Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

[JackLuis]

Wanted to see the movie but my tooth has been keeping me close to home.

Do men really stare at Goats?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Short answer: No.

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Who was the scientist who came up with the law re: the act of observation changes the outcome?

 

[Pure]

ready to hear and think? think, deciding to lift your arm. lift your arm. there.

 

[kromen]

It's not like I haven't tried. When that day comes when I make that tire on the car of the rude son of a bitch that cut me off does blow, I'll promptly shit my pants.

 

[Epmd607]

Who was the scientist who came up with the law re: the act of observation changes the outcome?

Werner Heisenberg. But it's not thought alone, physical presence is what changes the thing you want to observe. In Werner's case he's talking about trying get the position or momentum of a particle. The measurement of position, setting up a narrow slit for the particle to pass through, disturbs the momentum.

In the case of zoology/anthropology the presence of the observer observing is what could ruin the natural behaviors of the observed animals/people, making the observations questionable. Especially in highly social organizations, you have no idea what little thing on your part could trigger a drastic change in group dynamic.

Telekinesis doesn't exist, you can't bend spoons with your mind, you have to use your thumb.

 

[Epmd607]

ready to hear and think? think, deciding to lift your arm. lift your arm. there.

You're describing mind-body duality. The mind doesn't think and the body listens, the mind is the body and the body-mind decides and lifts that arm. Can't separate the mind from brain because you can't separate the brain from the body. It's like a song lyric: The mind is the brain and the brain is the body and the body is the mind and the body thinks with the brain and it's described as the mind...

Describing ideas is more interesting, because classically people like to describe ideas as things in heads, which they're not at all. Cognitive science isn't my strong suit. Does anyone have a way to describe an idea that fits into the body-mind-environment system? I think describing what an idea is may come closer to showing an influence between thought and the physical world, as opposed to whatever telekinesis and mind control are in fantasy world.

 

[Liar]

Is "tought" neurons passing information back and forth inside your brain?

Then thought IS physical reality. And as such, it can affect other physical things.

In practical terms though, nah.

For one thing, directing the physical reality of your thoughts by thinking, is a paradox. You can't use the car you're driving, to operate it's gear stick.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Mmmmm, I have to say 'yes.'

People are extremely reactionary. If theyre certain how you'll respond to something they react to what you think.

 

[Pure]

reply to ep, two posts

the question of Jack was,

Can people really influence the physical world with thought alone?

pure: he mentions some absurd experiments actually carried out by the US Army, iirc, at the height of the cold war.

i described two thoughts, voluntary, then a resultant change in the physical world. considering, deciding, then a movement.

ep: You're describing mind-body duality. The mind doesn't think and the body listens, the mind is the body and the body-mind decides and lifts that arm. Can't separate the mind from brain because you can't separate the brain from the body. It's like a song lyric: The mind is the brain and the brain is the body and the body is the mind and the body thinks with the brain and it's described as the mind...
---

pure: no, i took no position on mind/body duality or lack thereof. i described "a thought." i described a change in the physical world.
whether thoughts are instantiations or epiphenomena of brain waves, is a topic i did not address.
====

ep Describing ideas is more interesting, because classically people like to describe ideas as things in heads, which they're not at all. Cognitive science isn't my strong suit.
---

pure: well, you might consider the cs research on expertise, and its use of "think aloud protocols", e.g., a dr describes his thoughts as he pours over xray pictures, in search of a diagnosis. it is a feature of cognitive science NOT to get into a skinnerish limitation of psychology to observable behavior. as a second example, the design of chess playing programs is greatly influenced by the reported thoughts of masters involved in the AI project.

it's also true that brain behavioral research has looked at brain states that attend/accompany/cause certain mental activities. the conceptual elucidation of such linked states-of-affairs is a task of philosophy.

it suffices for most cognitive science and psychology simply to say,
"Yes, Marge, there are thoughts. You have them."
===

pure: actually, the clear association of brain waves and thoughts, as stated by 'Liar' is sufficient to answer the original question in that a thought [linked to brain state 1], gives rise to brain state 2, reliably. and the latter is a physical event.
=========
as to your second statement:

ep Telekinesis doesn't exist, you can't bend spoons with your mind, you have to use your thumb.

====

pure: the conclusion is faulty, and the purported "logic" if there is such. [the absence of 'spoon bending', an illusion produced by magic trick, has no bearing on the original question, other that its 'pop' form]

you should have said //that you know of no evidence as to this phenomenon.//

now, if you'd said that, i'd produce material such as this, a meta study from Psych Bulletin:

Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis.
Bösch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497


Psychological Bulletin. Vol 132(4), Jul 2006, 497-523.

Séance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

===
pure: obviously the phenomenon is controversial, and the 'negative conclusion,' contains the crucial qualifier, "in principle," which would mean that the evidence is exists, but it MAY be subject to reinterpretation.

the argument continues in
Reexamining psychokinesis: Comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller (2006).
Radin, Dean; Nelson, Roger; Dobyns, York; Houtkooper, Joop
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 132(4), Jul 2006, 529-532.

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529

see also: "The PEAR proposition,"
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

===

pure: my conclusion is here is that Jack's question is answerable by reference to evidence, and hence a dogmatic conclusion such as yours, is not warranted, on the evidence; it is likely not a result of familiarity with the scientific investigations and purported evidence, but, i'd hypothesize, it is a result of what your particular faith/worldview asserts, a priori, about the world of nature.

 

[Epmd607]

Honestly, your replies are usually too long and nebulous(purposely obscure) I stopped reading your reply here:

"pure: no, i took no position on mind/body duality or lack thereof. i described "a thought." i described a change in the physical world.
whether thoughts are instantiations or epiphenomena of brain waves, is a topic i did not address."

You described a change in the physical world brought on by something outside of the physical world -- the Cartesian Mind, as a non-physical entity commanding the physical body to act in the domain of the arm(the world of moving arms through space-time.) An arm cannot function without muscle memory, the memory of muscle is as important as the memory of the brain which shares commands so they may move the arm in accord.

You wanted to answer a question simply, yet the question needs a complex answer. What is the relationship between a thought and an action? What is a thought? Can a thought be described non-physically? Still, the simplest answer is: No, people can't really influence the physical world with a thought alone, as a thought/idea isn't something separate from the 'physical world.'

My Uri Geller reference was a joke, Professor.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You're describing mind-body duality. The mind doesn't think and the body listens, the mind is the body and the body-mind decides and lifts that arm. Can't separate the mind from brain because you can't separate the brain from the body. It's like a song lyric: The mind is the brain and the brain is the body and the body is the mind and the body thinks with the brain and it's described as the mind...

Describing ideas is more interesting, because classically people like to describe ideas as things in heads, which they're not at all. Cognitive science isn't my strong suit. Does anyone have a way to describe an idea that fits into the body-mind-environment system? I think describing what an idea is may come closer to showing an influence between thought and the physical world, as opposed to whatever telekinesis and mind control are in fantasy world.

I think what you're looking for are the ideas contained in the theory of embodied cognition, the view that intelligence and thinking can't develop without sensory input and output. Embodied cognition maintains that intelligence is ultimately derived from our physical interactions with the world through our bodies, and abstract thought is a function of these lessons along with the manipulation of metaphors afforded through the use of language and other symbolic systems.

For the EC theorist, we learn that 1+1=2 not through logic, but through direct physical sensory experience. Once we're empirically convinced that 1+1 is always 2, we can symbolically represent it, and by playing with the symbols we can go on to discover much higher and more abstract mathematical truths. But the very concepts of truth and logic are abstracted from direct sensory experience of the world. If we didn't have sensing and reacting bodies, we wouldn't have cognition.

Embodied Cognition was not an invention of cognitive scientists. It arose from the fields of Artificial Intelligence and from the study of literature, from the powerful ideas of Concrete Metaphor theory. Concrete Metaphor theory says that our brains basically work by applying different metaphors to situations to find the one that gives the most useful associations. For example, when the poet says, "My love is like a red, red, rose," what he's doing is allowing us to apply all the attributes of a blooming flower to the idea of "love", and we can then make new associations and predictions based on this metaphor: i.e., that his love is a blooming thing, that it's beautiful and fragile and alive, that it will one day wither and die, etc. etc. The metaphor allows us to apply all these new flower qualities and ideas to the concept of "love".

CMT says that all new ideas are ultimately the result of applying new metaphors to existing situations, and since the source of these metaphors is always nature itself (or the symbolic systems we ultimately derive from empirical experience, like logic and language) we can only acquire the stuff of metaphors through our interaction with nature, our sensory input/output. Hence, embodied cognition theory.

A great example of Concrete Metaphor theory in action is the debate over whether alcoholism is a moral failing or a disease. In reality, alcoholism "is" neither. It's a morbid addiction to alcohol. But which metaphor allows us to more successfully understand and influence alcoholic behavior? The moral-failure metaphor, or the disease metaphor?

To CMT, the great accomplishment of science is that it's allowed us to find much more objective and useful metaphors for understanding the natural world, metaphors that, to the scientist, are known as "models". Before science, the metaphor of human emotion was usually applied to natural phenomenon: they were the work of the gods' will. The models (metaphors) of the atomic-molecular theory and the four fundamental forces of physics have proven much more successful in describing and predicting how nature works.

Anyhow, as you can probably tell, I'm quite taken by both these ideas. I also find it terribly validating that, as writers, one of the things we do (whether we mean to or not) is constantly create metaphors. Does the metaphor of sin better describe sexual behavior, or the metaphor of naturalness and health? What does it mean that he fucks her like a bear rather than like a ram? Is life a journey, or is it just stumbling around in the dark? Is this post a fount of wisdom, or just another bowl of drivel?

 

[Epmd607]

I think what you're looking for are the ideas contained in the theory of embodied cognition, the view that intelligence and thinking can't develop without sensory input and output. Embodied cognition maintains that intelligence is ultimately derived from our physical interactions with the world through our bodies, and abstract thought is a function of these lessons along with the manipulation of metaphors afforded through the use of language and other symbolic systems.

For the EC theorist, we learn that 1+1=2 through direct physical experience. Once we're convinced that 1+1 is always 2, we can symbolically represent it, and by playing with the symbols we can go on to discover much higher and more abstract mathematical truths. But the very concept of truth and logic are abstracted from direct sensory experience. If we didn't have sensing and reacting bodies, we wouldn't have cognition.

Embodied Cognition was not an invention of cognitive scientists. It arose from the fields of Artificial Intelligence and from the study of literature, from the powerful ideas of Concrete Metaphor theory. Concrete Metaphor theory says that our brains basically work by applying different metaphors to situations to find the one that gives the most useful associations. For example, when the poet says, "My love is like a red, red, rose," what he's doing is allowing us to apply all the attributes of a blooming flower to the idea of "love", and we can then make new associations and predictions based on this metaphor: i.e., that his love is a blooming thing, that it's beautiful and fragile and alive, that it will one day wither and die, etc. etc. The metaphor allows us to apply all these new flower qualities and ideas to the concept of "love".

CMT says that all new ideas are ultimately the result of applying new metaphors to existing situations, and since the source of these metaphors is always nature itself. We only acquire the stuff of metaphors through our interaction with nature, our sensory input/output. Hence, embodied cognition theory.

A great example of Concrete Metaphor theory in action is the debate over whether alcoholism is a moral failing or a disease. In reality, alcoholism "is" neither. It's a morbid addiction to alcohol. But which metaphor allows us to more successfully understand and influence alcoholic behavior? The moral-failure metaphor, or the disease metaphor?

To CMT, the great accomplishment of science is that it's allowed us to find much more objective and useful metaphors for understanding the natural world, metaphors the scientist knows as "models". Before science, the metaphor of human emotion was usually applied to natural phenomenon: they were the work of the gods' will. The models (metaphors) of the atomic-molecular theory and the four fundamental forces of physics have proven much more successful in describing and predicting how nature works.

Anyhow, as you can probably tell, I'm quite taken by both these ideas. I also find it terribly validating that, as writers, one of the things we do (whether we mean to or not) is constantly create metaphors. Does the metaphor of sin better describe sexual behavior, or the metaphor of naturalness and health? What does it mean that he fucks her like a bear rather than like a ram? Is life a journey, or is it just stumbling around in the dark? Is this post a fount of wisdom, or just another bowl of drivel?

See, that's an answer to a question. Thanks.

 

[Pure]

note to ep

epHonestly, your replies are usually too long and nebulous(purposely obscure) I stopped reading your reply here:

"pure: no, i took no position on mind/body duality or lack thereof. i described "a thought." i described a change in the physical world.
whether thoughts are instantiations or epiphenomena of brain waves, is a topic i did not address."

===

you read the first couple sentences, and failed, even, to grasp them.

but in future, i shall follow your model: when i see a post of yours with clear lack of evidentiary basis [e.g., #6], i shall read only the first couple sentences. then simply say, "no evidence presented." since faulty reasoning is a matter of course for you, i'll forbear even mentioning it.

 

[Epmd607]

epHonestly, your replies are usually too long and nebulous(purposely obscure) I stopped reading your reply here:

"pure: no, i took no position on mind/body duality or lack thereof. i described "a thought." i described a change in the physical world.
whether thoughts are instantiations or epiphenomena of brain waves, is a topic i did not address."

===

you read the first couple sentences, and failed, even, to grasp them.

but in future, i shall follow your model: when i see a post of yours with clear lack of evidentiary basis [e.g., #6], i shall read only the first couple sentences. then simply say, "no evidence presented." since faulty reasoning is a matter of course for you, i'll forbear even mentioning it.

I just figured it out, Pure and Verdad are the same character in this story. That's why I felt that similar gagging sensation when I read your absolute nonsense in the Emulation thread.

Post 197, Pure said:

"we are *talking* paraphilia--indeed confessing-- because of Krafft Ebing, Freud, the DSMs, and massive saturation of culture, with porn. paraphilia X--skateboards; frottage, subcategory 'not elsewhere classified'--exists; it's recognized. it's in the DSM catalog and the mainstream porn "menu".

it's even, may i speculate, part of identity, and i don't mean to single you out. were you writing a personal, and a self description, you might well say "passionately attracted to women; and also, there is, i should say, the odd paraphilia...."

the person who's catalogued in DSMs, and finds his habits on the "menu" of porn presents himself to his lover in those terms. not only are the acts out in the open, but it's almost as if they are *approved.*"

Absolute Rabelaisian nonsense.

"The great God made the planets, and we make the platters neat. I have the word of the gospel in my mouth, Sitio. The stone called asbestos is not more unquenchable than the thirst of my paternity. Appetite comes with eating, says Angeston, but the thirst goes away with drinking. I have a remedy against thirst, quite contrary to that which is good against the biting of a mad dog. Keep running after a dog, and he will never bite you; drink always before the thirst, and it will never come upon you. There I catch you, I awake you. Argus had a hundred eyes for his sight, a butler should have (like Briareus) a hundred hands wherewith to fill us wine indefatigably. Hey now, lads, let us moisten ourselves, it will be time to dry hereafter."

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Two observations on this question. First, this is an idea that has floated around the Sci-Fi world for some time. Pointedly, Ursula LeGuinn's Lathe of Heaven. Second, in the real world this doesn't seem to work. For instance Yuri Geller claimed to be able to do simple things like bend spoons with his mind. This, of course, was a magician's trick and a hoax. This goes on and on. Evangelists who claim to heal with their minds and the hand of God is another real world hoax that people grab onto in an effort to believe.

 

[lance gt]

There's the point of view that everything that exists was a thought. It became tangible because it was acknowledged by at least one of the five senses. The mind will constantly look for a viable answer to things that aren't tangible and we have instilled a disbelief of those things, because they don't exist in what we have accepted as fact, or at least plausible.

If the world were shown one documented display of tele-kinetic movement of a solid object, it would become a fact and the disbelief would end, thus creating the impetus for everyone to try it, without the immediate denial of it being an unknown to negate any efforts in trying

 

[Epmd607]

There's the point of view that everything that exists was a thought. It became tangible because it was acknowledged by at least one of the five senses. The mind will constantly look for a viable answer to things that aren't tangible and we have instilled a disbelief of those things, because they don't exist in what we have accepted as fact, or at least plausible.

If the world were shown one documented display of tele-kinetic movement of a solid object, it would become a fact and the disbelief would end, thus creating the impetus for everyone to try it, without the immediate denial of it being an unknown to negate any efforts in trying

The telekinetic movement couldn't just happen once, it would have to be repeatable on command to be closer to acceptance as fact. It couldn't be anomalous. That's why it's awkward when folks on TV wander around in the dark looking for anomalous information and also 'evidence' of ghosts. Maybe there's something that looks like a ghost on film, and it's a type of evidence, but if you can't catch more 'ghosts' in a similar fashion then it's of little to no value.

James Randi has a million dollar prize where he sets down guidelines for proving supernatural abilities. It's possible that there are abilities we could deem supernatural, just because we don't have a 2209 CE understanding of nature, but no one's shown any good evidence. There is no credible psych experiment that can be repeated showing human beings having anything resembling thought projection. The best 'thought' projection is done by people reading the faces of their friends and lovers, reading smells, interpreting body language like all animals do.

 

[Recidiva]

I think it's possible to be a person who can do this, but I'm not one of them. I get flashes and I've had insight, but it's entirely unpredictable and it's not something I can call on or control or even interpret correctly unless it's lightning-bolt clear. I spent a bit of time pursuing this as apparently I have some aptitude, but if it's a human talent in evolution, in me at least it's not that well evolved and needs a bit of work. For me I can do some stuff you're not supposed to be able to do, but all in all the time and attention I've spent in reality working on real skills instead of trying to pursue it other than as a curiosity or a hobby. I certainly wouldn't use it for espionage or any sense of "reliable" information. It's entirely subjective and symbolic.

I'd rather have a conversation than try to read someone's mind.

Even for those who claim to be able to do this, very often they have no control over it or head off in the wrong direction with certainty that the path doesn't deserve.

So I would bet on someone's gift in this direction as much as I would bet on someone winning the lottery. Yes, it's possible, I'm not convinced it's entirely fiction or a scam, but if I were to invest energy in getting something done, it's best to invest the energy in hard work and diligence in the physical universe and keeping your thoughts pristine and clear and avoid short cuts and power trips and ego.

Claiming you can do this is a bit like saying you can predict lottery numbers. The way it really works if it works at all is much more complicated and doesn't boil down to hard and fast data that is actionable. At best it's a curiosity and occasionally a lifesaver in a crisis if it's there for you at all. Otherwise it's a waste of time and money and potentially incredibly destructive.

For any who has a gift in this direction, I would suggest letting any gift work on its own schedule and not attempt to count on it or manipulate it. Bad idea.

In short, get a real job.

 

[Recidiva]

There's the point of view that everything that exists was a thought. It became tangible because it was acknowledged by at least one of the five senses. The mind will constantly look for a viable answer to things that aren't tangible and we have instilled a disbelief of those things, because they don't exist in what we have accepted as fact, or at least plausible.

If the world were shown one documented display of tele-kinetic movement of a solid object, it would become a fact and the disbelief would end, thus creating the impetus for everyone to try it, without the immediate denial of it being an unknown to negate any efforts in trying

Oh, that's not true at all.

I've seen things that were unbelievable and watched others walk away in instant denial or assuming it was a fake. I've done things and people have assumed I'm crazy or lying.

The most compelling for me are things like twins knowing something's happened to their sibling immediately. That sort of thing I have seen and I've done enough to know that it's got enough basis in reality to give it some thought and some respect.

If that can happen, then I don't see why remote viewing couldn't happen as well as "remote feeling."

But I DO know that even presented with clear evidence, lots of people will assume any "evidence" is fraudulent.

 

[cloudy]

Oh, that's not true at all.

I've seen things that were unbelievable and watched others walk away in instant denial or assuming it was a fake. I've done things and people have assumed I'm crazy or lying.

The most compelling for me are things like twins knowing something's happened to their sibling immediately. That sort of thing I have seen and I've done enough to know that it's got enough basis in reality to give it some thought and some respect.

If that can happen, then I don't see why remote viewing couldn't happen as well as "remote feeling."

But I DO know that even presented with clear evidence, lots of people will assume any "evidence" is fraudulent.

Indeed.

There are more things on heaven and earth than those we understand, yes?

 

[Recidiva]

Indeed.

There are more things on heaven and earth than those we understand, yes?

Couple more millennia and I'm hoping humans will get a decent grip on it.

I'm sure the first shark that detected prey by electricity was made fun of by the other sharks. Well, if sharks could talk.

I'm hoping it's a neato leap forward eventually. But right now it's just a curiosity.

In my case I know my weird senses have saved my life and the lives of at least two other people at critical times.

That's enough for me to know that in my circumstances there was absolutely no chance it was "just a hunch" and also maybe my life or someone close to me needs to be in danger before it kicks in fully. But when it kicks in, look the hell out. I'm at least aware that the information that comes through that channel, whatever it is, isn't processed the same way the other senses are.

There's no way I can explain it, and I'm about on the level of that first shark saying "I don't know, my nose freakin' tingles and then if I follow it, there you go. Lunch."

 

[lance gt]

I won't deny that people, twins especially, have a synonymous connection mentally and physically to certain degrees. When I stated documented evidence, I was referring to a clinical study to show a person has an ability to tele-kinetically move an object at will.

The potential for tele-kenesis is there,or we wouldn't be talking about it in fantasy terms. The point is in believing. Diva, you believe because you have experienced it first hand and you testify to it's existence. Other's will deny it, because they haven't. Their disbelief causes them to automatically deny it and it remains an anomoly, a figment of the imagination.

Man has accomplished so many things in the last century alone that even those who have lived through it, still won't accept the reality of it, because it is being denied in the reality of their acceptance.

I have experienced things myself that have made me wonder about it really happening, or was it just a trick of my mind's eye. When it happened again, I lost my denial and my curiosity took over. Still being able to do it at will, has left me unsure of a positive existence or a fluke of nature.

A true belief by someone that they can do it and never have input from "In the box" thinking, will stand the best chance of it ever happening.

 

[Recidiva]

I won't deny that people, twins especially, have a synonymous connection mentally and physically to certain degrees. When I stated documented evidence, I was referring to a clinical study to show a person has an ability to tele-kinetically move an object at will.

The potential for tele-kenesis is there,or we wouldn't be talking about it in fantasy terms. The point is in believing. Diva, you believe because you have experienced it first hand and you testify to it's existence. Other's will deny it, because they haven't. Their disbelief causes them to automatically deny it and it remains an anomoly, a figment of the imagination.

Man has accomplished so many things in the last century alone that even those who have lived through it, still won't accept the reality of it, because it is being denied in the reality of their acceptance.

I have experienced things myself that have made me wonder about it really happening, or was it just a trick of my mind's eye. When it happened again, I lost my denial and my curiosity took over. Still being able to do it at will, has left me unsure of a positive existence or a fluke of nature.

A true belief by someone that they can do it and never have input from "In the box" thinking, will stand the best chance of it ever happening.

Yes, for me it's not a matter of faith because it's repeated itself enough in my life that I didn't need second-hand explanation or demonstration.

But I understand that there's no language or way to express it to people who haven't been there and don't have their own "map" so to speak. If someone else already has experienced it, then you can share landmarks. It's also really easy to pick out the charlatans and fakers because their map leads nowhere and doesn't make sense and looks like it was scribbled in crayon.

But otherwise it's like trying to describe "sight" to someone inherently blind. There's absolutely no frame of reference you can use if the blind person doesn't "believe" in light or that it can be detected by an apparatus they don't possess.

The only way I really have of defending my own knack in this direction is that when it kicks in, it's right. And people around me benefit from it, so I either inspire fear and suspicion, or I inspire a "Heh. Here it goes, this is cool. Watch." from my kids or my husband.

Fortunately my husband has a knack of his own which inspires in me my own "Heh. That's so cool."

So if you have a particular talent, it can either enrich your life in the proper context and the proper company, or get you strung up or burned in the middle of town square for being a witch.

I tend to have emotional insight or thought insight that's not available by conventional means. My husband has physical insight into the way things work, and is as close to a technopath as I've ever met. My daughter has dreams that inform her of how the day is going to go. So if she's just tried out for a play, usually she'll get a dream telling her how it's going to go. So she'll wake up knowing that she's got the part. Or she'll wake up knowing our cat is dead. For instance. And she hasn't been wrong yet.

There's all sorts of talents, being open minded about them doesn't hurt. Relying on them to get you through on their own just isn't wise though. I also developed other skills to help back up any insight I might have. My husband takes classes to learn more about machines than he might have gotten intuitively, and my daughter doesn't sleep her life away.

And since we don't base our real lives on this, it doesn't come to a crisis when we do it for money or promise some gift we can't deliver or base a religion on it. I don't trust the judgment of those who get paid for it.

 

[cloudy]

I don't trust the judgment of those who get paid for it.

True holy people (as we call them) won't ask to get paid, although it is traditional to offer them some tobacco as a gift.

Someone who asks to get paid is doing it wrong.