Question about Energy

If anyone capable of forming coherent sentences has anything intelligible to say I'll gladly answer them.

 

The release of energy in any kind of spell casting means a loss of strength to the inner being.
It therefore follows that however much you exude - is equal to that witch you will lose PLUS the price of summoning witch is never going to be cheap
So be mindful of the things you wish for, you never know what the cost will be in the essence of your soul

 

I understood exactly what tikoo was saying, and I thought it was both true and funny.

This is probably because I have more awareness of certain things than some other people. And that is probably why I have noticed some things that others haven't.

I was trained as a scientist. I know the scientific method, and I know what a double-blind placebo-controlled study, peer-reviewed experiments, and duplicated results are.

I also know that eyewitness accounts qualify as evidence in a court of law. Corroborating evidence increases the weight it should be given in reaching a conclusion. However some people are not comfortable with areas this gray.

There will be no proofs. Will there be decent treatment and tolerance?

 

As the son of an attorney I can tell you eyewitness accounts are worth almost nothing on their own in a court of law. As for corroborating evidence, you've presented none. As I suspected it would be, your reply was long winded but ultimately empty.

 

the flaming sceptic has no magic , no power . this
is a misty , moist world of moon glo . present another
avatar or die now .

Question about Energy :
a psychic avatar is a portrait of your energy .
care to doodle one ?

perhaps you are
Reptillian ?

 

Well someone is going to have to kill me because I'm not going to "die" willingly. I have to admit, that was some of the most poetic trolling I've seen, tikko. As much as I enjoy reading your harebrained posts, you're still making little progress towards a substantial point.

 

toward the end of a long journey ,
so it appears , mmm , that little
progress toward the point
is being made . it's just not
that far to go .

 

I have no idea the subject of this conversation but I do know that doubt, gives one no information about the environment. The only proceeds it possesses are suspicion at best to viciousness at worst.

 

Perhaps we should finish this journey then, so that I may be enlightened hmm? Or perhaps you'd rather continue speaking in riddles because you know your beliefs wont stand before my power of reasoning?

It is not doubt, but skepticism. It is simply a means of sorting fact from fiction. So perhaps it is more accurate to say that it prevents me from adopting misinformed beliefs, rather than giving "one no information about the environment." Holding onto the untrue is worse than admitting what you don't know.

Skepticism is also the philosophy of science. The very science that has graced you with the computer you're posting on. So to say it prevents gaining "information about the environment." is far from true.

 

Who are you speaking to sweet pea?

 

The first paragraph was directed towards tikko. The rest that I edited in was in response to your comment. If you'd like to participate I suggest actually reading what has been posted in the thread first.

 

So far I would say all energy exchange is equal, shit in, shit out.

 

There are mixed and conflicting premises in your statement here. Obviously a question cannot be beyond the scope of human intelligence and sensation because it emerges from there. Every word we speak has at it's origin, an experiential conjugation. Words are symbols of conditional existence. If you believe you can acquire objective knowledge using measurable observation then again, it is not beyond our scope, as scope is an instrument for viewing or observing. You profess doubt here about the possibility of knowing what is real. Do you doubt then, that you are real?

 

It is not that reality cannot be known, it is that reality is emergent and knowledge must forever yield to more knowledge. The universe, expanding as our appreciation of it expands.

 

"And your reasoning is impeccable as regards to skepticism. When I made the comment about doubt, not scientific skepticism, as I said, I didn't know what the positions were. That being, it was a stand alone comment. Do you have an objection to my treatment in that case?"

You're original comment, if intended as a standalone, would be irrelevant, so why post it? It was intended as a critique of my most recent post at the time. But as you've acknowledged multiple times, you didn't have the background to the post, thus mistakenly irrelevant. Irrelevant either way, so why attempt to defend the foolishness of posting in a thread in which you haven't read?

"How attached are you to your own empirical testimony? There are states of consciousness in which information is processed in a different way than what is called normal waking or consensual consciousness, and the only way to appreciate those states in an associative way, is to achieve them, they cannot be translated symbolically in a tangible way."

Again I'm failing to see relevance. Unless you're trying to tell me these pyschic/magical experiences/claims are merely anecdotal and you can't defend them in debate. I already knew this, thank you.

"Actually the impetus that accounts for advancements in understanding is curiosity, not skepticism. Knowledge is material, the universe made of information. Knowledge takes up space, and therefore is most accessible, flowing freely into an open mind. Ultimately the best case, suspicion, must yield to acceptance. It is not the problem that teaches, but the solution."

Yes, curiosity is the human emotion which drives us to seek answers. But science is a systematic process of gaining knowledge and discerning the truth. If I explain to a 5 year old that chocolate milk is produced by brown cows, he will believe me and his curiosity on the matter will be satisfied. Adults, as well all know, are also susceptible to misinformation. Belief in a conclusion is what satisfies curiosity, but that belief is not necessarily correct. Knowledge is a concept, and is material in the same sense that everything is material. It is composed of matter and energy. Matter and energy as far as we know are the basic level of all things. And knowledge is not in fact readily accessible to the human brain. It is gained and processed over time. If it was immediately accessible that would not account for the progression of knowledge.

"There are mixed and conflicting premises in your statement here. Obviously a question cannot be beyond the scope of human intelligence and sensation because it emerges from there. Every word we speak has at it's origin, an experiential conjugation. Words are symbols of conditional existence. If you believe you can acquire objective knowledge using measurable observation then again, it is not beyond our scope, as scope is an instrument for viewing or observing. You profess doubt here about the possibility of knowing what is real. Do you doubt then, that you are real? "

I never claimed the question was beyond human understanding. I claimed that the answer would be. The word 'what' in the context of "What is reality?" means 'to specify.' I could define reality in a form that humans conceptualize it, but assuming the question is asking what reality is in an objective existence sort of way, the finite processing capabilities of a human brain are incapable of understanding something so vast. We can only tackle bits and pieces. Even if all the pieces were available they couldn't be processed at the same time by a human brain. Do I think it is impossible for an intelligence to truly grasp reality? Perhaps, perhaps not. I concede I don't know. Perhaps knowledge itself is an abstraction of truth. Something else to keep in mind is that much of existence has only been recently discovered through indirect means. Infrared light for example. The senses are definitely limited and there remains a possibility that there are facets of the universe that can not be experienced even indirectly by human sensation. As long as there are things we do not understand, or even the possibility, we can not give a comprehensive definition of the universe. It is demonstratively beyond our scope.

"It is not that reality cannot be known, it is that reality is emergent and knowledge must forever yield to more knowledge. The universe, expanding as our appreciation of it expands."

Even if this were true it does nothing in and of itself to support belief in psychic/magic abilities.

 

Are you guys actually being serious about this psychic/energy crap or are you just roleplayin/joking around?

 

They're serious. I know right? Lololololol.

 

LOL
lets not make fun of them man, thats negative energy
TROLOLOLOLOL

 

It was a stand alone comment in regards to the question about what tikoo was saying, "in riddles", in absence of what it was in specific regard to. In that way It was a generic observation about, reluctance to believe, doubt. Not about a reluctance to be deceived.

I have given my answer as regards the op's question as, all energy exchanges are equal. I answer the question without regard for whether the phenomena in question is real or not. I do not have a belief system designed for psychic phenomena. That means that the question remains of interest as an affectation of human perspective. I have no scientific cause to ridicule.

What I am pointing out is that you cannot apprehend them in any form of normal waking activity, whether it be in debate or reading a book. So your criteria for assessing the information lacks sufficient rigor.

When you are speaking of mental ability you are speaking of abstraction because the mind is naturally abstract. You cannot weigh mind but if you are sane you know that you have one.

Knowledge is, being shared. The ability to communicate grows, as simple forms become more complex. I said nothing about belief. Knowledge is not a concept although everything we understand arises with conception, just as reality is not imagined although we imagine things about reality.

We an make a complete statement about reality. Reality is non local nor is it remote. Nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists.

A comprehensive definition can not be put forward but reality may be apprehended. We name the animals as we discover them. It will forever be an open ended description. Reality, being non local, cannot be contained by description.

"It is not that reality cannot be known, it is that reality is emergent and knowledge must forever yield to more knowledge. The universe, expanding as our appreciation of it expands."

I am not trying to support any particular belief. What I am doing is probing the quality of your reasoning. I do not think that saying reality is beyond our scope of apprehension in any way contributes to the body of knowledge. It represents the kind of unscientific or unreasoned doubt that I was referring to originally.