The credible Tarot

[back to earth]

Then let me put it another way:

With a little practice, an amateur magician can consciously shuffle a deck of cards so that the cards he wishes to find are on top.

I believe that the unconscious is just as capable.

Well, people believe all sorts of things, I was hoping to have a conversation that went beyond our mere beliefs about things. Besides, we all know a magician cheats and stacks the deck to do such tricks , again, just by using the magic wand of the term 'unconscious' doesnt really explain the 'how' ... or the 'why'.

Being an atheist, God's not particularly high on my list of probable explanations.

It wasnt an explanation it was a comparison .... I can see we dont have much of a chance of comprehending each other - i see your attempts at explaining rather lacking and disconnected .

So, you then just apply the same 'magic powers' to the unconscious ? With no real explanation of how it would translate into actual arrangement of the deck ... unless you are saying the unconscious uses slight of hand to do card tricks to fool the conscious mind ? ? ?

[back to earth]

On certain tarot forums there are most amusing threads wondering about why tarot didnt work ... answered by those offering 'explanations' ... hours of entertaining readings there !

I will only list my favorite excuse reasons ;

" The tarot reading and prediction was right at the time of the reading ... but then, the future changed between the time after the reading and the event . "

" ..... well, all of the future has not happened yet, it may still come about. "

" You did something different, if you had not, things would have happened as I predicted " *

" What I predicted did come to pass, it just manifested in a different way " .... and so on.

* this one leads to a favorite old story .... a man went to the soothsayer who informed him that death would come looking for him, and take him within the month.

The next week the man saw death walking around the market place of his town. terrified he immediately left and traveled as far away as he could to loose himself in the crowds of far away Samarkand. Waking down the street there, suddenly a hand was placed on his shoulder, he turned and there was death " Here you are ... I was wondering why I saw you in that little town;s marketplace, when I knew I had an appointment with you in Samarkand ? "

Edited September 23, 2015 by back to earth

[Tiggs]

Well, people believe all sorts of things, I was hoping to have a conversation that went beyond our mere beliefs about things.

Besides, we all know a magician cheats and stacks the deck to do such tricks , again, just by using the magic wand of the term 'unconscious' doesnt really explain the 'how' ... or the 'why'.

It wasnt an explanation it was a comparison .... I can see we dont have much of a chance of comprehending each other - i see your attempts at explaining rather lacking and disconnected .

So, you then just apply the same 'magic powers' to the unconscious ? With no real explanation of how it would translate into actual arrangement of the deck ... unless you are saying the unconscious uses slight of hand to do card tricks to fool the conscious mind ? ? ?

Less "fool", and more "communicate with".

My hypothesis is that the part of your brain that is in charge of actually arranging the cards may be inclined to arrange them in an order of it's choice.

In my experience - shuffling cards is not a purely mechanical operation, with each shuffle being performed meticulously the same, time after time.

If you believe that your unconscious shuffles the cards haphazardly, without a single care or calculation - then be my guest.

[Rolci]

Tiggs, I'd be curious as to your opinion of the Convoluted Universe books, if you are familiar with them...

[markdohle]

If someone uses the Tarot and find it helpful, allows them to look at their lives and find ways of dealing with their negative cycles, that is all that is needed. Theories are fun to talk about, but that is the end of that. A card can give a slant to a question, it does not matter what come up I believe, they all work. Others may disagree. However, if it works, it works. Peer review is not needed for users who simply use the deck for insight.

peace

Mark

[Tiggs]

Tiggs, I'd be curious as to your opinion of the Convoluted Universe books, if you are familiar with them...

I'm not. Apologies.

[back to earth]

Less "fool", and more "communicate with".

My hypothesis is that the part of your brain that is in charge of actually arranging the cards may be inclined to arrange them in an order of it's choice.

In my experience - shuffling cards is not a purely mechanical operation, with each shuffle being performed meticulously the same, time after time.

If you believe that your unconscious shuffles the cards haphazardly, without a single care or calculation - then be my guest.

This is why I have trouble comprehending your responses ... it is you that suggests the unconscious shuffles cards - not me.

Actually, many people use the same pattern shuffling, I had one myself , it is a conscious process... but it doesnt put cards in any particular order either, but a random order ... again the cards are face down. Are you postulating that the 'unconscious' has some type of x-ray vision and can see through the back of the cards and then arranges them during shuffling ?

And the word 'fool' was used , as you yourself used the analogy of a card trick which is the whole point of what magicians do with card tricks .... they dont shuffle and cheat at it (unseen) to deliver some type of relevant message ... its a trick to fool people .

Again, I am running with your own examples ... and again I am have trouble comprehending your responses ... and now, your responses to my questions about tying to get clarity on your previous responses ... I guess its just a downhill spiral

Edited September 24, 2015 by back to earth

[back to earth]

If someone uses the Tarot and find it helpful, allows them to look at their lives and find ways of dealing with their negative cycles, that is all that is needed. Theories are fun to talk about, but that is the end of that. A card can give a slant to a question, it does not matter what come up I believe, they all work. Others may disagree. However, if it works, it works. Peer review is not needed for users who simply use the deck for insight.

peace

Mark

I can agree with that, they can serve as a tool where insight and information can be given and learnt in a way , for some ( that are usually the visual symbolic learning type) that find difficulty with learning in other ways ... even when it is a life experience that may even be happening over and over again.

This needs no 'magic' trickery, prediction, justification, occult dynamics ( but perhaps psychological ones), predictions coming true, etc.

[Tiggs]

This is why I have trouble comprehending your responses ... it is you that suggests the unconscious shuffles cards - not me.

And yet, you've already said that you don't consciously decide which card to split the deck at, when performing each downward part of the shuffle.

So - what does?

Actually, many people use the same pattern shuffling, I had one myself , it is a conscious process... but it doesnt put cards in any particular order either, but a random order

If you have a known starting position, and then perform a shuffle by splitting the deck at a known point, a repeated number of times , then it's entirely possible to predict the final position of the cards.

In short - any shuffle which is mechanically executed is not actually random, at all.

"Random" and "not consciously known" are two entirely different things.

... again the cards are face down. Are you postulating that the 'unconscious' has some type of x-ray vision and can see through the back of the cards and then arranges them during shuffling ?

Hardly.

I suspect that it's much more mundane than that.

Unless you get your tarot cards pre-shuffled and throw them away after a single reading, then at some point you'll see the faces of those cards. While the past details of such may elude your conscious mind, it's entirely possible that their order is stored and available to your unconscious.

While you may not be consciously aware of any differences between the various card backs, the unconscious mind may well be. It also potentially has access to environmental information on reflections, textures, heat, etc. that aren't passed to the conscious mind

Or let me put it another way: I managed to draw the same 3 tarot cards today in exactly the same order when I accidentally repeated the same question.

And, yes. As far as I'm consciously concerned, I shuffled the deck thoroughly between draws, for around 45 seconds or so.

And the word 'fool' was used , as you yourself used the analogy of a card trick which is the whole point of what magicians do with card tricks .... they dont shuffle and cheat at it (unseen) to deliver some type of relevant message ... its a trick to fool people .

And?

My point is that it's entirely possible to arrange a deck of cards without a casual observer realizing that it's happening.

The casual observer, in this case, being your conscious mind.

[xYlvax]

My Hermetic deck is always surprisingly accurate, even when I read the finer and smaller symbols and details. It's incredibly surprising at times..

[ChrLzs]

Is there any way we could test that? My argument is that the accuracy comes from your intuition and ability to work up a story (be it consciously or not) that fits the person and their circumstances.

There *are* ways that you can reduce or remove all the subjectivity, but they are often rejected by the person being tested as they are seen as too restrictive and the process is interfered with...

If anyone is willing to elaborate (and I mean *really* elaborate on exactly what they do during a session, and how they judge the success or failure, giving some examples) then I'd be happy to make some observations and also suggest what could be done to 'test' the claims.

If you'd rather just keep doing it and believing, that's fine, but the claim by the OP is that this is credible and could therefore be relied upon... That could be used by charlatans to justify their money-making...

[back to earth]

And yet, you've already said that you don't consciously decide which card to split the deck at, when performing each downward part of the shuffle.

yeah .... my bad ..... I did have a shuffling pattern but now I do not cut them at a specific spot ,,, even when I do, its still a random guess sort of half way through .... not at card number 39 in order from the top.

So - what does?

a random conscious decision ( see my above comment )

If you have a known starting position, and then perform a shuffle by splitting the deck at a known point, a repeated number of times , then it's entirely possible to predict the final position of the cards.

not unless you previously know the order of the cards in the deck, have a photographic memory can do card tricks are a very good gambling style 'card counter' .

In short - any shuffle which is mechanically executed is not actually random, at all.

of course it is, see my comments above

"Random" and "not consciously known" are two entirely different things.

Hardly.

I suspect that it's much more mundane than that.

Unless you get your tarot cards pre-shuffled and throw them away after a single reading, then at some point you'll see the faces of those cards. While the past details of such may elude your conscious mind, it's entirely possible that their order is stored and available to your unconscious.

So you are saying the 'subconscious' can previously know the order of the cards in the deck, have a photographic memory, can do card tricks and is very good at gambling style 'card counting' .?

While you may not be consciously aware of any differences between the various card backs, the unconscious mind may well be.

Well, so might the pet bird watching from its cage on the table ... or God .... or your tarot angel ... seriously ? 'may well be' is the answer about how it does this ?

The unconscious can tell each identical card back is different ..... no wonder the term is left undefined.

It also potentially has access to environmental information on reflections, textures, heat, etc. that aren't passed to the conscious mind

so using this function it can tell by looking at the back of the card what card it is ... really ? This is too silly to in depth analyse and show how it falls apart

Or let me put it another way: I managed to draw the same 3 tarot cards today in exactly the same order when I accidentally repeated the same question.

Yep, I have had the same cards come up at times, against random order ..... or so I thought *

I have less trouble comprehending that than I do comprehending how one could 'accidentally repeat the same question' .

And, yes. As far as I'm consciously concerned, I shuffled the deck thoroughly between draws, for around 45 seconds or so.

And?

My point is that it's entirely possible to arrange a deck of cards without a casual observer realizing that it's happening.

The casual observer, in this case, being your conscious mind.

So, who is doing the stacking ( just saying 'the subconscious' seems a bit thin here ) .

I suggest any 'connections' between card orders and 'relevant messaging' lies internally in the mind within the interpretation of the reading (it also eliminates the need for badly thought out and shallowly explained assumptions )

* ' random ' order programs that play random song selections on ipods have had to be altered as people complained they were not random "My ipod keeps playing the same song or selection of songs .... a truly random pattern, although very rare, will not 'mind' throwing up a 3 3 times in a row .... but the human mind will reject that as random ..

Here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Edited September 25, 2015 by back to earth

[back to earth]

My Hermetic deck is always surprisingly accurate, even when I read the finer and smaller symbols and details. It's incredibly surprising at times..

It is a symbolically complex deck .

Would you say the accuracy lies in the direct representation of the symbol predicting any accuracies ... or is it your interpretation of the symbol that is in sync with any perceived accuracy ?

[back to earth]

Is there any way we could test that? My argument is that the accuracy comes from your intuition and ability to work up a story (be it consciously or not) that fits the person and their circumstances.

There *are* ways that you can reduce or remove all the subjectivity, but they are often rejected by the person being tested as they are seen as too restrictive and the process is interfered with...

If anyone is willing to elaborate (and I mean *really* elaborate on exactly what they do during a session, and how they judge the success or failure, giving some examples) then I'd be happy to make some observations and also suggest what could be done to 'test' the claims.

I would be happy to, but I am not claiming any predictive powers ... I use tarot differently from the way most perceive it should be used .

I use it as an hermetic tool. .

My take is; a reading outlines a situation - every card ( and card combinations ) present certain 'scenarios' , yet each card ( and combination - or 'story' ) has a remedy or solution. I offer that in the reading. If the events come to pass, the person is well informed and 'armed'. If not, well, it is valuable info for the future, if the event does happen, or can be passed on or shared. If the even never happens or the person never encounters (with themselves or another ) it, NO great harm is done ... a lesson is learned, incorporated, passed on, etc.

I have had people in readings relate what I am saying generally to a specific event , feeling, past occurrence, conditioning, trauma, etc that is wholly their business and has nothing to do with me and I would never suggest it. ( quiet a few of my readings were for people who were messed up by other tarot readers 'predicting things' - one case a poor woman had been worried for years that her sons death was predicted ) Sometimes they are at a loss to relate to what the reading means. Sometimes they have returned amazed and said events played out afterwards and they were able to use the advise given in the reading to their benefit . No doubt there are also some that didnt ... but I dont know as no one ever came back and said "That reading was crap, I cant relate it to anything ! " ... although I am sure they are out there

Wanna reading ( just joking )

If you'd rather just keep doing it and believing, that's fine, but the claim by the OP is that this is credible and could therefore be relied upon... That could be used by charlatans to justify their money-making...

Actually, said charlatans do more damage than just take their money some tarot sites are full of people who have got into some real trouble ( admittedly they were idiots first ... but this does not excuse those that take advantage of them ... takes 2 to tango . )

[Tiggs]

yeah .... my bad ..... I did have a shuffling pattern but now I do not cut them at a specific spot ,,, even when I do, its still a random guess sort of half way through .... not at card number 39 in order from the top.

A "random guess sort of half way through" isn't even close to a conscious decision.

not unless you previously know the order of the cards in the deck, have a photographic memory can do card tricks are a very good gambling style 'card counter' .

Given that the unconscious can perform maths without the conscious brain even knowing about it - what makes you think that the unconscious can't process that?

of course it is, see my comments above

Mathematically, it's not. Again - there's a difference between "random" and "not consciously known".

Well, so might the pet bird watching from its cage on the table ... or God .... or your tarot angel ... seriously ? 'may well be' is the answer about how it does this ?

The unconscious can tell each identical card back is different ..... no wonder the term is left undefined.

so using this function it can tell by looking at the back of the card what card it is ... really ? This is too silly to in depth analyse and show how it falls apart

Go and take a good look at your card backs. A really good look. Get close enough, and the first thing you may notice is traces of grease from your fingertips, which will differ from card to card. You may also notice minor dents and wear on the edges.

In short - there's a reason that casino's go through so many decks of cards in a night.

There are other ways that it would be possible to gain information about the cards. Reflections from surfaces, for example. But by far the easiest way I'd imagine, is having seen them face up at some point in the past and then remembering their order.

Yep, I have had the same cards come up at times, against random order ..... or so I thought *

If the deck is shuffled randomly, then the odds of three cards appearing in the same order as the previous draw are 78 * 77 * 76 = 456,456 to 1.

Same odds, every time.

I have less trouble comprehending that than I do comprehending how one could 'accidentally repeat the same question' .

Misreading from a list really isn't that difficult to do.

So, who is doing the stacking ( just saying 'the subconscious' seems a bit thin here ) .

The person arranging the cards.

I suggest any 'connections' between card orders and 'relevant messaging' lies internally in the mind within the interpretation of the reading

Do you think that interpretation is a fully conscious process?

And if not - why are you so entirely certain that that's the only point during the process that your unconscious would decide to get involved?

* ' random ' order programs that play random song selections on ipods have had to be altered as people complained they were not random "My ipod keeps playing the same song or selection of songs .... a truly random pattern, although very rare, will not 'mind' throwing up a 3 3 times in a row .... but the human mind will reject that as random ..

Here you go https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Randomness

As a software engineer - I can tell you that there's not a single software algorithm in the world which is truly random.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Tiggs

[Tiggs]

If you'd rather just keep doing it and believing, that's fine, but the claim by the OP is that this is credible and could therefore be relied upon... That could be used by charlatans to justify their money-making...

I think it depends what you mean by credible.

I don't think for a moment that it's a credible way to predict the future with any certainty.

I think it's a credible way to explore what you currently believe will happen in the future.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Tiggs

[xYlvax]

It is a symbolically complex deck .

Would you say the accuracy lies in the direct representation of the symbol predicting any accuracies ... or is it your interpretation of the symbol that is in sync with any perceived accuracy ?

I've been interpreting it in the direct sense in whatever each symbol is said to mean and be.

[back to earth]

A "random guess sort of half way through" isn't even close to a conscious decision.

Hmmm .... I guess you dont know what I mean then . .... there is a conscious decision that - i will start by cutting the deck in half , then I 'approximate' half and cut there.

What I mean is , it is still a random ordering , for a stacking to occur one cant nearly cut on the right card.

Given that the unconscious can perform maths without the conscious brain even knowing about it - what makes you think that the unconscious can't process that?

I am not saying it cant process a reading, I am saying it cant stack a deck when it is 'randomly' and rapidly shuffled, heck, most of time I dont even look at the back of the cards when shuffling , actually hardly ever.

I am aware of the fantastic qualities of the unconscious however, and its ability to do math and calculate things on an amazing multi level of complexity.

If you can show me the unconscious of anyone at any time being able to work out a maths problem and deliver the answer to the conscious mind when the original problem was written on cards that could not be seen and not looked at when shuffled .... then I will gladly eat my hat.

Mathematically, it's not. Again - there's a difference between "random" and "not consciously known".

Go and take a good look at your card backs. A really good look. Get close enough, and the first thing you may notice is traces of grease from your fingertips, which will differ from card to card. You may also notice minor dents and wear on the edges.

yeah, thats pushing it a bit I think ... still, what about my point that I dont look at the card backs, and I doubt many experienced readers do .... you can actually watch them on psychic tv show, they continually shuffle when doing all sorts of things - compulsive like, and they are not looking at the deck while they do it .

Please dont default to a 'its done by feeling with the fingers' as similar issues arise there too.

In short - there's a reason that casino's go through so many decks of cards in a night.

thats why I said, unless the unconscious is a card counter like a gambler and .... and .... and ...

There are other ways that it would be possible to gain information about the cards. Reflections from surfaces, for example. But by far the easiest way I'd imagine, is having seen them face up at some point in the past and then remembering their order.

and which card had which scratch or reflection .... I dont understand this " having seen them face up at some point in the past and then remembering their order" ? What order?

The order from the last reading ? ....But here one would need to also remember the order, as it changes, in the deck of all the non laid out cards for a reading, from all previous shuffles ? Unless one knew the first order they arrived in the box in and kept unconscious tabs through all of the further operations ( again and many cards are not revealed, many only use 10 cards or thereabouts out of 78, so 68 are constantly unseen and changing order in ALL of the previous operations.

Again - a stretch . It just seems so complex and unrealistic. A much simpler less acrobatic solution seems, people put meanings into them as they want while they read, or accept things they are told that are sorta vague and they latch onto what they see as similarities. Seeing as your tarot usage is as sated above ( and a point you made that I 'liked' ) I dont see why this explanation would not be acceptable .

If the deck is shuffled randomly, then the odds of three cards appearing in the same order as the previous draw are 78 * 77 * 76 = 456,456 to 1.

Same odds, every time.

yes, but the point was, if that did come up people would not accept it was a random event .

Misreading from a list really isn't that difficult to do.

I see .

The person arranging the cards.

Do you think that interpretation is a fully conscious process?

Not at all. However I have been asked how I collated the info I gave in a reading, as the person seemed amazed about something I said. I thought about that and then relayed the same process , in brief, consciously, they freaked and asked 'You can think all of those things, in such depth, at the same time?"

The answer was no. 'I cant' but the part of me that I am not conscious of can . The unconscious can do many things, its just that we are not conscious of its process, but can be of its results.

And if not - why are you so entirely certain that that's the only point during the process that your unconscious would decide to get involved?

I dont, I just dont ascribe the magical complexity of the card selection, as you do, to it. It can achieve its ends much simpler by effecting the interpretation, regardless of the cards that come out.

many tarot readers realize, even with a clear technical reading, using book meanings, one set of cards in a reading, by position and influence on each other can lead to a similar or same outcome from a different set of cards.

I mean, I cant prove, of course, that it cant ... as I said, it just seems a stretch when a simpler and a much more obvious dynamic is already at work via interpretation.

As a software engineer - I can tell you that there's not a single software algorithm in the world which is truly random.

I suppose not , if they are like other seemingly chaotic events which actually have multiple complex and interacting forces creating the 'patterns' in them.

- actually, my fav deck does have cards that are marked as you say, so I aware of what you mean ,,,, but there is too much against the idea ( like the mass of unseen cards changing position in the deck throughout its whole life of shuffling ) for me , (in my formed opinions and experience ) to give it any weight.

[back to earth]

I've been interpreting it in the direct sense in whatever each symbol is said to mean and be.

But, you do readings , yeah, with multiple cards ?

If so who said what such resultant meanings of combined symbols means ?

I mean, even if you only do a three card reading, there are 78 cards in the deck ... is there a 'said to be meaning' for each one of those possible combinations?

Edited September 26, 2015 by back to earth

[ChrLzs]

I think it's a credible way to explore what you currently believe will happen in the future.

Well, we do clearly differ on the meaning of the word credible. To me, it means I can safely believe in it, and that implies it is verifiable, testable... yet that has never occurred.

And I note the very careful use of words - now it's just about 'exploring what you currently believe'... That's now two levels (exploring and believing) away from anything that could be tested.

There's intangible.. and then there is beyond intangible...

Bear in mind the original article uses terms like this:

It’s important ... to diffuse the negative energy ... with facts that point to the contrary..

and

When I’m asked if it actually works, I always confidently answer, “Yes it does!"

Yet Kathleen Meadows somehow forgot to give one credible example of just HOW it has worked. I think I see why - exploring one's current beliefs is hardly 'exciting', and I'm not sure you would 'credibly' do, let alone test, that. Does she mean perhaps "sensibly" or "creatively", instead of "credibly"...?

If this is just about exploring beliefs (and only current ones...), then it is so far away from the title of the thread and those claims that...

I'm out.

Edited September 26, 2015 by ChrLzs

[xYlvax]

But, you do readings , yeah, with multiple cards ?

If so who said what such resultant meanings of combined symbols means ?

I mean, even if you only do a three card reading, there are 78 cards in the deck ... is there a 'said to be meaning' for each one of those possible combinations?

There are many meanings and times for each card.. I pull ten which all represent a form of past present and future in various ways. I don't combine the symbols, but for each card and time it represents.

[back to earth]

Sorry ? You said " I've been interpreting it in the direct sense in whatever each symbol is said to mean "

but " there are many meanings and times for each card.."

do you mean said meanings include multiple meanings ?

(and who 'said' what they mean ? Do you mean the written meanings in a book that came with the specific deck ?

Edited September 26, 2015 by back to earth

[xYlvax]

Sorry ? You said " I've been interpreting it in the direct sense in whatever each symbol is said to mean "

but " there are many meanings and times for each card.."

do you mean said meanings include multiple meanings ?

(and who 'said' what they mean ? Do you mean the written meanings in a book that came with the specific deck ?

The direct meanings are from several sites i've cross-referenced to find the 'direct meaning'.

I've only touched the book from curiosity, because I'm familiar with the symbols and meanings.

[Tiggs]

Hmmm .... I guess you dont know what I mean then . .... there is a conscious decision that - i will start by cutting the deck in half , then I 'approximate' half and cut there.

What I mean is , it is still a random ordering , for a stacking to occur one cant nearly cut on the right card.

I am not saying it cant process a reading, I am saying it cant stack a deck when it is 'randomly' and rapidly shuffled, heck, most of time I dont even look at the back of the cards when shuffling , actually hardly ever.

How can you both consciously shuffle the deck and not be looking at the cards?

Perhaps the reason you're having such a difficult time describing it is because you don't normally have to think about it. Same as handshakes. Like most people, you do it without thinking.

I am aware of the fantastic qualities of the unconscious however, and its ability to do math and calculate things on an amazing multi level of complexity.

If you can show me the unconscious of anyone at any time being able to work out a maths problem and deliver the answer to the conscious mind when the original problem was written on cards that could not be seen and not looked at when shuffled .... then I will gladly eat my hat.

Whereas, I think that tracking an array of 78 cards over multiple slices should be easily within the computational range of the unconscious.

yeah, thats pushing it a bit I think ... still, what about my point that I dont look at the card backs, and I doubt many experienced readers do .... you can actually watch them on psychic tv show, they continually shuffle when doing all sorts of things - compulsive like, and they are not looking at the deck while they do it .

Almost like they're not consciously shuffling them?

Please dont default to a 'its done by feeling with the fingers' as similar issues arise there too.

To be fair - the unconscious has access to a level of fine motor control that the conscious does not.

and which card had which scratch or reflection .... I dont understand this " having seen them face up at some point in the past and then remembering their order" ? What order?

The order from the last reading ? ....But here one would need to also remember the order, as it changes, in the deck of all the non laid out cards for a reading, from all previous shuffles ? Unless one knew the first order they arrived in the box in and kept unconscious tabs through all of the further operations ( again and many cards are not revealed, many only use 10 cards or thereabouts out of 78, so 68 are constantly unseen and changing order in ALL of the previous operations.

Again - a stretch . It just seems so complex and unrealistic. A much simpler less acrobatic solution seems, people put meanings into them as they want while they read, or accept things they are told that are sorta vague and they latch onto what they see as similarities. Seeing as your tarot usage is as sated above ( and a point you made that I 'liked' ) I dont see why this explanation would not be acceptable .

Entirely okay with the concept that the reading is subjective.

I just don't think that it's necessarily the whole story.

yes, but the point was, if that did come up people would not accept it was a random event .

It can definitely happen. About once every 456,456 readings, on average (if you're only using three cards). The "on average" bit is the bit that most people don't catch. Those occurrences can cluster, but they should even out, eventually, given enough time and readings - providing that the shuffling itself is random.

Not at all. However I have been asked how I collated the info I gave in a reading, as the person seemed amazed about something I said. I thought about that and then relayed the same process , in brief, consciously, they freaked and asked 'You can think all of those things, in such depth, at the same time?"

The answer was no. 'I cant' but the part of me that I am not conscious of can . The unconscious can do many things, its just that we are not conscious of its process, but can be of its results.

I agree.

I dont, I just dont ascribe the magical complexity of the card selection, as you do, to it. It can achieve its ends much simpler by effecting the interpretation, regardless of the cards that come out.

many tarot readers realize, even with a clear technical reading, using book meanings, one set of cards in a reading, by position and influence on each other can lead to a similar or same outcome from a different set of cards.

I mean, I cant prove, of course, that it cant ... as I said, it just seems a stretch when a simpler and a much more obvious dynamic is already at work via interpretation.

Well, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first - or the last - time.

Interpretation is obviously the end result, so let's test your different cards, same / similar outcome theory.

Taking a simple 3 card Past-Present-Future spread, for example, how would you make the following cards lead to a similar outcome:

A: Four of Wands, Ace of Cups, Five of Wands

B: Wheel of Fortune, Knight of Wands, The Hanged Man

C: Seven of Swords, Strength (8), The Queen of Pentacles

If you need a question to base those replies on - let's say I'm asking about my career.

I suppose not , if they are like other seemingly chaotic events which actually have multiple complex and interacting forces creating the 'patterns' in them.

"Anyone who considers arithmetic methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin." - John Von Neumann.

- actually, my fav deck does have cards that are marked as you say, so I aware of what you mean ,,,, but there is too much against the idea ( like the mass of unseen cards changing position in the deck throughout its whole life of shuffling ) for me , (in my formed opinions and experience ) to give it any weight.

If you don't believe that the unconscious could track that, then there's really no other conclusion you can reach,

I personally think that our conscious mind is very wobbly and slow, compared to the unconscious. A bit like a single buggy copy of Windows 3.1 being drip fed information by a supercomputer.

So, obviously, we're going to come to different conclusions.

[Tiggs]

Well, we do clearly differ on the meaning of the word credible. To me, it means I can safely believe in it, and that implies it is verifiable, testable... yet that has never occurred.

And I note the very careful use of words - now it's just about 'exploring what you currently believe'... That's now two levels (exploring and believing) away from anything that could be tested.

You appear to have me mistaken for someone posting in defense of the article.