On Feb 28, 10:19 am, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Schizophrenic? Show me your degree in Psychology and then you have the > right to make that accusation. You would be wrong, but at least you > would have some credentials to back up your spurious claim.
Reverse it, they have to show me THEIR degree that they studied my framework, or their credentials is just a bunch of strangers who were paid to rebuf if needed. But I have to thank NYC for providing me this WONDERFUL chance to live, enjoy, first-third degree encounter with all kinds of aberrants, perverts, deviants, criminals, terminal cases, mental cases, psychopaths, sychophants (too), chronically diseased, crazies, lobotomes, criminal bosses, criminals, lunatics, terrorists, guerrillas, sectarians, Muslims, fanatics, torturers, Homeless, Africans, Chinese, Hindi, Arabs, Indians, shamans and other such individuals, and be totally unable to GET OUT. Hence these analysis.
> I am acting as a field and some in the room were acting as antenna for > him to hear something about YOU? I can understand the reasoning for > this. Known cons have used hidden mics and cameras where the audience > would gather. They would have their assistants correlate the > information and then do their magic. Remember, this is 1972, mics > maybe, TV no. But even if he used both they wouldn?t apply in my > case.
More or less. The phenomenon has been documented throughout History. EEGs are an expression of that field, so we know that. The brain is much more sensitive computer to pick up and gather such signals. Antenna is a more complex concept, but think that it is more likely you will prepare a speech for your girlfriend rather than for the Pope! So if your girlfriend is around someone and within a field, she is antenna and the schizophrenic would hear you. And yes, about me, this is not a 5th world province, it was supposedly the capital of the world, diplomacy, finances and media! I did initiate certain contacts. Plus other conditions.
> If you would have taken the time to read what I said thoroughly, you > would have read that in the 1st incident our group arrived just before > he was ready to deliver his lecture on numerology. We hurriedly found > our seats and sat down. Not a word except for an, excuse me as I found > my seat. > > When he finished his lecture I went to the bathroom and then returned > to my seat. Others were milling about talking and those in our group > who had been there before primed me for what was to come up next. Not > once was there ever a word spoken concerning me quitting my job. The > slip and fall concerning my grandmother obviously happened just prior > to his readings and I was not privy to that information until I > received the phone call late that very same evening. No self > fulfilling prophecy there as you suggest.
As I said at the beginning: the informative content is almost null. Lots of data, but little information (not here to explain). All people have job trouble, so mention job... and bingo.
You are implying the group was conspired to convince you! Did you pay any more money? But you do believe he was right.
Self fulfilling prophecies abound. When did you DECIDE to go to the place?
> This also applies to the 2nd incident. No talk about Rogers old truck > and how many miles he had on it. You are reaching. You know that and > so does anyone else with marginal reading skills. > > Frankly speaking there is no way any mathematician can calculate the > odds of him predicting these two events happening in EXACTLY the way
(there are some surprising probability distributions, actually...)
> he described. You may have convinced yourself but you will have a hard > time convincing others with the irrational mumbo jumbo you tried to > push off as authoritative. In essence, everything in your first two > paragraphs DOES NOT apply.
Oh, it is in there, it is a framework, and it is formal models. You CAN speak of number pi without reaching nth decimals, for instance. No opinion, but I found too many who want it a secret and unexplained. Think of a criminal who is being *heard* (for real, not delusionally): he prefers people to think they engage in criminal thoughts rather than act and find HIM.
> What you have actually done was once again convince me that science > has no explanation for both the 1st and 2nd incidents. Ockham?s Razor > suggests that from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that
It is no assumption, it is axiom and observations, plus some easy experiments. THIS is the simplest explanation. It is no coincidence that psychiatrists DO speak of ANALYSIS and were called ANALYSTS, simple pieces to form complex situations. My analysis is still going on.
> The psychic?s explanation certainly holds more water than the word > sieve you handed me. Well how to you like that? That?s a first. > Ockham?s Razor supporting a psychic. Where?s Guinness when you need > him?
Guiness? Trodding the street dressed as a homeless garbage man after I sent an email, making it evident that he could resemble to confusion (cline) one (or more) of my aunts in the same condition. And I am still complaining. Truly.
I think your post and reply are still self inconsistent. Try a truth table...
The Bible is a PLAN. Actually it is one of a few possible outcomes from a type of processes, the ones described by my framework (in process...). The Qu ran is another one, same elements, different outcome, same structure. Think of it as finding the complex roots of a polynomial, you can read an introductory text. The conclusion is that religion is an information transmission error and all religious phenomena can be reduced to it. But that is already an advanced consequence of all this and some lacunae have yet to be filled in and precised before reaching the engineering.