely as my one about the invisible dragon. But you'll believe one and not the other.

How come?

It's not unreasonable to want to see proof of something, but it is unreasonable to assume that anything someone experiences that they cannot prove to other people means that they must be either crazy or deluded.

The issue is not whether ghosts exist or not. You can't prove a negative.

The issue is whether anyone on earth has any reason to believe they do.

The answer to that is no.

"Feelings" can be wrong, so aren't evidence of the slightest thing. Some people "feel" they are Napoleon - their brain is tricking them.

The evidence that the brain can trick people into believing, or even seeing things, is enormous. The evidence for ghosts is absolutely zero.

The maths is not difficult to figure out.