talkmagic.co.uk

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:So if I were to define evolution as a lizard giving birth to a chicken then I could say evolution isn't real and be right?

Of course you would.

By the definition you provided, evolution is probably not real. But thats all it is, a definition. It might create some ambiguity with Darwin's theory of evolution, but nonetheless it is not darwin's theory, it just shares the same sounds- it is far more constructive to look at the phenomena of chicken bearing lizards than the name you give to it:

The french call a foot 'un pied'. If an English person were to start going 'No!! A pie is something you eat! You are wrong!' then we could call them a retard. You can call a foot 'a cheese' 'a monkey' or 'werfjhbsadchgvwa' and a foot is still a foot, what sounds you choose to attribute to it, is up to you. If you want to start finding out about the foot, then you need to stop arguing about some sounds with which you are refering to it.


When you are debating something, then its important to make the definition's clearer; that is, you have to ensure the same lexical item refers to the same semantic item. In other words, you might also find a langauge which calls a pie 'foot'. Just because they have the same sounds which we use to refer to 'foot', does not mean we are talking about the same thing.

I hope I have explained this by now I have tried to make it clear and simple: 'Evolution' is just some sounds. It just so happens, that the definition is quite explicit, as Darwin takes an entire book defining it. But if I decided to study the science of lizards giving birth to chickens and I coicidentally gave it the now hynonym 'Evolution' then I should probably change it to something different for the sake of clarity though.

Real Paranormal Powers can really be anything. Sense the word tends to just mean "beyond normal.". Which I do believe in.

Evidence of this you say? Well there is a show on the Science Channel called "Stan Lee's: Super Humans." about people can do things that way beyond what most mortals can do. IE: a man who was able to free dive 600 feet without scuba gear and with a single breath of air. I could list all the others on the show.

As for REAL Psychic Powers... I dunno. I wouldn't really call them "powers.". Just more of a heightened sense of intuition. Which is something everybody is born with. But some people are born with a higher level of it. Just like some people can hear a pin drop from across the room, and others can taste the tiniest things in food. While some people can't. etc etc.

SamGurney wrote:

Jean Eugene Roberts wrote:So if I were to define evolution as a lizard giving birth to a chicken then I could say evolution isn't real and be right?

Of course you would.

No I wouldn't my definition would be wrong.

There is no point in debating whether something is real or not if we can't agree on the definition of whats being debated. Mark Lewis and Eshly will never agree on psychics being real because they define it in different ways.

The paranormal genre includes: Aliens, ghosts, U.F.O's, psychics, mediums, witchcraft, god's, demons, yetis, yogi's, out of body experiences, the loch ness monster, crop circles, stigmata, and the fact that Ozzy Osbourn is still alive. Not all of these things necessarily defy natural laws, however they are all unexplained. (I know that many have been explained but you get my point) The unexplained is the definition of paranormal.

You can subtract Ozzy Osborne for Keith Richards and you'd get the same result.

Mark is too funny sometimes. ....

But that is not what I was saying, my point was (Hopefully) explicitly allegorical, the point being that you cannot be wrong about definition.

You assumed there was only 'the' (appropriatley named the definite article) definition of 'evolution', I maintained that that was 'a' (Indefinite article) definition of 'evolution', but that 'evolution' when used to refer to Darwin's theory was 'a' definition, of the infinite possible definition, which had become- for the sake of language being conveniant- 'the' definition. That is how, then, the dissagreement arrises on the surface, although when looked at what is really being said there is no actual disagreement between us.

Of course, if I say we're not disagreeing and you say we are then we are disagreeing. But... such is life.

If I return to my long forgotten maths analogy, then if x is an independent variable, you CANNOT assign it a 'wrong' number, x can represent anything you wish. Sounds can represent anything you wish. However, I completley agree with you- given this analogy- that in order for x-1 = 9, you have to have agreed to assing x the value of 9.

What you are saying is that a definition must be correct in order for the argument to work. Which is conveniantly exactley what I am saying, as I just explained. I am just using different words:

Before you quote me- 'you cannot be wrong about definition'- against myself- 'A definition must be correct in order for the argument to work'- allow me to explain. In the sense that I am agreeing 'Eshly and Mark need to make sure they are talking about the same thing, not just using the same words', I am conceding that the definition must correspond mutually. However, my other arguments which you took issue with are merley demonstrating that definition doesn't neccesserily get mutually agreed upon and therefore the results of your logic are, to use the mathematical term, the 'function' of the definitions you use; if you change the definition, you change your conclusions. Those arguments were also there to explain that there is no innate pre-determined definition.

Therefore, we need to define what the question actually means before we can answer it. Simple. I really didn't need to explain why that is so, but it is. So moving onwards...

Given the definition provided- which once again I stress, in accordance with my previous arguments, is not THE definition but A possible definition- I can now answer the question. Yes I believe in the paranormal. This is clearly on the basis that abnormality exists and that I am constantly surprised by human acheivement. And stupidity. (At the risk of repeating myself for the 79th time, just to be certain, I reiterate though, that this is on the conditional of paranormal meaning that definition, not another one.)

I think I agree with you Sam, my first post on this subject was made to clarify what paranormal means so people wouldn't get bogged down in their personal definitions.

However there is one part that I'm not sure we agree on. People can have their own definition on something but that definition can still be wrong.

So to reiterate, paranormal means 'Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation'. I have no clue what powers mean but I assume it means abilities.

This is what happens when magicians start discussing psychics. The trouble is that few magicians really know themselves what they mean by 'psychic', they generally have very little experience of psychics and the services/entertainment they provide, and they tend to toe the party line as dictated by Derren Brown etc.

Really, there's no need to get so excited about it all. Psychics couldn't give a hoot what magicians get up. They would be mildly amused to learn of the frenzy they stir up on forums such as this.

I have already defined what I believe psychic ability to be and how I operate it to my satisfaction. I do get remarkable results with it. I cannot speak for my other psychic colleagues. They may well define things differently than me.

I will say one thing though. Very few of them cheat. NONE of them use what is known as "cold reading" I repeat. NONE of them. They have no idea what it is, in fact. The mediums, are however different. The ones I have seen on television cheat all the time and I do not approve.

The other type of psychics that cheat and are outright frauds are the gypsy type psychics. They would sell their own children if business was bad.

However most psychics are not gypsies or spiritualist mediums. They are very sincere people who try to help. And yes, despite what I said that applies to some mediums too although not all, especially the ones who appear on television.

Most people learn to ride bicycles without understanding the physics of riding bicycles. I think psychics who purport not to use cold-reading or similar techniques have learnt to ride the bicycle without understanding the physics of it. I believe that's one of the reasons so many psychics have a problem with Ian Rowland. His book on cold-reading is descriptive, rather than instructive. Very few psychics have learnt to do what they do by learning individual tricks and ruses, yet this is how Rowland breaks down and explains away what they do. Naturally psychics reject his analysis.

I personally choose not to believe in such powers because such powers have never been proven to work in controlled experimentation. Apologists will find reasons to explain why these powers flee the lab, but all this seems to suggest is that if such abilities are as fickle as all that, then they are not worth considering. These abilities are massively fallible and not under the control of the practitioner.

The same goes for god. The two biggest factors that determine a person's faith are where they are born and when they are born. Most gods are jealous gods, and don't take kindly to the worship of false idols. But there are shedloads of them; it is utterly unjust to expect a mortal to find the right one without any kind of unmistakable intervention on the part of the deity itself. Corinthians even warns us that the devil comes to us as an "angel of light", which doesn't give us much hope. No god, surely, would weight the game so far outside his creation's favour?

The question isn't "is there a god or isn't there?" The question really is "should I let the existence or otherwise of a god affect my way of life" and the answer to that, from me at least, is a resounding no. We all should live the best life we can in the short time we've got, because this may well be the only game in town.

And the question of your actual paranormal abilites is "should their existence or otherwise affect the way I live" and again the answer is no.

Can people really not see that the version of Mark who posts on forums is meant to be humorous (and provocative)?

I agree with Jean Eugene Roberts; if we cannot agree on what "psychic" means, the poll is meaningless. And we will not agree on what "psychic" means.

Oddly enough the Grue personage's post reminds me of something. I also think some psychics "cold read" without knowing they are doing it. And there is nothing wrong with that since the purpose is sincere and there is no fraudulent intent. In fact by doing this they are using genuine ability.

Now I mentioned this to one prominent psychic who got very indignant and said something terribly rude which because of my prudish nature I hate to write down. However I will steel myself to do so. He said, "Rubbish! That is the same as saying I am masturbating without knowing I am doing it"

I did not pursue the matter. Most psychics of my acquaintance get very indignant if you accused them of this. And if you were around psychics you would never hear them in their private conversations refer to fraud in any way. The ones I know are all quite genuine in their beliefs. Some of them are good psychics and some of them are not but they are all sincere.

I am afraid most magicians have utterly no idea how the psychic world operates and that includes Ian Rowland. He isn't qualified to comment on it, pure and simple. They talk about what they imagine goes on, not what REALLY goes on.

As for belief in God I would suggest that Mr Grue reads "A conversation with God" by Donald Walsh. It will no doubt traumatise him to find that I, Mark Lewis, according Mr Walsh am God. But then so is Eshly.

If that doesn't put him off his supper nothing will.

I don't remember much about my days as a QC advocate But there was one law that I do remember and I definatley did not learn it to agitate police officers that seem to have dreadful vendettas against groups of youths, which I have found on several occasions officers referencing this law incorrectly, on the assumption that empty headed youngsters don't know anything and could not argue a case for an adjudication which actually uses the law.

That would be the public order act, 1986, section 5 stating it is against the law to use disorderly behaviour within the sight or hearing of a person likley to be caused harrassment alarm or distress. (No I did use google, such is the extent of my coolness that I know it by rote). If I remember correctly, the conditions are that it must be clear the intention was to cause harrassment, alarm or distress and that the performer of the actions in question was aware of the presence of somone likley to be caused harrasment alarm or distress within the vacinity of the actions. I think there was one other condition, but I can't really remember. I am assuming it probably would be the condition that the prosecution have the burdon of proof to demonstrate that not only was there intention to cause alarm, but that the behaviour was actually likley to cause alarm in and of itself.

Just a quick lesson in law. I just hope Reverend Lewis was not to alarmed by anything.

With no malice though Kobain (I hate it when people gang up on others), the police do spent rather a lot of time smashing dope deals in place of making a safer country, when the fact of the matter is, many a cop has the inclination to deal. Btw, I share the conviction that patriotism is incredibly dangerous nonesense. The question is not weather you were fighting for this country or that one, but weather you were fighting for justice. If you were, then I commend you. But its all terribly political.

Edit: Guilty as charged for spelling. Fortunatley I have years of McDonalds working to get through until spelling even counts. And I do not take sides!

as science cannot prove the existence of psychic ability - then why do so many people rush forward to try and define it so strictly?

makes no sense, all we have is the theatrical/hollywood definition of it... and no one is claiming to be able to do that...

and before anyone does - please dont mix up mediumship with psychic...

for those of you who have fallen into his psychic holy reverence mark lewis' trap, take a step back, realise this is the internet, and getting all het up over someone who is the human version of marmite just wont do your blood pressure any good...

and, just cos you chose to go fight "for your country", doesnt mean you should get any extra respect...sorry... no one forced you (ironically) at gun point...i mean, what do you want? a medal?

Dearie me. Youth is wasted on the uniformed young it seems. It seems to me that the stress of his job is getting to him. Methinks he needs to see a psychic for metaphysical advice on how to relax. It would benefit him greatly.

Actually I work with the police quite a lot. I do many hypnosis shows for them and oddly enough many police officers come to me for psychic readings. After all they are human too, although in Alec's case I shall have to ponder on that fact a trifle more deeply.

Yes. Police officers come for readings and as a matter of fact a few of them are psychic practicioners themselves. I well remember one constable who did mediumistic work a la John Edwards and Doris Stokes a number of years ago. I think his bosses frowned upon the matter but he carried on nevertheless. He got quite a bit of publicity for it years ago.

And of course some of you may have heard of Brian Howard otherwise known as Hobrin. He was a policeman with a sideline of doing psychic readings and in fact actually did seminars on the subject like I and Paul are doing. He also wrote a couple of useful books on the subject. I noticed that unlike Alec his spelling was immaculate.

Spelling is important for police officers so I do advise young Alec to pay attention to it when he writes up his police reports. It does not bode well for his promotion prospects if he spells badly. I bet his Chief Constable spells properly.

And he must not make implied threats on the internet. That does not bode well for his promotion prospects either. Implied is just as bad as actual as he well knows. The Chief Constable will not approve especially when he reads the bad spelling.

I will be delighted to meet him at my seminar and take his 40 to 55 quid providing he behaves himself. I do get a psychic vibe that he is looking for a mentor in magic. I hardly think he needs one. All he has to do is search out my posts on magic and he may learn something instead of getting excited all the time. I can assure him that I am one of the greatest magicians in the world. Actually I am the greatest but I do not want to say so in case he deems me immodest.

I shall start my mentorship of him by advising him that his colour change is quite dreadful. First he should hold the deck in a horizontal flat position and much deeper in the hand. Not vertical. Horizontal. He should also tilt the left hand sloping downwards a trifle to enhance the illusion and in fact make the move a little easier. But most important of all he should bevel the deck inwards with the jutting part towards his body. The bevel should not be overdone. Just a trifle will do it. Then do the move as normal. It will enhance the illusion and get rid of the awful and terribly obvious giveaway of pushing the card forward. Of course he will still push the card forward but it will not be quite so glaringly obvious.

I might show him if I meet him providing he tries a bit harder to improve himself and grovels appropriately. After all it is a wise man who puts up with the individual quirks of the teacher if he wishes to learn. After all he does not have to live with the teacher but the knowledge he gains can live with him the rest of his life.

Oh dear! It appears that young Gurney is taking my side. I am not sure if this is a blessing or a curse since his spelling is even worse than Alec's. Still he does know more big words than Alec and at least he has stopped swearing in his posts. There is hope for him yet.

As for fighting for one's country I was not aware that Afghanistan was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I rather think I would define it as fighting for someone else's country. I have never understood the silly notion of going to war. It is far better to be a live coward than a dead hero I would have thought.