Conference hydra::dejavu

    I think your teacher is right.  The best you can generally 
    expect from psychic advisors is mediocre to good psychological
    insight, and that's if they're sincere, talented, and not scamming you.  
    In most cases, your own self-guidance is probably your most
    trustworthy compass, if you develop it well.  It's when self-guidance
    breaks down that I think counselors earn their keep, and then as 
    a stop-gap in most cases unless something is really seriously wrong.
    
    There may be prophets who can accurately foretell, I don't know,
    but I suspect that few if any of them make a living hawking it on
    telephone hotlines and in Gypsy parlors (or the equivalent).
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    RE:  Spirit Guides...  I'm always curious when people refer to
    communicating with their guides.  Is it an auditory or visual
    connection ... both?  I think I would be completely unnerved by it.

    I think Laurie should answer this one... :-)

    A friend who is a psychic explained it this way to me.  He said that
    what he read was the most probable future, that most likely 85-90%
    of his reading could be changed by the course the client chose to 
    take.  The other 10-15% most likely wouldn't change because the
    person wouldn't put the effort into changing or just went about their
    business without thinking about it and it happened.  We all have
    choices, there are many futures a person can follow.
    
    Now, that could seem like a cover up, but I'll tell you, this guy has
    predicted things for me that were so unlikely and they happened.  His
    timing may be off a bit, but they do happen.
    
    He considers himself a psychic counselor.  I do go to him occasionally
    for verification (more recently) but in the past, I needed some insight
    and didn't understand how to access this myself.  I'm getting better,
    but I still need some confirmation on occasion.
    
    The above was his theory.  Sometimes I wonder though.  I often think
    he just reads what's on my mind or gets impressions from me.  He comes
    out with thoughts I've been working on, has described things I've 
    seen.
    
    One other time I met a psychic that just clicked with me.  I knew he
    was getting impressions from me and I knew what his thoughts were.  I
    got to talk to him later and there was a strange (but nice) energy
    between us and I knew what he said before he asked.  He also confirmed
    my previous observation by asking me questions that I knew he was
    thinking when we first saw each other.  A friend was with me and I also
    knew that the two of them didn't feel good about each other.  She 
    really disliked him and thought he was a terrible psychic and it was
    something I was getting strong impressions about before she even spoke
    to him.  This was a one shot deal.  I haven't had it before, even with
    my friend the psychic or with this other guy even though I've seen him
    on a few other occasions.  Just might be mental telepathy when one or
    more people are on the same wave length at a particular time.
    
    Joanne

    Could it be possible that the author of the basenote has just realised
    that a lot of alleged "seers" are in fact charlatans?

    Jamie.

     re..3
    
    I communicate with my spirit guides both by sight and sound.  I usally
    begin to see pictures being flashed....however lately the pictures have
    been more than just flashes....I also hear what they say.  It is not
    like a true conversation but just short phrases.
    
    I hope that answers your question.
    

    Re: .0
    
    What was the Exercise?
    
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Jamie I should have realized that you would bring negativity into this
    note......No I do not doubt a lot "seers" as being charlatans.  I just
    think that if we want to know about our own future it is our
    responsibility to search for it ourselves and not relie upon others to
    do our own leg works.
    
    M

    re 7
    
     I would suggest that you read the book "Ask you 
    Angels"  It will provide with a whole list of different exercises you
    can do.
    
    
    M

    Re .8

    Why am I being negative if I point out the truth? Would you prefer that
    I kept silent and allowed the charlatans to rob the gullible?

    Jamie.

    re .4
    
    Sounds a lot like tarot cards. Everything can change at any
    moment and skew the predictions.

    Re .11

    >Sounds a lot like tarot cards. Everything can change at any
    >moment and skew the predictions.
    
    Then of what possible value are the predictions? Or is that just a
    polite way of saying "guesses"?

    Jamie.

>    Then of what possible value are the predictions? Or is that just a
>    polite way of saying "guesses"?
    
    
    	One thing I can think of is that excitement over a particular
    view of the future (or fear of another) can set your life on 
    a new direction.   I mean, it's hard to get motivated to do anything
    about an uncertain vision of the future whose potentialities are
    only envisioned as vague abstract statistical functions based on
    current trends.  If you have dreams (and to some extent predictions),
    they may serve a very significant motivational purpose, no ?
    
    					kind regards,
    
    					todd

    	Semi-analogous to reply .13...
    
    We are all psychologically multi-faceted beings. Most of the time, I
    find myself focused on a limited subset of those aspects, usually those
    required for work, or interaction with friends, etc. But even that
    "focus" is at a subconscious level, it just happens without a lot of
    thought on my part.
    
    I've enjoyed the use of the "Animal cards" or "Dakini tarot" decks as a
    reminder, to examine those aspects of my personality to which I don't
    normally give a great deal of thought. Not to divine the future, but if
    the "central issue" card comes up as "Yakshi- tree spirit", perhaps I
    can find time to go out to nature, or evaluate if I'm giving myself
    enough time outside. A gentle reminder. The "death" card; have I lost
    sight of the transient nature of things? Or if the elk card comes up, I
    can look at endurance issues... Am I pacing myself poorly? The answer
    may be no, but this is a mechanism to provide focus on usually
    neglected aspects of myself, to remind me that it's there, that it's 
    part of me.
    
    	Used in this way, as a meditation on the wonderfully complex and 
    multifacted beings that we all are, I believe my life is enriched.
    
    					Peace,
    							chuck
    

    re: .15,
    Cards and other techniques that might be used for *self-insight* are in a 
    somewhat different category (to me) than psychics or psychic
    counselors, for the reasons that Jamie implies (hard but not impossible
    to call yourself a charlatan bent on profitting from your own gullibility 
    when you're the one reading the cards), but I can see some overlap if they 
    are particularly talented 'psychics.'   Certainly a person can serve
    as a mirror at least as well as cards can in some cases.
    
    							todd

    re.10
    
    Ahhhh........Jamie not everyone is a charlatan...I have the ability to 
    communicate with my angels for myself.  Does that make me a fake....I
    think not.

    I went to a psychic once for fun, and she drew my portrait with my aura
    and said a lot of things about me that were fairly accurate.  I figured
    she was probably not going to reveal any great mysteries to me, I was
    in it for the fun.
    
    The first thing she said to me is, "You're psychic, but you hold it
    in."  Pretty good.  I hadn't said a word to her at this point, not even
    my name.
    
    She told me I had two female spirit guides.  I said, "I do?  I don't
    have many female friends, I get along better with men.  I can't see why
    a couple of female spirit guides would want to hang out with me."
    
    It was an interesting look that came on her face. 
    
    My question is this:
    
    What are spirit guides?  I have never seen or heard from these two
    women I supposedly have following me around (I picture them like the
    angel and devil that sit on respective shoulders).  I am highly
    doubtful they exist.  I wondered if she told me they were females
    because I am a female.  I am serious to say that I bet if I did have
    any female guides in my life (maybe before I was three) then they must
    have sensed my dislike for them and gone away?
    
    

    I've come to some conclusions about Pyschics or Readers that I have 
    experienced.  I have gone to one every so often to try to get some
    insight; trying to get an edge in the game of life.  
    
    1)  I believe, as has been said in the notes, that most of the readers
        are diplaying telepathic (along with intuitive extrapolations) rather
        than pyschic skills.  Even though telepathy is impressive, it is not 
    	the "pyschic" experience that you are looking for.
    
    2)  Everyone has free will which can change any forecasted outcome at
    	any moment.  At best, the reader gives you a trend analysis that would
    	come true only if all things remained constant.
    
    3)	The CHARLATANS are the ones who "will pray for you" for a fee to
    	protect you from an evil influence which they have just brought to your
    	attention.  The only one who ever tried to pull this on me was a gypsy
    	woman in Houston.  This type (which to my experience is a small
    	percentage) is obviously trying to build a dependence of you upon them.  I
    	consider this utterly foul.
    
    4)	Most readers that I have encountered are tied to New Age teachings.  
    	I believe that they have the highest of intentions.  However, based 
    	on my own spititual study, the visions that are relayed to the reader
    	come in the form of symbols (either in their mind or thorugh cards).
    	Symbols, being subjective in meaning, can be misinterpreted. Therefore,
    	readings can get skewed.  It gives credence to the idea that the 
    	individual being read is the best one to interpret the symbols 
    	pertaining to their own lives; this isn't be fool proof either.
    
    5)	Since so many of the readers come from the New Age background, they
    	are not likely to give a person a very negative reading.  The advice
    	will be to be aware of things and turn them into positive lessons. 
    	This I find to be worthwhile.  
    
    I'll probably still be going to them periodically.  Basically, because
    they are a form of entertainment to me,and also, at minimum, a placeabo 
    for anxiety.  
    
    tc

    no one can tell the future becuase the future has not happened yet!
    
    \nasser

    Looking deep into my crystal ball I can see that Nasser's spell checker
    is on the blink again.

    Jamie.

	So's yours Jamie.
	
	He spells it: \nasser
	              ^
	              |---- note the direction of the slash.
	
	
	;-)

    These are mere affectations, besides I know how diligent he is on his
    use of the spell checker.

    Jamie.

    Re: .22
    
    That is a matter of opinion.  I have often theorized to the point of
    belief that the future exists already, as does the past, only on
    another plane (dimension, whatever).  I believe that it is possible
    that somewhere, every day of our lives is being repeated continually,
    going into the past, that still exists.
    
    This would allow time travel because it would seem one could not travel
    to a place that does not exist.  However, if it exists somewhere, then
    you could travel there, forward or backwards.
    
    Of course, if you were to accomplish this at some point, you run into
    the possibility of paradoxes, a nasty little side-effect...
    
    As for not being able to predict the future, many people have had
    accurate predictions before...
    
    I foretold of a car accident the night it happened before it
    happened...
    I told my best friend of his own death and it also happened...
    
    I didn't look into any crystal ball, it was just a feeling strong
    enough that I informed people of it before it even occurred...
    
    So yes, I believe the future can be told...
    

    There also seem to be the vast majority of predictions are wrong. The
    very small number that are correct could be covered by the laws of
    chance. Then there are also the ways of cheating on predictions that
    Topher listed.

    Jamie.

    re: .26,
    	It sometimes happens that privileged foreknowledge of a tragedy has
    	resulted in the incrimination of the person making the prediction.
    
    	It's probably best to be discrete with this kind of prediction, that 
    	the events can't be interpreted to be _caused_ (or influenced) by you,
         hence the accuracy of the prediction.  There are some cases of 
    	criminal mental illness where the individual 'predicted' horrific 
    	crimes, and never even suspected that they were committing the crimes 
    	themself, until they were filmed and confronted with more
    	direct evidence.
    
    	I don't think this is particularly common, but more subtle 
    	kinds of self-fulfilling prophecy *are* very common, from my
    	experience.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    re. 28
    
    You know, when I foresaw my best friend's death, and then it actually
    happened...
    
    (I said that I didn't want to go on the trip he was taking because I
     had had a dream that he was going to die...)
    
    I felt so very very guilty for years after that.  The cable guy who
    installed cable at my apartment years ago was going to U of M for
    psychology and he suggested that maybe by telling him of my prediction
    I caused it to happen!
    
    As if I wasn't feeling bad enough...
    
    you mention something similar...
    
    he was going to teach doctors in Colorado how to do cochlear
    transplants so the deaf could hear again.  The morning he was to
    deliver a presentation he had a seizure in the bathroom, fell and hit
    his head and died.  There is no way on this earth that anyone can tell
    me that my prediction caused that to happen!  I did NOT influence him
    to have a seizure and die!
    
    As for the car accident prediction, I looked at my mother one night and
    said, "Someone we love is going to be in a car accident tonight.  They
    won't die.  It won't be Michael (my brother)."  That night my uncle was
    in a car accident.  My mother, nor myself ever mentioned it to anyone
    either before or after the accident, so no one but she and I know about
    it, and now you all.
    
    My prediction did not influence that accident either!
    
    So although I think I understand what you are saying, Jamie, you too,
    have to be careful because it does not apply to everyone.
    
    Besides, I don't go around telling people when I've had dire
    predictions...
    
    I tend to keep them to myself...
    
    

          
    What I do if thoughts/images come into my mind that are not positive,
    is I accept them, examine them mentally, and then send positive energy
    in the direction of whoever or whatever is to happen.  Then ask God/
    Universe/ATI that the best possible outcome happen for all involved...
    and send energy, pray, etc.  Sometimes, depending upon the situation, 
    I ask other friends to do the same.
    
    This way, I can use the images to influence/transform the potential
    future situation/event into something more positive, while making sure 
    that ultimately what is to happen, happens in the least difficult and 
    the least painful way for all involved.
    
    I find that taking this course of action reduces blame, worry, guilt,
    fear, and all other similar feelings that can sometimes accompany this
    ability to 'see' into the future at times.
    
    Cindy

    re: .29,.30,
    
    	There's a serious potential moral dilemma involved in 
    	acting (or not acting) on a premonition, or other
    	unconventional source of information, no ?  That's what
    	I was pointing out in .28.  I thought I made it fairly
    	clear that it wasn't intended as an accusation, but a general
    	comment.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    i agree with you, Todd.. 

>    i agree with you, Todd.. 
    
    	Uh oh ... 			;-)

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
    I just ment that... well ... there is always a serious potential 
    moral dilemma involved in acting (or not acting) on a premonition, 
    or other unconventional source of information... or so I used to
    think... I'm not so sure anymore.  I've changed my mind about it, I
    guess.
    
    Now I think that if you can do some good then act on your own (in
    private) to try to help... but if you can't see a way to make things 
    better... if your acting will only make things worse... then perhaps it
    is best to remain unattached and uninvolved... 
    
    I'm in the Taoist camp of wu wei these days ... it seems as if there
    are few if any situations where it helps to speak... chances are you
    won't be believed or understood anyway... best to remain silent.
    
    I don't know about the cause and effect thing... so isn't it best to
    keep an empty mind and only act when you are moved to by the God within
    yourself? 

    If you have a premonition and act to change it's instance how can you
    be sure that the premonition doesn't include your acting to change the
    outcome so that the original premonition will occur no matter what you
    do because no matter what you do is part and parcel of the premonition?
    It's possible that if you acted to change the premonition and the
    instance occured anyways then your actions in trying to change actually
    were part of the premonitions instantiation causal chain of events. So
    if you did nothing then nothing would have happened. So why do anything
    if you can't be secure knowing that you'll make a difference in
    actualizing the premonition? MYOB. Go with the flow. Eat a lot of bran.
    Relax. :-)

    re: .25
    
    whew!  easy for you to say!
    
    can do you do it while chewing gum?
    
    ;)
    

    Yikes... I feel like I'm sitting back in algebra class... last row...

    
    Oh good - another one!
    
    We can play some cards and shoot rubber bands.
    
    Cindy

    Actually... after reading that again.. it makes sense.
    
    If we're all part of the same then there is no duality and what
    difference doesn it make anyway?

    "The Future is not yet written!"
    
    					-- Dr. Emmett Brown

    Can you prove that? ;-) 

    i can proof that the future is not yet written.

    i say you will have a big dish of soup when you get home tonite
    few hours from now for super.

    tonite is in the future offcourse.

    come and tell us tomorrow what you had for super and you'll see what
    i mean by the future is not yet written.

    \nasser
    ps. please dont go have soup tonite if you were not going to just to 
    proof iam wrong !
    

    I've got some chicken just crying out for a few carrots and celery,
    /nasser... a sprinkle of garlic and a chopped onion... yum, yum.. :-)

    i love chicken soup with sprinkle of garlic and chopped onion too!
    i can almost smell the soup right now. 
    all this talk about the future and all is making me hungry :(

    \bye
    \nasser

    Since information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light the
    future is not extant, hence it isn't knowable with any certainty. 
    Events can be predicted but in all cases probability is less than unity.

    What's that got to do with chicken soup? :-)

>    What's that got to do with chicken soup? :-)

Probably means that the chicken has not decided yet to 'soup herself'.

:-)

Arie

    re: .45, Rosch,
    
>    Since information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light the
>    future is not extant, hence it isn't knowable with any certainty. 
>    Events can be predicted but in all cases probability is less than unity.

    It would seem that 'knowing the future' is most commonly seen in either
    of two ways, (1) detecting patterns in the present and extrapolating
    ('consciously' or 'unconsciously' in some manner), and (2) anomalous 
    information transfer backwards in time (or similarly somewhat unconventional
    views of space-time and information).  
    
    But I'm not sure that either view commonly holds any prediction as having
    _certain_accuracy_ ?   Could you expand on your comment a little bit ?
    
    Are you saying that because of what you believe is the implausibility
    of superluminal information transfer (which certainly does seem to
    me to agree with the most conventional view of the subject) that we 
    therefore can't assume that a prediction is _certain_ to be accurate ?
    Or are you saying that you believe that _no_ information can _ever_
    be transferred in this manner, and that all prediction is basically 
    'guessing' from conventional information sources ?
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Todd,
    
    My prediction:  Rosch's answer to your "Are you saying that because of
    what you believe is the implausibility of superluminal information
    transfer (...) that we therefore can't assume that a prediction is
    _certain_ to be accurate?  Or are you saying that you believe that
    _no_ information can _ever_ be transferred in this manner, and that
    all prediction is basically 'guessing' from conventional information
    sources?" is:
    
    ~Neither.  Both.  I'm saying that I believe "that _no_ information can
    _ever_ be transferred in this manner, and that" "we therefore can't
    assume that" any "prediction is _certain_ to be accurate?"~
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Why would anyone *want* to assume that any prediction is certain to
    be accurate anyway?
    

    re: .49, Ann,
    
    	Ok, but how close does Rosch's reply have to be to your exact 
    	wording to score a hit on your prediction ?  ;-)
    
    								todd

	question: Do you think we have anything to do with
		  these predictions??

	&-)  Happy Spring, everyone

	Mikki

    re .48
    I'm saying that I believe that no information can ever be transferred
    in this manner, and that we therefore can't assume that any prediction
    is certain to be accurate. It's just the best guess or sense based on
    the extant information available at the time of the premonition or
    forewarning. We are choosing to label the result of our filtering of
    current, extant events - viewed as a continuing trend - as a
    premonition of the future when all it is is an accurate appraisal of
    probability based on what we know at the time we guess/forewarn/predict.
    
    So you can never know the future with certainty approaching unity ie:
    certainty = 1.0; it's always less than 1. Objective reality bears this
    out time and time again.

    re: .53,
    
    That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.
    
    						todd

    re: .0    (I haven't read any other replies yet)
    
    Nothing a psychic sees or says is 'cast in stone'. Events and energies
    change and therefore create more change. They can only tell how future
    events may be presenting themselves in the here and now.
    
    I have known people to hold cards and so invoke their own negative
    thoughts into the cards that the cards come up with the negative
    response that they (the querant) actually loaded the cards with
    themselves.
    
    I always attune the cards to my own energy again after every reading.
    
    Janet

    Interesting piece of reasoning.  Einstein (and those who followed) took
    special relativity and added the assumption that information could not
    be transerfed "backwards" in time, and concluded that nothing could
    travel faster than the speed of light (at least nothing that could
    carry information).  Now we tie it all up in a nice circle by taking
    the conclusion -- that nothing can travel faster than the speed of
    light -- and using it to "prove" the original assumption.  Now we have
    a self-suporting logical loop that is completely impervious to
    challenge.  Real neat -- you can prove anything else you want the same
    way.

				    Topher

    Hey, it's not like there's no precedent for circular arguments
    in psychology.  ;-)
    
    							todd

    re .57
    >Einstein (and those who followed) took special relativity and added the
    >assumption that information could not be transerfed "backwards" in
    >time, and concluded that nothing could travel faster than the speed of
    >light (at least nothing that could carry information).
    
    No - not even close. Transerfing - the integration of Medieval farming
    practices across socio-political boundaries - doesn't enter into it at
    all. I'll keep an open mind about this but I really feel it's very
    improbable that serfs could have predicted central heating much less
    than ever having premonitions of sliced bread, the telephone or 2-ply
    bathroom tissue.
    
    There is a disgust, I think, with accepting limits.  We don't like
    things to be final. Death, our mundane day-to-day existence, our lives.
    There's always the desire for this to be a 'journey'. If it's a journey
    then things will change. And if they change wouldn't it be nice to know
    that everythings getting better. And what will happen? Maybe if
    premonitions were real, palm reading, tarot reading, I-Ching etc. we'd
    have hope, an expectation that things will get better. The laws of
    Physics are inconsiderate of human asperations. The laws of Psychics,
    however, are $2.50 a minute via a convient 900 number.

    isn't this *somewhat* like proof by induction?

    where we want to proof something is true for all n, we dont know, but
    we go ahead and ASSUME it is true for k of them, then we show it is true 
    for only one of them and then use this fact and our earlier assumption 
    that it is true for k to show it is true for k+1, so now we make k to be 
    anything, this shows it is true to all n.

    \bye
    \nasser

    re: .60,
>    isn't this *somewhat* like proof by induction?
    
    Sometimes it's similar, except that laws generalized from empirical
    data have some important differences from those demonstrated
    mathematically.  They aren't neccessarily self-consistent in the same
    ways, although we'd prefer them to be.
    
    Like sometimes after we get a nice clean model
    of how something in nature behaves and we reject all the
    questionable data points that don't fit the clean model,
    some clown does an experiment that doesn't fit the model anymore,
    and all attempts to discredit the screwy data point eventually
    become shrill sounding.
    
    It's all very annoying sometimes, but part of real world science.
    
    The circular part is when we define a phenomenon in terms of a
    pre-existent theoretical framework, and then proceed to demonstrate
    how certain empirical results couldn't possible occur because they
    are shown impossible by the model.  It is a more well known 
    problem in psychology than physics, partly because there are a number
    of competing theoretical frameworks used for different purposes
    (psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitive psych, etc.).  So, we define
    some behavior in terms of one of these, and subsequent analysis
    is automatically biased in various ways by the type of theory selected.
    
    The very structuring of a psychological experiment often contains
    implicit elements of the theoretical bias of the experimenter.
    It's very hard to provide 'objective' data in complex behavioral
    phenomena.  Most are studied both objectively and 
    subjectively/phenomenologically, to get a more complete picture.
    
    This is applicable to the case at hand, because
    clairvoyance, precognition, telepathy and such are indeed complex
    human behaviors of this sort.
    
    The interesting thing is that we move in some of the attempts 
    to discredit anomalous data into a sort-of reverse form of the
    usual scientific method, adjusting observed data points by theoretical 
    predictions, rather than generallizing laws from empirical
    data points.   Sometimes it is useful, like the seemingly 
    'too perfect' genetic data of Gregor Mendel which nonetheless
    formed the basis for modern genetics.  	It tends mainly to mean
    that there are further details in nature left to be understood
    causing the variations from the theoretical model.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Yes, assuming your conclusion is "something like" mathematical
    induction, and is also "something like" proof by contradiction.  But
    "something like" does not mean "the same."  One of the things that the
    latter two share is that they are logically valid forms of reasoning
    while the former is one of the classical logical fallacies.

				    Topher

    Isn't there also an important distinction to be made in logic
    between a conclusive proof and a suggestive (?) one that applies here ?
    
    A dedutive argument can yield a conclusive proof, but an inductive one
    can not, or something like that ?   I seem to remember something vaguely 
    about this from formal logic (of which I'm largely ignorant).
    
    								todd

    Assuming ones conclusion does not even qualify as suggestive.  It is
    simply fallacious.

    Here todd, would you like to be Pope?  Well you are, I can prove it. I
    start by assuming it: Todd is the Pope.  I add the observation that the
    Pope conducted mass at St. Peter's on Easter.  From this we can
    conclude that *todd* conducted mass at St. Peter's on Easter.  But
    since only the Pope conducted mass at St. Peter's on Easter and todd
    conducted mass at St. Peter's we can conclude that "todd" and "the
    Pope" are seperate ways of identifying the same person.  Therefore todd
    is the Pope, QED.  (Appologies to Bertram Russell who showed that
    if 3=7 then it could be reasonably and logically deduced that he was
    the Pope).

    There are certainly suggestive arguments for the Principle of Causality
    (as the rule that events cannot effect events in their past is
    sometimes called), but the argument that it can be proven from the
    non-existence of superluminal speeds is not one of them.

    By the way, todd, I think you are confusing logical *induction* (which
    is not the same as mathematical induction, which we were discussing
    earlier) with deduction.  Given reliable observations and reliable
    rules (e.g., physical laws) I can make reliable deductions (deductions
    involve applying general principles to derive specific statements;
    e.g., from "objects whose density is greater than air on which no upward
    force is applied will fall", and "this apple has a density greater
    than air and I have let go of it so no upward force is being applied"
    I can deduce that "this apple will fall".  As long as the first two
    statements are accurate and complete, the last follows without
    question).  But given any number of reliable observations less than
    all relevant observations I cannot make absolutely reliabile inductions
    (induction involves applying specific observations and deriving a
    general principle: from "this apple falls, this plum falls, this person
    falls, this desk falls, and this terminal falls" I induce "objects
    fall" -- but what about this balloon?).

					Topher

    re: .64,
    	Thanks.   You seem to have a good grasp on the implications
    	of causality from special relativity.  It's always been very
    	confusing to me.
    
    		No matter, so long as I'm infallible in matters of faith.
    
    							todd

    I didn't even know that Todd was Polish.

    Jamie.

    re: .66,
    
>    I didn't even know that Todd was Polish.
    
    	Neither did I.  This is a most surprisingly informative conference
    	at times, isn't it ?
    
    							todd
    	

    Re .65: "The first Jewish Pope."
    
    You might have to settle for second.  St. Peter is traditionally
    reckonned the first pope, and he was definitely Jewish ethnically,
    though arguably not religiously by the time he reached Rome.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re: .68,
    	That's a good point.  Thanks. 
    	So now I've got historical precedent to support my case as well.  :-)
    
    			todd

    As a reader of Tarot cards, I've noticed an uncanny ability to read
    people and situations, and at times even predict events.  
    
    (Please don't ask me for a reading unless you already know me well.
    I'm not in the business and generally read now only for close friends.)
    
    For awhile, I tested my abilities against complete strangers to be sure
    that my readings were accurate, and often they were, while being
    specific enough to rule out generalizations that fit nearly anybody.
    I've been reading Tarot for 20 years now, and I Ching before that for
    several years.
    
    I'm saying all this not to brag, because I don't think my abilities are
    unusual, but to give background to the following personal beliefs:
    
    o I think that one can, to a degree, predict the future.  
    
    o I believe that predictions are in several classes such as:
    
      - Extrapolation of existing trends
      - Strong mental images that seem to come from nowhere
    
    o I think that any predicted reality  may be modified at any time if
    the trends change, as a result of the reading, or independently of it.
    
    o I believe that time is not linear and that we can therefore have a
    sense of the "future", and also of what really happened in the "past"
    
    o I think that we can modify events anywhere in time (including the
    "past") from our point in the present.
    
    o I believe that often the psychic's own mind will unconsciously filter
    received information based on what the psychic believes the client can
    tolerate.
    
    o Readings (both predictions and statements about the present and past)
    can be strongly influenced by the psychic's desires and beliefs. 
    Therefore, the hardest reading is for one's closest family and friends. 
    The next hardest reading is for oneself.
    
    I'm sure one might easily punch holes in my logic, but I find these
    beliefs work well enough as operating assumptions in life and for Tarot
    readings.
    
    As an example of a prediction I made which has little basis in prior
    experience, I told my friend Roni that her friend's house on the
    prairie would burn.  I had never met this friend or seen his house.  I
    had only the assumption that he burned wood for heat and the knowledge
    that he had low self esteem.  His house did indeed burn down a few
    months later.  Roni was considering a visit at the time of the reading. 
    She decided not to go, partly as a result of my reading.
    
    FWIW, and your mileage may vary,
    Laura

    
    Thanks for sharing that, Laura.
    
    Carole