The role of Church in an atheist Society

[Mr Walker]

You really are not aware of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. You have chosen to define both in such a manner that there is ultimately no difference between them.

So what? Millions of people make perfectly a good living working for other people. Having special powers doesn't prevent some from getting kidnapped and held by criminals; indeed, there are far more powerless people held and kidnapped than people with power (criminals like to do things the easy way). Government work is particularly easy. They give you a lot of money and ask for relatively little effort in return. And working for them, you wouldn't have to worry at all about being kidnapped.

No, it doesn't. In all honesty, this sentence right here was the sole motivator for me joining this discussion.

Claiming that all one needs to be a scientist is reading and studying is as ridiculously as claiming the same for a doctor or a mechanic. There are fields where monkey skills are not sufficient. Where the sole purpose of reading and studying is just to get you to the minimum level where you can begin to gather the experience needed before you can legitimately refer to yourself as a professional in the field.

To believe that simply because you can think logically (unevidenced), rationally (mildly, though not heavily, evidenced), and objectively (displayed incorrect concept), even if you had done all three correctly (for lack of a better word), would still not make you a scientist.

I had to open a briefcase with a pin. I barely touched the hasp and pushed, and it popped right open.

Does that make me a locksmith?

You can add Skepticism to Objectivity and Subjectivity as subjects you do not understand as well as you believe you do.

Objectivity is the process of observing and describing an object I tis further extended to mean the material properties of things and to view something only as an object. Subjecticity is th eview of something through the eyes of a subject or person. It includes peronl bias feeling interpretation etc Subjectivity will impute properties which objectivity does not It is more complex than this but that is the gist of it.

Your second point is fatuous and irrelvant I already work for the government. It is not that easy. if you are not known then you are not likely to be troubled by anyone.

Yes it does. Reading and studying followed by practice gives an intelligent person the same knowledge and understanding as someone with a degree in that discipline. Learning is a life process not restricted to formal education or qualifications I never had any training in mechanics but I can make or fix most mechanical things from reading and practice. I never had any training but I can shear a sheep and class its wool. I've had little medical training but I can perform a lot of procedures in an emergency, from reading and practicing. No one taught me how to make explosives, timers, etc Iearned that from books and practice. Once you can read, any knowledge and ability is available to you.

There is no logical anology between opening a lock mechanically and knowing the combination of that lock.

Scepticism is properly the suspension of belief and disbelief. Ie one does not chose to believe something until one has evidence to know it to be so. One doesn't take something on faith. (but neither does one deny things on faith) But if one has evidence, and still choses disbelief because it is more comfortable, then that is an unhelpful form of scepticism, which limits ones ability to learn.

[Mr Walker]

How am I supposed to know that you consider pyrokinesis 'ridiculous and imaginary'? You believe in clairvoyance and remote viewing and other psychic powers that are squarely in the same category.

No, not only other's disbelief protects them, again you are confusing the stories fiction writers create with reality, writers embellish things in order to make a good story. A real psychic should be able to see any foreseeable abduction and possibly elude it

I see you as making excuses because you're doing your darndest to defend not allowing your supposed abilities to be studied, and to defend not providing any information that should make a person change about disbelieving you.

Well then it's not sounding like you have powers. Just because you guessed a combination lock once isn't indicative that you have them. There are millions of 'events' that happen in your life, it should not be unusual at all that 1-in-10000 occurrences happen many times. I thought you were just talking about how you studied and understood probability and statistics?

As I said, I'm biased against propositions that have no evidence to support them. You should be biased in that way too.

Again, this is an excuse; instead of providing any evidence or good reasons why you think people have these powers, you take the oh-so-common tack of instead skipping that and accusing me of already made my mind up and have some psychological barrier that 'prevents' me from realizing the truth of your stories. What specifically am I being prevented from doing, Dr Freud? I'm being prevented from understanding how convincing the evidence you are not providing is? If I was unbiased, I would believe what exactly?

I do not believe in remote viewing or mind reading. I know it works I don't believe in pyrotechnics I have never seen it work and so I suspend belief.

Define 'real psychic'. You see that tis the problem. I doubt there is anyone who can see and predict everything which might happen to them. The potential futures are too many and cross threaded. A 'psychic" sees some things For me it is things which relate directly to me and also to those around me in need

I am not a psychic. I can just perceive my environment in ways which some people have not learned to do.

For example most people can see the mundane world around them but few see it fully. Those who can, have learned to do so through practice and study and discipline. They see all things around them, know the types of cars, the clothes each person is wearing, how they are walking, what threat level they pose etc. It is the same with so called psychic powers .

Indeed I have eluded many dangers and death through connection to the cosmic consciousness but it would be stupid to deliberately put my self in danger As you point out this is not fiction here it is my real life.

I am not biased in this matter but then I do have lots of evidences These are lacking to you and so our understandings are different.

I chose not to believe OR disbelieve in anything I cannot know from experience. I've never encountered an alien and I do not believe in them, but neither do I disbelieve in them.

There are many things in life which, if you do not believe them to be possible, you will never be able to do.

For example if you chose to believe it is impossible for you to look a the page of a novel or science book, and see read and remember it all instantly, then you will never be able to do it.

However if you believe it is possible, you might put in the reading, time and discipline, required to do it. Then you will discover it is entirely possible for anyone to do. Same with remembering hundreds/thousands of numbers or telephone addresses. if you were unbiased your mind would be open to potentialities which might lead you to new discoveries.

As a child I was taught, and learned fro experience, that there was nothing I could not achieve through education/study, hard work, discipline and sustained effort. That has helped me in life. If I had been taught that some things were impossible. I would never have tried them and thus never have done them.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I am not a psychic. I can just perceive my environment in ways which some people have not learned to do.

The way you are perceiving your environment involves senses that are essentially unknown to the scientific community, it doesn't matter what label we attach to it.

I am not biased in this matter but then I do have lots of evidences These are lacking to you and so our understandings are different.

These evidences are not just lacking to me, they are lacking to nearly the entire scientific community.

However if you believe it is possible, you might put in the reading, time and discipline, required to do it. Then you will discover it is entirely possible for anyone to do.

Doubtful. You act as if no one has tried to do what you can do and failed, namely, scientists who have studied this supposed phenomenon.

if you were unbiased your mind would be open to potentialities which might lead you to new discoveries.

It 'might'. Of course lots of people have already attempted this and failed, and you conveniently can't demonstrate your powers that only work sometimes yet you know they are statistically significant despite not being able to provide any evidence of such.

As a child I was taught, and learned fro experience, that there was nothing I could not achieve through education/study, hard work, discipline and sustained effort.

So was I. Of course it's not literally true, unless you think that through sustained effort you'll be able to fly or breathe underwater without assistance someday.

But we seem to be in repetition here, most of your posts are again just reiterations of your claims and your psychological theories on why I, and apparently the entire scientific community, can't comprehend how supposedly compelling your case is. Anyway, you implied that my 'overactive skepticism' may be blinding me to the 'real truths' of 'our connection to the rest of the world. I've asked what I'm being overly skeptical about in specific, and I don't think you have answered. What piece of evidence or rational analysis has been provided that my skepticism is overactive concerning? If I was not so overactively skeptical, I would realize what? That your powers are possible? That was never in dispute.

[Mr Walker]

The way you are perceiving your environment involves senses that are essentially unknown to the scientific community, it doesn't matter what label we attach to it.

These evidences are not just lacking to me, they are lacking to nearly the entire scientific community.

Doubtful. You act as if no one has tried to do what you can do and failed, namely, scientists who have studied this supposed phenomenon.

It 'might'. Of course lots of people have already attempted this and failed, and you conveniently can't demonstrate your powers that only work sometimes yet you know they are statistically significant despite not being able to provide any evidence of such.

So was I. Of course it's not literally true, unless you think that through sustained effort you'll be able to fly or breathe underwater without assistance someday.

But we seem to be in repetition here, most of your posts are again just reiterations of your claims and your psychological theories on why I, and apparently the entire scientific community, can't comprehend how supposedly compelling your case is. Anyway, you implied that my 'overactive skepticism' may be blinding me to the 'real truths' of 'our connection to the rest of the world. I've asked what I'm being overly skeptical about in specific, and I don't think you have answered. What piece of evidence or rational analysis has been provided that my skepticism is overactive concerning? If I was not so overactively skeptical, I would realize what? That your powers are possible? That was never in dispute.

If you were not so sceptical you could find the same abilities in yourself.

I am not specia,l just an ordinary human being .Thus anything I can do, anyone else can do. That is one reason I post on here to encourage others and to read of their own successes and failures.

Perhaps certain events or experiences in childhood helped me perhaps I have a genetic predisposition but even so anyone should be able to do anything I can do. For example glance at a page and know its contents and remember/understand them in a second or so. You just have to learn how to. Because I was helped to read when I was two years old and was incorporated in adult debates and discussions from an early age, I have some advantage but not enough to make a real difference.

And yes I can fly unassisted, breathe underwater and walk through walls So far only by conscious effort in dreams, but given modern science one never knows. I have flown with nothing more than a hang glider; held my breath under water while free diving for over five minutes and spent several days underwater in a habitat, but although I have a go every day, so far I haven't been able to walk through a solid wall. Quantum physics tells me it is theoretically possible, however, so I never give up trying different methods.

The closest I got as a teenager was breaking bricks/concrete building blocks, with my bare hands, as part of learning how to defend my self. One day humans will have gills of a mechanical or genetically created sort, so we will be able to live underwater and breathe like a fish does. To humans, nothing we imagine is physically impossible, because of our technological abilities..

Edited February 19, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

So I guess the answer is then no, MW, you cannot tell me what piece of evidence or reasoning I'm treating overactively skeptically concerning your special powers. You know I'm not talking about your speed reading, there's nothing special or unusual about that, and has no apparent relation to what's going on when you can determine, not just guess, the combination of a lock 'somehow'.

But heaven forbid I interrupt an opportunity for you to tell me again how highly you think of yourself. Don't be shy, I'm sure you were probably breaking concrete with your bare hands to rescue hundreds of children from an orphanage fire that you noticed while you were on your way to deactivate a terrorist nuclear bomb which resulted in you being secretly feted by the leaders of the free world, all of whom are of course personal friends of yours. Just too bad that, "I am exceptional", isn't actually a rational argument or evidence of much.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Perhaps certain events or experiences in childhood helped me perhaps I have a genetic predisposition but even so anyone should be able to do anything I can do.

I certainly hope you don't truly believe that. And as a school teacher, I certainly hope you don't expect that from your students. I'm not exceptional either. I'm just a regular guy. When I was 14, I picked up the piano as a hobby, self-taught for six months, then went to a piano tutor. I was automatically placed in the 4th Grade AMEB (Australian Music Examination Board), when most people after six months of self-teaching would still be on 1st or 2nd Grade. I then passed the exam with flying colours. I skipped 5th Grade exam and went straight to 6th. Within two years of first learning, I was receiving my 6th Grade certificate (minimum university entrance for Bachelor Music). It wasn't perfect, because I'd only been playing for so short a time, the examiners described my Scales and Arpeggios as "need work, sometimes sloppy". In year 11, I went to a Schools Elite Piano competition held in Sydney. Something like 14 people were in my music division. I was the only one with public school education, the rest were rich Private School folks who had been learning with the best teachers since they were 5 or 6 or 7. I came 13th out of 14 that day. Not the ideal situation, but considering all things, I'm happy with that.

By this stage I'd already skipped the 7th Grade AMEB certificate and was studying for my 8th Grade certificate when I decided my piano tutor could no longer improve my abilities further. In retrospect I should have found another tutor to help, but I never went for my 8th Grade certificate.

But I'm not self-important enough to think that just because I could so faultlessly and easily learn music (not just piano, I was also the saxophonist in the school band, plus I was a bass-player/singer for several bands throughout High School and since then (often singing/playing for church)) that anyone else can just pick it up and do exactly as I did. We all have different gifts, we have different talents, we learn differently, and we have different things that we are naturally good at.

Ask me to throw a ball at a target, even a relatively small distance away, chances are I'll miss. I might get lucky once in a while but my middle-long distance hand-eye coordination is pretty crappy. Can I improve it? With practice, definitely. But no matter how much I practice I will never get as good as someone who naturally has that ability to just see a target and nail it! Maybe I can match them, but with practice they'll improve and surpass me by a long way. I'm also quite a big man (6-foot, shoulders built like a brick. If I was in better physical condition I'd be a very menacing opponent in a boxing ring, for example. But no matter how well I could do that if I put my skills towards it, that would not mean that I could then enter a 100-metre sprint and expect to do better than 14 seconds. Certainly no amount of practice will get me as good as Ussain Bolt. Or even someone of equal size as me who just happens to be more athletically gifted. I might practice and reach that level of fitness, but they get that way naturally, and more practice just turns them into athletic machines who would run rings around someone like me.

We have limits, and we have talents. And we have these things because all people are different, and I am actually quite dumbfounded that you think that anyone can do exactly what you do just because you think you have these talents that you learned through good childhood upbringing. I was reading when I was very young also. I can't recall how old I was, but my brain was taking a very long time to decided whether I'd be a lefty or a righty, so much so that I was still silent when I was 4 years old. So it's very true when I say that I was reading before I could talk. When my brain did finally decide (I'm a lefty, through and through), I just began talking in complete sentences, not starting with single words like "mummy", "daddy", "poopy", that kind of thing. I can speed-read a little bit, though more practice would help me improve, but that's a far cry from telling people that they can walk through walls. Why you would even consider trying each day just because quantum theory says it might happen. Breaking bricks with your hands, that's just another excuse to boast, I think. My brother can do that, probably better than you can. He took up Kung Fu, and studied part-time eventually teaching classes with his Sifu on Sunday afternoons and competing in weekend displays and demonstrations, tournaments, and lion-dancing routines. This is a skill that can be learned, though much harder to master. Knowing the combination of a 4-digit safe just by thinking about it, that's something completely different.

And I'm going to guess you're going to play the Yoda card here and say "No, no different - only different in your mind". Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in things that are unexplainable. But if you have a gift like you claim to have (and I have no doubt you "believe" you have this gift), it's not something that everyone has, no more than anyone can just pick up a piano and learn it as quickly as I did. Some people struggle to even remember what note is what on a music stave, to me it was as natural as breathing.

So back to my original comment - I hope you aren't expecting your students to be able to do everything you can do just because you can do them. I should hope that you have the Board of Studies Guidelines and teach the material set forth therein. Though teaching is a more holistic profession than just teaching course content, so sure impart other knowledge if it helps. I just hope you aren't setting unrealistic expectations.

~ Regards, PA

[+Sherapy]

I certainly hope you don't truly believe that. And as a school teacher, I certainly hope you don't expect that from your students. I'm not exceptional either. I'm just a regular guy. When I was 14, I picked up the piano as a hobby, self-taught for six months, then went to a piano tutor. I was automatically placed in the 4th Grade AMEB (Australian Music Examination Board), when most people after six months of self-teaching would still be on 1st or 2nd Grade. I then passed the exam with flying colours. I skipped 5th Grade exam and went straight to 6th. Within two years of first learning, I was receiving my 6th Grade certificate (minimum university entrance for Bachelor Music). It wasn't perfect, because I'd only been playing for so short a time, the examiners described my Scales and Arpeggios as "need work, sometimes sloppy". In year 11, I went to a Schools Elite Piano competition held in Sydney. Something like 14 people were in my music division. I was the only one with public school education, the rest were rich Private School folks who had been learning with the best teachers since they were 5 or 6 or 7. I came 13th out of 14 that day. Not the ideal situation, but considering all things, I'm happy with that.

By this stage I'd already skipped the 7th Grade AMEB certificate and was studying for my 8th Grade certificate when I decided my piano tutor could no longer improve my abilities further. In retrospect I should have found another tutor to help, but I never went for my 8th Grade certificate.

But I'm not self-important enough to think that just because I could so faultlessly and easily learn music (not just piano, I was also the saxophonist in the school band, plus I was a bass-player/singer for several bands throughout High School and since then (often singing/playing for church)) that anyone else can just pick it up and do exactly as I did. We all have different gifts, we have different talents, we learn differently, and we have different things that we are naturally good at.

Ask me to throw a ball at a target, even a relatively small distance away, chances are I'll miss. I might get lucky once in a while but my middle-long distance hand-eye coordination is pretty crappy. Can I improve it? With practice, definitely. But no matter how much I practice I will never get as good as someone who naturally has that ability to just see a target and nail it! Maybe I can match them, but with practice they'll improve and surpass me by a long way. I'm also quite a big man (6-foot, shoulders built like a brick. If I was in better physical condition I'd be a very menacing opponent in a boxing ring, for example. But no matter how well I could do that if I put my skills towards it, that would not mean that I could then enter a 100-metre sprint and expect to do better than 14 seconds. Certainly no amount of practice will get me as good as Ussain Bolt. Or even someone of equal size as me who just happens to be more athletically gifted. I might practice and reach that level of fitness, but they get that way naturally, and more practice just turns them into athletic machines who would run rings around someone like me.

We have limits, and we have talents. And we have these things because all people are different, and I am actually quite dumbfounded that you think that anyone can do exactly what you do just because you think you have these talents that you learned through good childhood upbringing. I was reading when I was very young also. I can't recall how old I was, but my brain was taking a very long time to decided whether I'd be a lefty or a righty, so much so that I was still silent when I was 4 years old. So it's very true when I say that I was reading before I could talk. When my brain did finally decide (I'm a lefty, through and through), I just began talking in complete sentences, not starting with single words like "mummy", "daddy", "poopy", that kind of thing. I can speed-read a little bit, though more practice would help me improve, but that's a far cry from telling people that they can walk through walls. Why you would even consider trying each day just because quantum theory says it might happen. Breaking bricks with your hands, that's just another excuse to boast, I think. My brother can do that, probably better than you can. He took up Kung Fu, and studied part-time eventually teaching classes with his Sifu on Sunday afternoons and competing in weekend displays and demonstrations, tournaments, and lion-dancing routines. This is a skill that can be learned, though much harder to master. Knowing the combination of a 4-digit safe just by thinking about it, that's something completely different.

And I'm going to guess you're going to play the Yoda card here and say "No, no different - only different in your mind". Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in things that are unexplainable. But if you have a gift like you claim to have (and I have no doubt you "believe" you have this gift), it's not something that everyone has, no more than anyone can just pick up a piano and learn it as quickly as I did. Some people struggle to even remember what note is what on a music stave, to me it was as natural as breathing.

So back to my original comment - I hope you aren't expecting your students to be able to do everything you can do just because you can do them. I should hope that you have the Board of Studies Guidelines and teach the material set forth therein. Though teaching is a more holistic profession than just teaching course content, so sure impart other knowledge if it helps. I just hope you aren't setting unrealistic expectations.

~ Regards, PA

Very well said. I am a full time learning coach for my son and a girl I have tutored the last 4 years. Math is not the favorite subject of many kids it's a lot of work. But that doesn't scare me off, I love math and get it and I have a way of finding ways to help kids get it too. I don't give up, I will try to find a way to connect them to the beauty of Math. My son will be pursuing Computer Science as his degree( he is an honors student ) and the girl I tutor is getting an A in Geometry, she was failing in public school. She was in danger of not graduating if she didn't pass. I do not think I had unrealistic expectations, I just knew I could come up with a way to bring Math alive for both types of brains. My son is really left brain and Autumn is right. Both went through stages they hated math too. In truth, I think it doesn't hurt to try to inspire a kid to reach higher. You would be surprised at how many do.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

I certainly hope you don't truly believe that. And as a school teacher, I certainly hope you don't expect that from your students. I'm not exceptional either. I'm just a regular guy. When I was 14, I picked up the piano as a hobby, self-taught for six months, then went to a piano tutor. I was automatically placed in the 4th Grade AMEB (Australian Music Examination Board), when most people after six months of self-teaching would still be on 1st or 2nd Grade. I then passed the exam with flying colours. I skipped 5th Grade exam and went straight to 6th. Within two years of first learning, I was receiving my 6th Grade certificate (minimum university entrance for Bachelor Music). It wasn't perfect, because I'd only been playing for so short a time, the examiners described my Scales and Arpeggios as "need work, sometimes sloppy". In year 11, I went to a Schools Elite Piano competition held in Sydney. Something like 14 people were in my music division. I was the only one with public school education, the rest were rich Private School folks who had been learning with the best teachers since they were 5 or 6 or 7. I came 13th out of 14 that day. Not the ideal situation, but considering all things, I'm happy with that.

By this stage I'd already skipped the 7th Grade AMEB certificate and was studying for my 8th Grade certificate when I decided my piano tutor could no longer improve my abilities further. In retrospect I should have found another tutor to help, but I never went for my 8th Grade certificate.

But I'm not self-important enough to think that just because I could so faultlessly and easily learn music (not just piano, I was also the saxophonist in the school band, plus I was a bass-player/singer for several bands throughout High School and since then (often singing/playing for church)) that anyone else can just pick it up and do exactly as I did. We all have different gifts, we have different talents, we learn differently, and we have different things that we are naturally good at.

Ask me to throw a ball at a target, even a relatively small distance away, chances are I'll miss. I might get lucky once in a while but my middle-long distance hand-eye coordination is pretty crappy. Can I improve it? With practice, definitely. But no matter how much I practice I will never get as good as someone who naturally has that ability to just see a target and nail it! Maybe I can match them, but with practice they'll improve and surpass me by a long way. I'm also quite a big man (6-foot, shoulders built like a brick. If I was in better physical condition I'd be a very menacing opponent in a boxing ring, for example. But no matter how well I could do that if I put my skills towards it, that would not mean that I could then enter a 100-metre sprint and expect to do better than 14 seconds. Certainly no amount of practice will get me as good as Ussain Bolt. Or even someone of equal size as me who just happens to be more athletically gifted. I might practice and reach that level of fitness, but they get that way naturally, and more practice just turns them into athletic machines who would run rings around someone like me.

We have limits, and we have talents. And we have these things because all people are different, and I am actually quite dumbfounded that you think that anyone can do exactly what you do just because you think you have these talents that you learned through good childhood upbringing. I was reading when I was very young also. I can't recall how old I was, but my brain was taking a very long time to decided whether I'd be a lefty or a righty, so much so that I was still silent when I was 4 years old. So it's very true when I say that I was reading before I could talk. When my brain did finally decide (I'm a lefty, through and through), I just began talking in complete sentences, not starting with single words like "mummy", "daddy", "poopy", that kind of thing. I can speed-read a little bit, though more practice would help me improve, but that's a far cry from telling people that they can walk through walls. Why you would even consider trying each day just because quantum theory says it might happen. Breaking bricks with your hands, that's just another excuse to boast, I think. My brother can do that, probably better than you can. He took up Kung Fu, and studied part-time eventually teaching classes with his Sifu on Sunday afternoons and competing in weekend displays and demonstrations, tournaments, and lion-dancing routines. This is a skill that can be learned, though much harder to master. Knowing the combination of a 4-digit safe just by thinking about it, that's something completely different.

And I'm going to guess you're going to play the Yoda card here and say "No, no different - only different in your mind". Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in things that are unexplainable. But if you have a gift like you claim to have (and I have no doubt you "believe" you have this gift), it's not something that everyone has, no more than anyone can just pick up a piano and learn it as quickly as I did. Some people struggle to even remember what note is what on a music stave, to me it was as natural as breathing.

So back to my original comment - I hope you aren't expecting your students to be able to do everything you can do just because you can do them. I should hope that you have the Board of Studies Guidelines and teach the material set forth therein. Though teaching is a more holistic profession than just teaching course content, so sure impart other knowledge if it helps. I just hope you aren't setting unrealistic expectations.

~ Regards, PA

Intrinsically all humans have certain abilities Some have genetic abilities in certain areas, but basically we are not that different from each other, unless we have a mental or physical impairment. I was just reading the other day about a person who learned how to perfect his memory and can remember all sorts of incredible thingslike strings of numbers a thousand long and whole phone books of names He explained tha, tin a few weeks he can teach anyone the basics of how to do the same and then it just takes time and practice.

One thing I am not good at is music but then I am tone deaf, have tinnitus and was never exposed to music as a child. But I could learn to play the guitar or piano if I was motivated to. I know because I learned the basics of both in a short time. My point was rather that, because all our minds are basically similar there is no reason why one person should have psychic abilities while another does not. It is like speech or reading. We all have the capacity but must be taught how to and the more we practice and learn how to the better we get. As a young child I was porly coordinated but I learned the hand eye skills need through study and practice and eventually became good at all sorts of sports. Because all skills are transferrable, things learned in one sport make learning the next one easier. Roller skating ice skating, snow and water skiing, surfing and many other sports all use the same techniques of balance, for example.. Thus it took me a year to learn to skate board proficiently, aged 10 or 11 (once I had built my own skate board from scratch); a few weeks to surf and hang five aged 16 or so; a week to learn to ski bare foot on water aged 18 and only two days on skis in my early twenties before I was off the novice slopes and on the moderately difficult ones. I was up and ice skating on my first attempt because it was so similar to roller skating which took me some time to master.

So skills are transferrable and useful in many things. Once you learn "psychic" abilities in one area, it is easier to improve other related abilities, because certain neural pathways have been opened up in your mind.

I expect my students to try their hardest and do their best in everything they attempt. Otherwise they will never know just how far they can go in anything. I ask no more of them than this, but most are not willing to make such an effort, and modern Australian society does not demand such discipline and effort from our children. For a variety of reasons some will excel in sports, others in language arts or music, IT, and a few in maths or science. But ALL can achieve considerable success in all those areas, especially if they realise they have a whole life in which to do so. I never thought as a child, that I would ever be any good at sports, but they are all just areas of study. Once you learn the skills and techniques and practice them, you can become proficient in them And once you are proficient you can enjoy them In this regard sport is no different to reading if you don't become proficient in reading you will never enjoy it, and thus never develop skill in it. So proficiency must be taught to all, whether it be in a sport, or English or maths, so they CAN enjoy it and will use it all their lives. .

Ps the bit about breaking bricks was a humorous aside about walking through walls by smashing the bricks they are made of.

As a teenager I did teach myself to smash both besser block bricks and thick pieces of wood. It took both specialised knowledge, mental and physical discipline, and a lot of time hardening up my hands. It was only a passing phase along with many other interests of childhood. I ended up with a permanently crooked small finger which broke during one session. Today I retain the skill and technique, but not the hardness of skin and bone, to break bricks, although I can still impress my students by breaking thick pieces of wood. It's all in the technique.

Further to my point about walking through walls. My point was with anything, if you never attempt it, you will never know if it is possible and you certainly will never be successful. One should never just assume something can't be done because someone else tells you it cannot. Many times they are simply wrong.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Link of Hyrule]

Very well said. I am a full time learning coach for my son and a girl I have tutored the last 4 years. Math is not the favorite subject of many kids it's a lot of work. But that doesn't scare me off, I love math and get it and I have a way of finding ways to help kids get it too. I don't give up, I will try to find a way to connect them to the beauty of Math. My son will be pursuing Computer Science as his degree( he is an honors student ) and the girl I tutor is getting an A in Geometry, she was failing in public school. She was in danger of not graduating if she didn't pass. I do not think I had unrealistic expectations, I just knew I could come up with a way to bring Math alive for both types of brains. My son is really left brain and Autumn is right. Both went through stages they hated math too. In truth, I think it doesn't hurt to try to inspire a kid to reach higher. You would be surprised at how many do.

I'm all for helping kids learn, and they all have their different ways - there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach to learning, which you demonstrate very well, I might add. Mr Walker is a bit more constrained by the confines of a public school classroom, but even in that setting there are ways of helping different kids learn based on the way they learn (and considering his extensive experience, I have no doubt he employs some of these). But I do disagree with the general premise that just because one person can do something, then all people can do it - different people have different talents. This leads to the possibility of "favouritism", that a person is not learning new skills or growing in ability for the simple reason that they are not "trying hard enough". That's a load of crap, in my personal opinion.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Intrinsically all humans have certain abilities Some have genetic abilities in certain areas, but basically we are not that different from each other, unless we have a mental or physical impairment. I was just reading the other day about a person who learned how to perfect his memory and can remember all sorts of incredible thingslike strings of numbers a thousand long and whole phone books of names He explained tha, tin a few weeks he can teach anyone the basics of how to do the same and then it just takes time and practice.

One thing I am not good at is music but then I am tone deaf, have tinnitus and was never exposed to music as a child. But I could learn to play the guitar or piano if I was motivated to. I know because I learned the basics of both in a short time. My point was rather that, because all our minds are basically similar there is no reason why one person should have psychic abilities while another does not. It is like speech or reading. We all have the capacity but must be taught how to and the more we practice and learn how to the better we get. As a young child I was porly coordinated but I learned the hand eye skills need through study and practice and eventually became good at al sorts of sports. Because all skills are transferable things learned in one sport make learning the next one easier Roller skating ice sakitn snow and water skiing surfing and many other spoerts al use th esame techniques of balance for example.. Thus it too me a year to learn to skate board proficiently, aged 10 or 11 (once I had built my own skate board from scratch); a few weeks to surf and hang five aged 16 or so; a week to learn to ski bare foot on water aged 18 and only two days on skis in my early twenties before I was off the novice slopes and on the moderately difficult ones. I was up and ice skating on my first attempt because it was so similar to roller skating which took me some time to master.

I'm not saying that people can't gain skills by experience and study. But it's a simple fact of life that not all people are cut out to be scientists. Their mind is simply not analytical enough. Some people are simply not cut out to be fiction authors - their minds are just not creative enough. Some people are just not cut out to be musicians - their ability to interpret symbols and interpret them as a musical language is simply insufficient (though the ability to read sheet-music is not a requisite for being an awesome musician, but not everyone can understand the relationship between chordal progressions, even when taught extensively). Some people are just not cut out to be athletes - they are small and geeky, their intellect towers over others and lets them pursue something like science or Computer Engineering instead). They can improve their skills, learn different techniques and over time bring their skills up to some kind of intangible "requisite", but the fact is that some people are just born more talented than you, and no matter how much you try, assuming they put in the same effort, you'll never catch them. It works vice versa also, we all have skills that surpass someone else, and if we put as much effort into them as others do, then they will never catch us.

So skills are transferrable and useful in many things. Once you learn "psychic" abilities in one area, it is easier to improve other related abilities, because certain neural pathways have been opened up in your mind.

But they seem to have come naturally to you. "God" appeared to you and interacts with you on a regular basis. You have an automatic "leg up" on anyone else who even wants to try and compete at your level. As Ussain Bolt is the king of sprint, you present yourself as the king of paranormal. Except that Ussain Bolt isn't saying that anyone can do what he can - because the simple fact is we can't, not everyone can run like he can. In fact, some people have had so little experience with psychic phenomena that they can honestly say they've never experienced it. So asking them to try is about as useful as telling them that if they concentrate hard enough they can shoot fireballs from their a** (sometimes I feel that way after an awesome Indian or Thai dish, just as an FYI). Saying "open your mind" is not helpful, and in this way the situation is entirely different than learning any other skill. If I choose to learn to recite spoken-verse poetry, I can see tangible results as I apply myself. If I choose to learn about Quantum Mechanics, I can see tangible results as I apply myself. If I choose to learn to run faster, I'll see tangible results as I lose weight and develop the muscles. If I choose to learn to channel psychic abilities, then either I see tangible results, or I see nothing at all. And if I see nothing at all, then the tutor simply tells me "you're not trying hard enough". Sure that happens in other disciplines also, where people just give up too easily, but there's tangible evidence (scientifically verifiable) that other people can learn them. No scientific study has ever showed that psychic abilities can be learned. And regardless of how well I learn any of these skills, I'll never be a master at any of them, or even an "authority" on them.

Don't get me wrong, as I've said over and again, I've had special experiences that I can't explain. They are things that have shaped who I am, and informed the choices I've made over the years. I've seen things in others, and heard things from others, and I have had enough experience to "believe/know/accept" that there is a spirit realm that is out there and some people have a unique access to it. But I haven't seen anyone who has been "taught" about it, thus I believe they are gifts that some people have that others do not. You may or may not have such a gift. I do know that you "believe" you have such a gift, and that such is transferable, but that is not the same as me accepting that you do indeed have such a gift.

[Mr Walker]

So I guess the answer is then no, MW, you cannot tell me what piece of evidence or reasoning I'm treating overactively skeptically concerning your special powers. You know I'm not talking about your speed reading, there's nothing special or unusual about that, and has no apparent relation to what's going on when you can determine, not just guess, the combination of a lock 'somehow'.

But heaven forbid I interrupt an opportunity for you to tell me again how highly you think of yourself. Don't be shy, I'm sure you were probably breaking concrete with your bare hands to rescue hundreds of children from an orphanage fire that you noticed while you were on your way to deactivate a terrorist nuclear bomb which resulted in you being secretly feted by the leaders of the free world, all of whom are of course personal friends of yours. Just too bad that, "I am exceptional", isn't actually a rational argument or evidence of much.

You are being (overly) sceptical about everything not something in particular it is just the way you are You accept even the possibility of only that which is known to you and hence acceptable from familiarity, and reject anything different from your own experiences or knowledge base. It is safer to say," I do not know." than to say, "That is not possible because I have never encountered it."

I do not think highly of myself. I am what I have made my self to be, and I take credit for the many hours, days, and years of; work, discipline and practice which went into that. But I was exceptionally fortunate in my place of birth, my parents and grandparents, and all the adults and teachers in my life who encouraged and enabled me to become who I am.

I was breaking concrete as part of a planned self improvement programme of mind and body.

It, along with other exercises, and physical work at home and in my casual work as a teenager; developed muscles and mind, and self confidence. It ended the bullying of others experienced during junior high school and gave me body strength for many other activities such as sailing, surfing, wind surfing rowing, hang gliding etc. I am, by nature and my mothers raising, more an intellectual than a physical person and so, all my life I have deliberately balanced physical and mental disciplines Most physical pursuits are more easily achieved and mastered if you approach them mentally.

[Mr Walker]

I'm not saying that people can't gain skills by experience and study. But it's a simple fact of life that not all people are cut out to be scientists. Their mind is simply not analytical enough. Some people are simply not cut out to be fiction authors - their minds are just not creative enough. Some people are just not cut out to be musicians - their ability to interpret symbols and interpret them as a musical language is simply insufficient (though the ability to read sheet-music is not a requisite for being an awesome musician, but not everyone can understand the relationship between chordal progressions, even when taught extensively). Some people are just not cut out to be athletes - they are small and geeky, their intellect towers over others and lets them pursue something like science or Computer Engineering instead). They can improve their skills, learn different techniques and over time bring their skills up to some kind of intangible "requisite", but the fact is that some people are just born more talented than you, and no matter how much you try, assuming they put in the same effort, you'll never catch them. It works vice versa also, we all have skills that surpass someone else, and if we put as much effort into them as others do, then they will never catch us.

But they seem to have come naturally to you. "God" appeared to you and interacts with you on a regular basis. You have an automatic "leg up" on anyone else who even wants to try and compete at your level. As Ussain Bolt is the king of sprint, you present yourself as the king of paranormal. Except that Ussain Bolt isn't saying that anyone can do what he can - because the simple fact is we can't, not everyone can run like he can. In fact, some people have had so little experience with psychic phenomena that they can honestly say they've never experienced it. So asking them to try is about as useful as telling them that if they concentrate hard enough they can shoot fireballs from their a** (sometimes I feel that way after an awesome Indian or Thai dish, just as an FYI). Saying "open your mind" is not helpful, and in this way the situation is entirely different than learning any other skill. If I choose to learn to recite spoken-verse poetry, I can see tangible results as I apply myself. If I choose to learn about Quantum Mechanics, I can see tangible results as I apply myself. If I choose to learn to run faster, I'll see tangible results as I lose weight and develop the muscles. If I choose to learn to channel psychic abilities, then either I see tangible results, or I see nothing at all. And if I see nothing at all, then the tutor simply tells me "you're not trying hard enough". Sure that happens in other disciplines also, where people just give up too easily, but there's tangible evidence (scientifically verifiable) that other people can learn them. No scientific study has ever showed that psychic abilities can be learned. And regardless of how well I learn any of these skills, I'll never be a master at any of them, or even an "authority" on them.

Don't get me wrong, as I've said over and again, I've had special experiences that I can't explain. They are things that have shaped who I am, and informed the choices I've made over the years. I've seen things in others, and heard things from others, and I have had enough experience to "believe/know/accept" that there is a spirit realm that is out there and some people have a unique access to it. But I haven't seen anyone who has been "taught" about it, thus I believe they are gifts that some people have that others do not. You may or may not have such a gift. I do know that you "believe" you have such a gift, and that such is transferable, but that is not the same as me accepting that you do indeed have such a gift.

There is a difference between being an expert or the best at something and being able to do it proficiently. I know from experience that anyone, unless handicapped, can be taught basic proficiency in any thing; from music to maths, poetry to painting, baseball to beekeeping, because all our brains are capable of this basic proficiency. A language is a hideously complex thing to learn and yet all young children learn at least one language and many learn two or three.

I do not pretend to be master of psychic skills or an authority on them I just relate my own abilities and what I have learned from study and talking to people But I learned lapidary over several years doing night classes at TAFE starting with identifying rocks and gem stones in the field, and working through to designing and creating finished jewellery. I learned this from an expert. I am not a master or a authority on lapidary either, but I could still teach someone else the basics of how to do this, because I have learned the skills, knowledge and understanding required, my self.

I wouldn't attempt to teach someone else psychic skills, although I could teach them how to lucid dream. It might not be helpful to say one must "open ones mind" and yet that is exactly the physical thing one must do to achieve a mind which is not "thinking' but is open to the external presence of other "consciousnesses" If you are too engrossed in your own thinking process, you cant hear the thoughts of others. SO one must learn a skill or a technique which opens ones mind to all around it. Only then can other, external things, make their way into your mind. I suspect we learn from childhood to close off our thoughts and mind from those around us, and you have to learn how to undo this automatic closing off. and become aware of everything around you. I was helped in childhood by many hours of time by myself and spending a lot of time working on my conscious and subconscious processings. I would walk for hours at night or day just thinking, and then opening my mind; first to the internal workings of my mind, and later to its external environment around me I would lie out under the stars for hours, and one day before I was a teen, the universal consciousness just opened up to me, and the universe began its life long connection with me .Most people never learn to really and completely hear either of those things.(their internal thoughts and their external environment)

Ps its not a competition

Edited February 20, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

You are being (overly) sceptical about everything not something in particular it is just the way you are You accept even the possibility of only that which is known to you and hence acceptable from familiarity, and reject anything different from your own experiences or knowledge base. It is safer to say," I do not know." than to say, "That is not possible because I have never encountered it."

And how exactly do you know all this about someone you've never met, how do you know anything about the way I am? Are these insights things you've gleaned via your special powers? If so, thanks for the demonstration of how unreliable they are.

So then I'm just overly skeptical in some general way but not in any specific way? Are you saying I'm not being overly skeptical about your claimed powers? You need to know I'm over-skeptical about something in specific to come to a rational conclusion that I'm skeptical in general, don't you?

Quote me please where I said something like, "I reject anything different from my own experiences or knowledge base", and expecially where I indicated or suggested that anything is, 'not possible'; I've flat-out said the exact opposite and told you ad nauseum why I rationally don't, and shouldn't, believe your stories. You're either just strawmanning me or your reading comprehension is not very good, and neither bodes well for your claims of special powers which rely on your exceptional mind, because you have no other evidence to provide apparently.

[Mr Walker]

And how exactly do you know all this about someone you've never met, how do you know anything about the way I am? Are these insights things you've gleaned via your special powers? If so, thanks for the demonstration of how unreliable they are.

So then I'm just overly skeptical in some general way but not in any specific way? Are you saying I'm not being overly skeptical about your claimed powers? You need to know I'm over-skeptical about something in specific to come to a rational conclusion that I'm skeptical in general, don't you?

Quote me please where I said something like, "I reject anything different from my own experiences or knowledge base", and expecially where I indicated or suggested that anything is, 'not possible'; I've flat-out said the exact opposite and told you ad nauseum why I rationally don't, and shouldn't, believe your stories. You're either just strawmanning me or your reading comprehension is not very good, and neither bodes well for your claims of special powers which rely on your exceptional mind, because you have no other evidence to provide apparently.

By the vocabulary and bias of the words you use in posts, and by the context and content of those posts.

It certainly doesn't require any psychic ability. Yes I am responding to your written words. I do not know if these reflect your true thoughts or attitudes. It is possible for a clever poster here to assume a position counter to their actual beliefs or thoughts and write in a style and form which sustains this. But on the posts you have written you are a very skeptical person and have developed this as part of your world view. Generally such positions are not held only in regard to one topic, such as the paranormal, but extend across a persons world view and attitude to everything. Maybe you are an exception . In that case, I have an inheritance waiting for you which only requires your bank details for me to deposit it .

You are overly sceptical about my claimed powers because those claims, as described here, are factually true (whatever their nature or cause) and hence your scepticism is unwarranted.

[+Liquid Gardens]

You are overly sceptical about my claimed powers because those claims, as described here, are factually true (whatever their nature or cause) and hence your scepticism is unwarranted.

So I guess I'd have to agree with aquatus then that you don't really understand what skepticism is, and you are just blatantly begging the question when you say 'those claims are factually true'; that is what is in dispute ultimately, it seems like a highly-trained mind might have noticed they were committing that logical fallacy. Here are some actual facts:

• - You have claimed to have special science-shaking powers
  
• - You can't easily and conclusively demonstrate your powers at will, and thus can't provide any evidence of them
  
• - Numerous people have claimed to have your special powers, and many more, for centuries; none of those have been demonstrated nor have much evidence to support them.
  
• - Numerous legitimate scientific studies have been done investigating claims like yours and have not been able to establish the existence of these powers in anybody.
  
• - Numerous scientists would be very interested in even witnessing these powers in action under controlled conditions, there is no lack of motivation on their part if there was actually something to study
  
• - If people had powers like yours, it may be reasonable to expect that it would be somewhat obvious by now, these are potent supposed powers; we don't see that.
  

Have I missed anything, is there some other piece of evidence that I'm missing from my perspective? You really think based on solely the above, I should actually believe that your powers are true? You yourself just believe every claim you read on the internet? If you don't, why is your skepticism warranted? If I was to believe in your supposed powers based on the above, wouldn't that be incredibly gullible?

You don't seem to understand that even if your powers were factually true, it doesn't follow that I'm being overly skeptical. If someone was to just plainly claim, "I can start fires with my mind", on this forum, it's not overly skeptical to disbelieve it; that doesn't doesn't then become 'overly skeptical' if you eventually find out the person is actually pyrokinetic, given the information one had at the time, which is nothing but a fantastic claim, you are being properly skeptical to not just automatically believe it.

[Mr Walker]

Just had an interesting incident which demonstrates my own apporach to events. Most of the school had gone off ta swiming carnival and i was left in charge due to advancing age and injury . I was alone in senior school class room when a cricket ball appeared from no where, flew past my head, hit the floor and rolled a few metres.

Now I DID NOT suspect a paranormal cause . I first looked for students hiding under the desk or in an adjoining office but the place was deserted. This was a bit perturbing.

I then worked out the trajectory of the ball and where it had come from.

It appeared to have flown through a solid wall into the class room. But that was highly unlikely. I examined the wall more closely. Up high, near the ceiling, was a piece of blu tack ( a sort of chewing gum substance used to stick posters on walls) while i did not see whatthappened because my back was to the wall, the most likely scenario is that some older student stuck the ball to the wall and left it there. It eventually detached itself and made a parabolic descent past my ear,(I was at least two metres from the wall) and onto the floor where momentum carried it further. I dont KNOW that this is what happened, but it seems more likely than someone throwing a ball through a wall The only thing is when trying to reproduce this sequence of events, the ball never "flew out" from the wall but just fell to the floor and rolled a short distance. So another force was also involved but probably a natural one. Maybe some one had slammed a door somehwere causing the wal to vibrate.

[Mr Walker]

So I guess I'd have to agree with aquatus then that you don't really understand what skepticism is, and you are just blatantly begging the question when you say 'those claims are factually true'; that is what is in dispute ultimately, it seems like a highly-trained mind might have noticed they were committing that logical fallacy. Here are some actual facts:

• - You have claimed to have special science-shaking powers
  
• - You can't easily and conclusively demonstrate your powers at will, and thus can't provide any evidence of them
  
• - Numerous people have claimed to have your special powers, and many more, for centuries; none of those have been demonstrated nor have much evidence to support them.
  
• - Numerous legitimate scientific studies have been done investigating claims like yours and have not been able to establish the existence of these powers in anybody.
  
• - Numerous scientists would be very interested in even witnessing these powers in action under controlled conditions, there is no lack of motivation on their part if there was actually something to study
  
• - If people had powers like yours, it may be reasonable to expect that it would be somewhat obvious by now, these are potent supposed powers; we don't see that.
  

Have I missed anything, is there some other piece of evidence that I'm missing from my perspective? You really think based on solely the above, I should actually believe that your powers are true? You yourself just believe every claim you read on the internet? If you don't, why is your skepticism warranted? If I was to believe in your supposed powers based on the above, wouldn't that be incredibly gullible?

You don't seem to understand that even if your powers were factually true, it doesn't follow that I'm being overly skeptical. If someone was to just plainly claim, "I can start fires with my mind", on this forum, it's not overly skeptical to disbelieve it; that doesn't doesn't then become 'overly skeptical' if you eventually find out the person is actually pyrokinetic, given the information one had at the time, which is nothing but a fantastic claim, you are being properly skeptical to not just automatically believe it.

Your points are biased/slanted if not outright untrue. Just because you make such statements and perhaps even believe them to be true, does not make them true. Science, including modern darpa funded CIA research, does demonstrate such abilities in humans And science is close to reproducing them using modern science. Particulalry the abilty to read minds and transfer thoughts from one person to another. A human can altready operate remote machinery or prosthetic devices using radio transmitted thought.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Your points are biased/slanted if not outright untrue. Just because you make such statements and perhaps even believe them to be true, does not make them true.

True, but your inability to provide any evidence disputing them tends to suggest to me that you are not correct. You may want to take to heart your second sentence, it applies equally as well to yourself.

Science, including modern darpa funded CIA research, does demonstrate such abilities in humans

What peer-reviewed journal may I find this 'science' in? The Stargate Project was cancelled because of problems in the study's methodology and lack of results. Why is there no discussion of these powers in any science class I'm aware of? What major studies are ongoing right now on these demonstrated abilities?

And science is close to reproducing them using modern science.

Science is nowhere near being able to give people the ability to magically just 'know' combinations to locks; let's not get slippery and switch what kind of 'powers' we are talking about.

[Hideout]

Your points are biased/slanted if not outright untrue. Just because you make such statements and perhaps even believe them to be true, does not make them true. Science, including modern darpa funded CIA research, does demonstrate such abilities in humans And science is close to reproducing them using modern science. Particulalry the abilty to read minds and transfer thoughts from one person to another. A human can altready operate remote machinery or prosthetic devices using radio transmitted thought.

Yes, there are absolutely incredible innovations in biotechnology happening. There is research going into how to control remote machinery with the mind, however the difference is that in these cases there is some kind of implement. Some form of technology being used to produce these effects. It isn't a human being staring at something until it moves, it's a human being, wired to a machine that can detect specific brain impulses, and send a remote signal to another machine that interprets them. If you don't see the difference between those two things, then I don't think any form of productive conversation can be had.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Just had an interesting incident which demonstrates my own apporach to events. Most of the school had gone off ta swiming carnival and i was left in charge due to advancing age and injury . I was alone in senior school class room when a cricket ball appeared from no where, flew past my head, hit the floor and rolled a few metres.

Now I DID NOT suspect a paranormal cause . I first looked for students hiding under the desk or in an adjoining office but the place was deserted. This was a bit perturbing.

I then worked out the trajectory of the ball and where it had come from.

It appeared to have flown through a solid wall into the class room. But that was highly unlikely. I examined the wall more closely. Up high, near the ceiling, was a piece of blu tack ( a sort of chewing gum substance used to stick posters on walls) while i did not see whatthappened because my back was to the wall, the most likely scenario is that some older student stuck the ball to the wall and left it there. It eventually detached itself and made a parabolic descent past my ear,(I was at least two metres from the wall) and onto the floor where momentum carried it further. I dont KNOW that this is what happened, but it seems more likely than someone throwing a ball through a wall The only thing is when trying to reproduce this sequence of events, the ball never "flew out" from the wall but just fell to the floor and rolled a short distance. So another force was also involved but probably a natural one. Maybe some one had slammed a door somehwere causing the wal to vibrate.

Yes! Excellent, that is an entirely rational and skeptical approach, I like it in when we actually agree on something.

Now this is just an opinion, but where I think you and I would potentially diverge is in the case where you couldn't come up with a decent explanation as to where the cricket ball came from, I fear that you would then see that as license to see this as evidence of something supernatural or fantastic. I would disagree with that, it's still far more likely that the explanation is an entirely natural one that you can't identify than it is that it's some kind of special power or event. And you come across occasionally, to me at least, as if the fact that you couldn't figure out where it came from then if you think it's a special power (or natural event entirely unknown to science, if you prefer) that's good reason to think it's a special power, as if your brain functions are perfect; they are not, I see you make entirely normal human mistakes in your postings here. Just an impression I get, it does seem to me that some of your arguments boil down to, 'it's true because my thinking is reliable and exceptional', whether that's your intention or not.

[Mr Walker]

Yes, there are absolutely incredible innovations in biotechnology happening. There is research going into how to control remote machinery with the mind, however the difference is that in these cases there is some kind of implement. Some form of technology being used to produce these effects. It isn't a human being staring at something until it moves, it's a human being, wired to a machine that can detect specific brain impulses, and send a remote signal to another machine that interprets them. If you don't see the difference between those two things, then I don't think any form of productive conversation can be had.

Scientists are working on simply using brain "waves"/electical impulses, direct from the human brain, doing away with attached electrodes. Yes it requires a transmitting mechanism to send and recieve the thoughts, and machinery to turn the thought into an action. But that is actaully incidental to the now established fact that humans think in a way which is transmittable and receivable by another mind.

If i want to vocally talk to someone a distance away I still need to use a machine. This will probably remain the case with mental conversations for some time, but just as my vocal voice is in a form which can be transmitted over distance, we now know with certainty that out thoughts are, also.

Thus, my mind can (is technically and biologically capable of) receive and understand the thoughts of a separate mind. To me this makes sense of many of my abilites, where i seem to just read or "know" facts which are held within the mind of a nearby individual, often consciously but sometimes subconscioussly. It is as if my mind just receives a detailed "bit" of knowldge from an outside source. Once in my mind, it is like all other sources of information, available and retrievable, but its source is not clear.

[Mr Walker]

Yes! Excellent, that is an entirely rational and skeptical approach, I like it in when we actually agree on something.

Now this is just an opinion, but where I think you and I would potentially diverge is in the case where you couldn't come up with a decent explanation as to where the cricket ball came from, I fear that you would then see that as license to see this as evidence of something supernatural or fantastic. I would disagree with that, it's still far more likely that the explanation is an entirely natural one that you can't identify than it is that it's some kind of special power or event. And you come across occasionally, to me at least, as if the fact that you couldn't figure out where it came from then if you think it's a special power (or natural event entirely unknown to science, if you prefer) that's good reason to think it's a special power, as if your brain functions are perfect; they are not, I see you make entirely normal human mistakes in your postings here. Just an impression I get, it does seem to me that some of your arguments boil down to, 'it's true because my thinking is reliable and exceptional', whether that's your intention or not.

No I wouldnt I would suspend belief and disbelief.

Only where there is eveidence of what we call paranormal activity would i consider that evidence. For example. if a couple of us saw a ghost , it spoke to us and said "Get out of here!" and then visibly threw a cricket ball at us; i would NOT simply dismiss that as an hallucination. I would investigate it. Look for hidden projectors. Make notes with the other witnesses. Compare my descrition with any hisorical records of a ghost in that location etc. Of course i make mistakes inlife but not as many as most peole becuase i think things through. For example ive been picked up for speeding 3 times in 45 years of driving Ive never had a parking ticket and never had an avoidable traffic accident. ive never had any dealings with the law because i dont very often break the law. Never drinking or taking drugs helps me make rational and productive desions bas does having control over my mind body and emotions at all times yet i still make errors often based on inadequate data.

Also sometimes i dont 'care". For example, as long as my writing is readable i dont have time to perfect it.The errors are generally typos. As a self taught typist i do make mistakes in typing. If i have time i correct them, if not i let them stand. my. I now type very fast but my thought processes are ten to one hundred times times faster than my typing, so i hurry to get stuff down as fast as i can.

My thinking IS reliable and also very very fast and efficient. That has been ascertained by many independent tests and assessments. I see things accurately, and in detail, from years of training and practice.

I am very intelligent, with IQ results ranging as high as the 180s and averaging in the 140-160 range all my adult life. I have read and know a lot about all sorts of things, including the nature of human cognition and the construction of human beliefs, as part of human cognitive processes.

I take all of that into account when making assessments about anything. I can only judge the potential of humanity on my own abilities, which i find normal. (Many of my family are in a similar range of intelligence and skill)

However, i recognise that I have got where I am by years of study, effort, practice and discipline.

While all fully functioning humans are technically capable of a basic equal abiity in anything, some aren't interested, have other priorities, or are simply lazy..

Edited February 21, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

While all fully functioning humans are technically capable of a basic equal abiity in anything, some aren't interested, have other priorities, or are simply lazy..

I seriously doubt that all fully functioning humans are technically capable of being able to mentally/psychically determine the combinations to locks, no matter how much they train and work at it. The 'mundane physical' things, as you had phrased it, like your IQ and vast experience and what not, those are not really in dispute right now, they're just not that special. I think you know which of your supposed abilities are not unusual and do not rely on unknown scientific laws, and which are fantastic; I'm only talking about the latter.

[+Sherapy]

I'm all for helping kids learn, and they all have their different ways - there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" approach to learning, which you demonstrate very well, I might add. Mr Walker is a bit more constrained by the confines of a public school classroom, but even in that setting there are ways of helping different kids learn based on the way they learn (and considering his extensive experience, I have no doubt he employs some of these). But I do disagree with the general premise that just because one person can do something, then all people can do it - different people have different talents. This leads to the possibility of "favouritism", that a person is not learning new skills or growing in ability for the simple reason that they are not "trying hard enough". That's a load of crap, in my personal opinion.

I think there are few kinds of trying when we are speaking of education and kids. There is the kind of trying that calls a child lazy for the failures of the teacher and the system, where the kid is trying within the perimeters that have been established(what is being asked is for them to go beyond and do the job of those that are not) this type of approach, I abhor. The other kind of trying is the what I call effort, elbow grease, time in, that often is a huge part of some subjects. Math being one of them. This is the kind of trying that kids can fall short on and many adults I might add. It is the kind of trying that requires diligence, working through the frustrations of not 'getting' something, keeping in mind that we all start at relatively the same place when it comes to learning something. Kids do not have the experinces to see the big picture as adults, so we seek to finds ways to encourage them to do this. We tell them all you have to do is try, I am doing this with the young lady I tutor, I have done this with my son, I say all you have to do is put one foot in front of the other and you can count on me to help. I tell them we are a team and I will do my part. This is kind of trying is a gift a child gives themseves and it becomes obvious fairly quickly when they 'get' things and are successful in their studies, it is not a thing I can force or make happen, this is always the childs choice. But I always try, even when I fail and I have failed to reach some kids.

[Mr Walker]

I seriously doubt that all fully functioning humans are technically capable of being able to mentally/psychically determine the combinations to locks, no matter how much they train and work at it. The 'mundane physical' things, as you had phrased it, like your IQ and vast experience and what not, those are not really in dispute right now, they're just not that special. I think you know which of your supposed abilities are not unusual and do not rely on unknown scientific laws, and which are fantastic; I'm only talking about the latter.

I know my capabilities. They are physically measurable. I am human, thus in general any other human will have the same capabilities as I have. Some will have natural or genetic superiority in some areas. Some will have advantages given by height or size. Some will have more effective parenting. But in general, at birth all functioning and non damaged human beings have the same inherent abilities, because our brain structure is basically identical, as is our physiology. I am colour blind in reds and greens, and tone deaf, so I acknowledge some differences between people. Some people are born blind or deaf or with another physical impairment. Otherwise, basically we are not just similar, we are in a sense, identical .So much so that, as a group, we can be seen as one being, humanity. I do not differentiate between any of my abilities All are functional, useful, require effort and time to develop, and are inherent within me in potential form Why should anyone else NOT have similar abilities, at least in potential form, as part of their humanity.