psychic testing.

If you claim to have critical thinking skills you should realize that it is pretty much impossible to study. Let me explain. Psychology is something we do not consider a science because it is impossible to know what someone is thinking, it is up to the person who is thinking telling the truth, which is questionable. Also it is clear that when dealing with perception there is not always exact reality, which makes it unobservable in a scientific sense. As for "auras", it seems to be the same thing as it is through a person's eyes that they are seen.

If you don't like the term "auras" fine, I was just using a terminology that people understand. Let me say it this way: I frequently see a glow around people that has defined characteristics and observable color changes, as well as different layers and other various nuances. To me this sounds like what people say are auras, so I used that word so people understood.

Its okay if you don't believe me, I know it sounds fishy. but also, why would I lie about this? I have no benefit, and I look like a: :wacko: either way, lol

 

I am sorry but if you are going to identify yourself as someone with over 140 IQ points I would expect you to know that psychology is science. Human mind is not a lalalalala land that is seperate from reality. We are getting increasingly better at studiyng the human mind and while we still have a fair bit to go you can't dismiss every possible criticism of your 'abilities' as untestable/unobservable.

If you really see a glow around people you should see a doctor. I am serious. I saw a TED talk a while ago where a psychologist talked about a disorder where people visualised things that other people usually sense in different way (can't really rephrase it accuretly since I didn't pay full attention to it but it should compel you to do some research on it yourself).

 

waitwaitwait. So we shouldn't call the shiny lines around someone that are clearly linked to emotion auras? What the hell should they be called then?


Poll:

A: Emofield
B: The power of rock
C: A.t.t.L.T.i.i. a S.C.E.I.F (According to the Latest Theories it is a Sub-Conscious Interpretation Field)

They're freaking glowing stuff around people. That's called an aura. It does not connote believe that they are mystical. It's just the frigging name everyone calls them.

And yes, they are testable, but the tests don't really have an outcome. Think of something emotional. Does the guy who claims he can see aura's note a change. If yes, either you gave him enough information for a conscious interpretation and he's lying or he can see auras. If no, you either didn't really think of something emotional and are being childish by not allowing someone to prove it, the thing you thought of is not emotional enough, it's hard under stress or the guy can't see auras. I'd like to see your suggestion for a more reliable test.

 

I might be the only one in the world with this crazy and insane definition of auras but to me aura would be something... oh whats the word... REAL. As in the auras exist irrespective of a 3rd person observer. What the night bird is saying could reasonably only be something created in his head, not an actual radiation emmited from the surrounding region of another person.
Amarite?

 

And this does not fall under the definition of aura because?

 

I don't think you understand what I'm saying so I'll attempt to explain it better, without going into specific histories. Science is about using observation to eliminate possibilities in order to narrow probable realities. It requires some form of concrete measurement for comparison, otherwise it falls into the realm of the subjective. In psychology, there is no way to measure one's thoughts, this actually is a big debate in psychology right now. To get around this and to approach psychology in a more scientific way, people started to focus on what they could measure. For example, rather than asking a person how angry they were about something, they could measure their change in heart-rate as an interpretation. As you see, the actual science here has been abstracted away from psychology, that is, the study of the human mind. real observable phenomena are used to give a representation, to study patterns, but in reality they are not studying the human mind itself. Many people will consider this science, but I do not. You cannot concretely measure one's thoughts, only abstract their thoughts into observable behaviors.

I do however believe in an absolute truth. Just because I don't believe we can measure the human mind doesn't mean I don't believe that the human mind exists.

Now don't go getting all Descarte on me sir! I hate when people try to argue this way. YES, everything can eventually be shown logically to not have certainty except existence itself. If we want to discuss this we have to be communicating on the same level of logic, otherwise there will always be a way to prove what someone says or perceives is not truth, only probable. Its the elephant in the room, we all know its there, but nobody talks about it.

 

I think you two are talking past one another, with different definitions of the word Aura. Higgs uses the official definition, of a field around every person caused by some mystical thingie, which appears on certain photos. WarOwl, I think, uses the more common definition of glowy lines around pplz

 

TheWarOwl is turning into a scientologist with his willful denial of psychology and all its related fields. Anyway I don't understand what does Descarte have to do with this. Let me try again: Those 'things' you see, they are in your head ok? They are not actually things around other people. If I put a camera, EM detector, any other instrument you can think of to detect... real things... I wont detect it. Ergo: Its in your head.

That therefore also goes to ijff: if he uses *glowy lines around pplz* then he is wrong because there are none. If he sees them I repeat: He should go and see a doctor.

 

Yes, because we can diagnose and cure seeing auras, despite all research into it doing squat.[/sarcasm] A doctor ain't gonna do squat, and is unnecessary considering seeing auras not being harmful (well, except to privacy). I now plenty of dudes who claim to see auras, and none of them are deranged, sick or anything like that.


Also, there is a f*cking huge difference between

and

If you don't understand the first one, it basically goes like this: Psychology is used to understand thought processes. We cannot see thought processes. Ergo, we look at evidence of thought processes, not thought processes themselves. (The "it not really being a science" part is debatable, since you can't really perform scientific research in psychology, because every person is different and stuff, so each research has way more factors than is optimal). Because we only look at evidence of thought processes, there is a lot that we miss.

 

Ok first of all I dont give a flying toss about this whole psychology science or not discussion. I am sorry that Owl feels compelled to sway the discussion there all the freaking time.

If a person hears voices in his head: We diagnose him with schizophrenia and put him on medication/put him into a mental institution. Yet if a person sees auras: Oh it's a perfectly normal thing, they must be real, except that laws of physics and all that unimportant crap omits their existence but hey...

How more intellectually dishonest can you get?

EDIT: And wow you know other people who see auras too? Really? Where the hell am I living then? Either I am surrounded by guillable idiots, people with perception disorders or I have been subtelly transported to a fantasy world.
I am so sick and tired (and shocked quite frankly) by the upmost unbelievable garbage people spew on the internet and everyone accepts it as a fact. What the HELL is wrong with you?

 

Well, lets see, when a person hears voices in his head, they are random, useless and indicate a good chance of greater decay up ahead, which would be a risk to the person and anyone around him

When a person sees auras, they are quite precise, informational and doesn't lead to the endangerment of anyone.

Honestly, it's like medicating someone for having better eyesight or hearing, because having a sore throat is bad for you.

Also, how the hell do the laws of physics contradict the possibility that you see glowy lines? Again, auras don't need to actually physically exist. They can just be inside your head. An effect of the subconscious.

 

No I reject your comparison. Voices in your head can be very coherent and very precise (whatever you meant by that) they are not just some random blabber.

To your second point: Thank you for admiting that auras don't actually exist outside of your head. That's what I am trying to hammer in the whole time.

 

I meant that the voices do not convey useful, mostly accurate information. Auras do. And even if its just random, as some believe, voices lead to further madness, auras don't.

I have been saying that the whole thing is probably inside your head the while time. When did I ever deny that? I am arguing that, despite in being in your head, it can still be useful.

 

The voices in your head can be useful too, when you're alone and bored. But they are not an accurate representative of reality, just like these 'auras'. Agreed?

 

Agreed.


However, the auras do convey useful information. And you still have to react to the part where the voices cause madness and the auras don't. So auras are either very slightly annoying, pretty or useful (depending on your view). In the first case, you might want some treatment, although there is none. It is however, not really necessary.

 

I still don't see how they are useful except giving you a slightly better experience when trippin' but I guess this is the best I am going to get at the moment. Too tired. Goodnight.

 

For when you wake up.

There are three possibilities regarding auras.

1. Everyone is lying about seeing them
2. They do not convey useful information
3. They do convey useful information.

In case of the first, treatment is unnecessary. In case of the second, treatment might be useful for all who are annoyed by it. In case of the third, treatment is not advisable. There is no reason for people who don't mind seeing them, such as warowl, to seek treatment, even if you say that auras are fake or useless. You'd be treating them solely because they're different.

 

I think Higgs and me and seemingly everyone who can't see auras relating to some form of emotion see this ability to be PRETTY DAMN SIGNIFICANT and should be spread amongst everyone!

Also Higgs
Psychology = Bunch of lazy people in university doing shoddy studies.
Psychiatrist = Trained doctors using tried and tested medication (And questionable Psychotherapy). Psychiatrists are the people the scientologists go after.

Additonally random voices say words, words are as precise as you can get, an aura is just colour which a demented badger can see (if badgers can see colour >>?), no idea what this relates to.

I don't know why we're centering on the treatment arguement since Higgs believes the aura doesn't reflect anything useful so obvisouly he would reject your reasoning for not getting treatment ijffdrie.

 

I'll do this post as if it is 100% certain auras do not convey any information reflecting reality, despite me not fully accepting that, due to knowing people who claim to see auras.

Well, mostly because there is no treatment, we don't know what should be treated and there are no harmful effects from the seeing of auras. You would treat something that has no ill-effects, with medicine that often has ill effects. I'd think an apt comparison for such a procedure would be plastic surgery. It could be useful for some people, but it should definitely not become the norm.

 

I honestly didn't want to start a crass argument about this, its okay if you don't believe me, I don't expect you to. Notice I have never made a personal attack against you when you keep insulting me (in no way am I a freakin' Scientologist, lol). The reason I keep mentioning specific topics, such as psychology vs science, is because you are using them in your arguments incorrectly and I felt it would be important to explain it a little better.

Descartes was a philosopher who philosophized on what reality is, that is to say, what can we determine to be reality at the simplest level. You were using such arguments, and they always irk me. Its impossible to have an intellectual discussion with someone if they aren't on the same level of accepted reality as you, its like trying to play chess when both players have different rules.

As for treatment, you only treat people for something if it has significant impact on their daily lives to the point where they can't function properly in society. I don't believe its a disorder however, as I've been able to see them my whole life, whereas something like Schizophrenia occurs during brain development. I think you are overestimating what I see... I can see them if I try to or doze off, and its pretty much nearly impossible to see unless the person is standing in front of a solid color. I actually haven't thought about this for a while until I saw this topic, its really not a big deal.

I can teach you how if you'd like. After you see them you'll realize its no big deal.