Are there real psychics?
On the Internet write that ostensibly on the Ground do there are people with extraordinary abilities, who can cure human diseases, to predict the future, etc. and these people are never themselves never show and do not take money, and that unit of people. And to those very hard to get into.What do you think? Is it true that all what is written there, or is it all fiction?
I'm still more inclined to the truth.
Yes it is. Finding them is very difficult, a matter of chance. Mostly they work for the intelligence agencies and classified.
With an open search, the security services can get to you.
vftor wrote:
Mostly they work for the intelligence agencies and classified.
Yeah... and even secret agents vampires.
Ivan_Ermacovic wrote:
And these people are never themselves never show and do not take money, and that unit of people.
Do not take money of those that these do not give money. Well, or just idiots, if you're lucky and there are idiots willing to pay for the secret driving a pitchfork on the water.. Secret agents are idiots.
Polarities, and what an idiot of secret services hires these psychics? Corruption or simple bungling?
Is.But finding them is extremely difficult.Myself had to go these people a few times.
They themselves did not advertise and is extremely wary of strangers.
For the most part - they can only get there through their own trusted people.
This is mainly grannies from remote villages. And Yes - to get to them only if someone will tell about them, often these people do not take even money, because it is the usual healing. And all these tipichnye charlatans just a circus and pumping money, must believe only because of the bloated show.
vftor wrote:
Mostly they work for the intelligence agencies and classified.
They sit on the benches and figure addicts.))
I have a friend Empath, no lie can easily guess what you're feeling and what emotions you experience, standing my back to you. But psychics... honestly live in is not observed.
Of course they are , and they're so unselfish and love to help people that none of them still did not come to the Foundation James Randi and took $ 1 million for their super powers.
They just don't need the extra fame and money obviously.
Yes, I think psychic ability in itself can develop any. The Internet is written in detail how this can be done by using different exercises, etc That will only work if you have it - the big question. I did not yet tried to do so, as it is very dumb.
Ivan_Ermacovic wrote:
What do you think?
I see no reason not to believe or to deny it. A believer himself in the film world I have a place and that, and another. I think that real psychics exist, but do not take money. If you need money to leave, this is bullshit. My rule )
But if psychics want to earn money, let... well, actually, let you pass the test the Foundation angle, the Russian version of the American test, million rubles prize. It seems that while no one picked up.
Ivan_Ermacovic wrote:
The Internet is written in detail how this can be done by using different exercises, etc.
Some of these exercises really does nothing, and the other part is so complex that one of a million, at best, will pass the course until the end ^_^ But Yes, it all described. Ancient secrets in public access: read and try it. The problem is not lack of knowledge ;] And that to obtain the result too difficult, to put it mildly. Read, for example, to open or aktivirovat chakra: the figure you get ) user manual is elementary, it is really so, but you read it, think about and understand my point )
Decided to answer, good, reason appeared.
Taken from here: http://forums.playground.ru/talk/bitva_ekstrasensov_pravda_ili_postanovochnoe_shou-962097/
ColonelJason wrote:Arguing in a similar paradigm, we can bring scientists a lot of complaints and sensitive issues:
Of course, it is possible, and even necessary, but specifically in the topic it was about the strength of the look. In fact, listing the myths (or maybe mystery, overgrown with absurd myths, I definitely do not presume to say anything), and lumping them into one category with a clear laugh: you can create only the illusion of reasoning regarding one specific topic.
ColonelJason wrote:
any extraordinary ability was never confirmed by the competent scientific experiment.
And if they were competent? That is the question. According to my hypothesis, the lack of results may be due to the fact that both the experimenters and participants did not understand the playback mechanism of hypersensitivity in humans who sent the look. Assuming it's not the eyes, and increased attention on the person (the brain) there are options. Because it doesn't always work.
ColonelJason wrote:
all work is in the public domain - please come, learn, check, try to bring something to
.
https://life.ru/t/%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8C%D0%B5/962408/faq_pochiemu_my_chuvstvuiem_na_siebie_chuzhoi_vzghliad
Denis Kozhevnikov told how he participated in one of these studies. It was conducted using electroencephalogram (EEG). To the system of the EEG hooked up for a couple — a man and a woman. Research has shown that when a man looked at a photo of a woman in the cortex of his brain in a certain way, lined up in a coherent (i.e. consistent) connection of electrical signals. At this point the woman in the brain also lined up a coherent connection with the coincidence of 70%. When the roles changed, the situation was repeated.
— This fact was, but the explanations for this phenomenon have not yet, — said Denis Kozhevnikov. — We periodically conduct such studies. Coincidence and coherent relationships always confirmed.
-Oh, what? Scientists found something, but I don't understand how it works. In the scrap. So it is necessary. The. any extraordinary ability was never confirmed by the competent scientific experiment.
So do I some wrong source dug up? Well, sort of like an objective article, then then there are explanations and even different opinions of experts. Here's more from the text:
The person in your mind does not pay attention to the small details, but unconscious processes capture all these changes in the environment. So it creates the illusion of me someone is watching, I understand that, turn around and really look.
Bravo. I knew it. This is logical. But this can only work for short distances and when there is very little sources of irritation. And how to explain that people (understandably, not everyone), can immediately in the crowd to reveal this source and look him in the eye?
Moreover, this chip works for me and in the opposite direction. If I look at a girl (which is me in 50-60 metres, and going not towards me, and even a little moving away, moving diagonally), or loin of the body of the tinted car window, and she notices this? In most cases, if you take similar conditions of observation, but nothing happens in 10% of people are looking for the source of this concern - i.e., me, and another 10% find and looking into his eyes.
It's not that uncommon when you consider that this phenomenon is very often used in feature stories, like it's some everyday thing.
Further comments:
Now let these theorists explain why when I look from the 5th floor through a pane of glass coming down the other side to a busy street with his back to me slender girl in a mini skirt, she quickly turns and looks right at me. And this many times in different situations. In fact, there is nothing surprising in the electromagnetic relations of the brains of different people. What the current science is not yet able to explain them, does not mean that they are not.
I had a similar situation, but more curious: the man (judging by the shadows in the curtains, he was seated at the table) feel my view from the street and asked the wife to push them completely on and off light, which she did, tentatively looking at me, still a little boy. Dumb was the wrong word, but even then I was trying to find a grain of rational arguments to explain this moment.
Boris Tyumentsev, and women, turning to glance at once direct the eye in the eye of the beholder. That is, the trajectory of gaze is determined .
Confirm.
ColonelJason wrote:
Ps: with regards to the Fund in addition to Fund Randy, there is, for example, the Fund Harry Houdini, our, domestic. There CDA is not. Million give only rubles, but also bread. Go for it, come and experience for yourself the views. If you want, I'll go with you, see to the purity of the experiment.
The fact that I don't see anything unique in the feeling of the views of yourself and provoke the emergence of this feeling in others.. first, I'm not the only one. I assume that many are capable of it, just do not notice. Secondly, I don't have the capacity to prove it over and over again. It's just that sometimes in certain circumstances it is possible to fix.
ColonelJason wrote: Or is it just a silly excuse charlatans?
All things are possible.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
However, I know for myself and not only themselves. In the world there are things that are scientifically difficult to explain... and how can it be explained scientifically? To explore and measure indications of what and how? 8) Does nothing, because the feeling of someone else's opinion may try to explain in words what is psychology, but without proof, as nothing to prove and nothing (is impossible).
Well, it is possible to measure brain activity and to test... Put the test in the Park on a bench and track the camera for him and for other people, for example.
A. Soldier of Light wrote: But in official science opened? If the subject can not be studied, all this false, cheat, etc ) That is that no. Though it is strange, after all, talking about the theory of dark matter and strings, but to fix them it is impossible... the double standards of some kind.
Right, well, then the study is divided into popular and not very taboo. The latter may reduce the credibility of academician among other academics.
Now to the really interesting subject. I have tutya painted your dream (that dream on the eve of the eruption of the Hawaiian volcano)
Spoiler
Wild Rider wrote:
In short, I dreamt of a typical tropical terrain: palm trees, jungle , but there was very, very thick fog or tiny particles of ash in the air. The same were carried out or some kind of intelligence operation or a scientific expedition in tough conditions (obviously not the evacuation, the area felt empty), but the military was like (view from 1 person) And then I saw the area on the map where it all happened: the island, a bit similar in appearance to the South American continent (and its as if laid horizontally), but with a large lake inside. People landed on the East, in the narrower part of the island. At first, I really assumed it was known to me the South American continent. That's just East convex part of Brazil was absent. In the dream I was able to turn the continent in the usual position, but to finish in the head of the part could not. The shape of the island remember. When I woke up, I ran Google maps, and found the most similar to the island. It turned out to Tenerife (Canary Islands), only lake there's no no. And in the dream it was on the site of the Teide volcano.
Vegetation, which I saw corresponded to trees and shrubs growing in the Park rural. The deployment of the military (or whoever was), in my story, given the difficulties of flights during fog and their inability during the eruption of the volcano is also quite logical: to the East is the African continent, and North-East Europe. Rather, they came from there, moored close to the Park. Most importantly, I had no idea how to look like the Canary Islands and never rest, so it is strange that even in sleep I did not let themselves be deceived.
The last eruption on this island occurred in 1909, so I guess that in the case of even a small eruption (not just a disaster in 1815) in the relatively near future, my attempt to verify the existence of prophetic dreams on the game portal (heh) will be counted. And this will be the 9th annual phenomenon.
about natural disaster, but before he realized, in reality, I was wondering what people think about this guru of esotericism, mysticism and other prophets. Well, actually, one interesting person I found on the web. Clearly not a fraudster, and Authority among the esoteric (no contact I give, the more it will be considered is, do look, and look, you know...). Well, at least it credibility, in contrast to some scholars (shit soaked), which in spiritual and esoteric in General can not be allowed. And this opinion was fixed after a dream in which there was part of the observer (i.e., me) sitting in front of a terrorist in a dark subway car and heads flying off. BRR.. a few months before St. Petersburg's terrorist attack... Yes, a dream is not pleasant, but effective as a generator of useful thoughts, ideas developing in my piggy Bank world view, however, such bjaka dream very rarely. Well, okay.
https://image.ibb.co/iukhKT/1.png
https://image.ibb.co/bUoPYo/2.png
In many ways, our thoughts coincided, and even it its something added to the prediction. The Canaries will happen strong a cataclysm, not the usual volcanic eruption, and probably the formation of the new. Deformation and soil subsidence will be observed not only in Tenerife but also on several neighboring Islands. The flooding of the North coast will not happen due to the Typhoon, and from underwater earthquakes. And all these catastrophic events will start with either a meteorite or volcanic bombs that fell many miles from Tenerife. The island will be in flames.
It is noteworthy that he saw the picture in the mode of meditation and wish, and I subconsciously during sleep. The main question - when? I do not know. If it doesn't happen between September and March-April next (if you start from your experience of such dreams), it just will not be able to answer this question. But now says nothing about the signs of an approaching earthquake or eruption.
And as a bonus:
https://image.ibb.co/jBvGeT/3.png
https://image.ibb.co/iadxm8/4.png
https://image.ibb.co/kMguYo/5.png
https://image.ibb.co/fx0cm8/6.png
Spoiler of the latter, the problem Namba van:
Spoilery do not control their attention) Freedom of will exists only in reaction to a stimulus. Emotions. Positive-negative...
Spielername Tu
Spoilera all this jump) Someone is waiting not hell, heaven and... emptiness. And it's not about beliefs and actions. It's just a given, predetermined constant and no money for the ROC or occult organizations, this is not correct.
Spoilergate who hit on the head with this infa not hit, located in the small risk area) Who is interested only in the baser needs - great.
Soleraspredeliteli?
Spoilery so the world is. However, you should try to think positively. Or, to be precise - responsive.
PS I Edited something under the spoiler.
They are not. There is not even a theoretical justification of their existence. Well, experimentally no psychic abilities are not confirmed.
Wild Rider
ColonelJason wrote:
Arguing in a similar paradigm, we can bring scientists a lot of complaints and sensitive issues:
- Scientists have once again stalled - gold Leprechaun again not found!
Wild Rider wrote:
Of course, it is possible, and even necessary
It's great that you said it. This gives our readers a (hypothetical) very comprehensive idea of what is science. Don't know if I ever told you this already, but there are, in any case, you have this problem, and it should be spelled: you do not understand the difference between scientific activity and scientific knowledge, from the activities and knowledge in the mystical thinking. But these things don't just have nothing in common, they are deeply antagonistic to each other, mutually exclusive , and to portray the human knowledge of how to cut, two of these options will be different it ends. Do you think that scientists, like priests, should be played with people who are on the yellow brick road of our own ignorance, trying to escape from the failure of reality to the area of fairy tales and fantasies. But scientists are not this. They are trying to make reality better. You do not catch the difference.
Wild Rider wrote:
you create only the illusion of reasoning regarding one specific topic.
Oh, this is not the argument. The argument, in this case, consisted in the fact that in spite of the fact that the experiment to confirm the ability to feel the looks to carry out elementary, no one has ever been able to prove the existence of this phenomenon that very eloquently about the likelihood of his existence. A list of what, in your opinion, should to puzzle scientists, it is not argument, this is only an analogy, designed to show the ridiculousness of this hypothesis.
Wild Rider wrote:
And if they were competent? That is the question.
No, the question is, where competent experiments that show that this phenomenon takes place? There are? And the fact that scientists of the research center is not built specifically to explore this issue, and do not study day and night the ability to feel the looks, and don't send you daily reports - sorry, as mentioned above, scientists are a few other occupations-work with reality. And that is why the interested parties of the issue did the experiment with the evidence does not provide - is a mystery to me. Actually, the riddles, of course, is no: the adepts of mystic lore run from the experiments (competent), like the plague, for obvious reasons.
Wild Rider wrote:
-Oh, what? Scientists found something, but I don't understand how it works. In the scrap. So it is necessary.
Don't need to the scrap, it is necessary to understand.
Wild Rider wrote:
So do I some wrong source dug up?
Yeah...And you think that does not prove any of your postulates an article from life magazine written do not understand what the words who do not understand, do not understand how on the experiment, this is the right source of scientific knowledge? No, well, if we the ultimate purpose of any research put to convince yourself that after you die, mommy and daddy will be eternal balls of light next to the bearded wizard, then Yes, such sources, and especially your method thoughtful analysis of such articles, it is quite suitable. But to scientific knowledge-alas, the relationship all this has nothing.
Wild Rider wrote:
It's not that uncommon when you consider that this phenomenon is very often used in feature stories, like it's some everyday thing.
Of course this is not uncommon - we spent the day looking at someone, and someone all day looking at us. Sometimes these coincide - that there may be rare? This phenomenon is statistically inevitable.
Wild Rider wrote:
Secondly, I don't have the capacity to prove it over and over again.
It is called in short, not able.
Wild Rider wrote:
ROSTO sometimes, in certain circumstances it is possible to fix.
Of course, I'm saying:a statistical inevitability.
Wild Rider wrote:
we do not control their attention) Freedom of will exists only in reaction to a stimulus. Emotions. Positive-negative...
Why are you doing this? No, really? You earnestly believe that you are smart enough to not going up in life to the textbook psychologists closer than 200 meters, easy to take terms, and intuitively guess their meaning? You just write utter drivel and nonsense. You even the simplest definitions of the used concepts is not interested. Attention — selective focus on the perception of a particular object. Election. Ie controlled. The whole process of attention control, from the very beginning-of the senses, to the end (processing of information by brain). We focus the eyes, strain your ears, and most importantly, consciously and willingly concentrating the mind on some object from array of the world. And people have that their attention is not driving some sort of degenerative brain disease. Well, with emotions, of course, complete nonsense - emotions free will are not regulated. This response occurs through psycho-physiological reactions to various stimuli. They can try to adjust when they are already there, but we in no way control the fact of their appearance.
I seriously don't know why you are trying to argue about topics about which you do not have even the most basic understanding.
ColonelJason wrote:
It's great that you said it. This gives our readers a (hypothetical) very comprehensive idea of what is science.
I understand how different scientific activities from the mystical knowledge, but here I have argued that the changed approach in the research activities in certain areas. Yes, at least to be based on some kind of myth and test it normally. And to do it more often. Then the result of some experiments will be close to reality.
ColonelJason wrote:
But scientists are not this. They are trying to make reality better. You do not catch the difference.
Sometimes I become joint with Gauguin, and I'm kind of a hedonist. Partly. This is important considering the fact that I have written under the spoiler in the previous post.
ColonelJason wrote:
A list of what, in your opinion, should to puzzle scientists, it is not argument, this is only an analogy, designed to show the ridiculousness of this hypothesis.
Your unwavering faith in the validity of academic science made you enclose in quotation marks the last word or something else? Maybe something else, but the root cause lies in the faith, I think.
ColonelJason wrote:
No, the question is, where competent experiments that show that this phenomenon takes place? There are? And the fact that scientists of the research center is not built specifically to explore this issue, and do not study day and night the ability to feel the looks, and don't send you daily reports - sorry, as mentioned above, scientists are a few other occupations-work with reality.
Well, of course, research center of Monroe (even studying another question) cannot be considered competent, because not that methods (due to technical imperfections), but even the purpose of the study is beyond the scope of scientific paradigms, which tend to stick to academics
ColonelJason wrote:
Don't need to the scrap, it is necessary to understand.
For example, to write something about statistical error? This some scientists and I don't like.
ColonelJason wrote:
Yeah...And you think that does not prove any of your postulates an article from life magazine written do not understand what the words who do not understand, do not understand how on the experiment, this is the right source of scientific knowledge?
Not really. Of course, I drew attention to these words, but detailed analysis was never the plan. I was impressed by the objectivity of this article, which contains various opinions. I did the accent.
ColonelJason wrote:
Of course this is not uncommon - we spent the day looking at someone, and someone all day looking at us. Sometimes these coincide - that there may be rare? This phenomenon is statistically inevitable.
If you explain it in simple coincidence, then the world becomes simple and intuitive and it certainly.
ColonelJason wrote:
It is called in short, not able.
Yeah, normal would be a scientist did a bunch of tests to rule out all the variables and unknown factors affecting the result of the experiment (individual characteristics of the organism such as the beholder and the one who test the sight), i.e. be selected for the experiment those people who just argue that they feel the opinion/provoke that feeling. But these people still need to look for, and one with this task can not cope.
And the academician concluded that such a phenomenon even exists.
ColonelJason wrote:
Of course, I'm saying:a statistical inevitability.
...or so I explain.
ColonelJason wrote:
Why are you doing this? No, really? You earnestly believe that you are smart enough to not going up in life to the textbook psychologists closer than 200 meters, easy to take terms, and intuitively guess their meaning?
You always try to accuse the opponent of incompetence in any question, it is not fully understood and intuitively reprises that wanted to tell your opponent? Another illusion argument is probably valid, since the opponent slowly lose the desire something to explain in the answer.
ColonelJason wrote:
Attention — selective focus on the perception of a particular object. Election. Ie controlled. The whole process of attention control, from the very beginning-of the senses, to the end (processing of information by brain). We focus the eyes, strain your ears, and most importantly, consciously and willingly concentrating the mind on some object from array of the world. And people have that their attention is not driving some sort of degenerative brain disease.
Selective, controlled... I just don't agree that we are doing it on their own, although the absolute majority thinks differently. Well, as it is called, which term to use? You may likewise finding fault, and philosophers, fatalists are often accused of such incompetence? Or think that they have a degenerative brain disease? Actually, strange thought that may be the same question, it seemed to me that you are a supporter of determinism.
ColonelJason wrote:
Well, with emotions, of course, complete nonsense - emotions free will are not regulated. This response occurs through psycho-physiological reactions to various stimuli. They can try to adjust when they are already there, but we in no way control the fact of their appearance.
I conscious regulation of emotions and implied, although you can still try and work out inadequate response to stimulus is positive. It kind of reduces the risk of occurrence of psychosomatic diseases.
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
If you need money to leave, this is bullshit.
As a rule, Yes.
Wild Rider
Wild Rider wrote:
Yes, at least to be based on some kind of myth and test it normally. And to do it more often.
Oh, if you were interested in science, you would know what a huge number of myths and nonsense was disproved in the history of mankind, but you, unfortunately, bezinteresno. You prefer to study areas that your mystical foundations will not shake.
Wild Rider wrote:
Sometimes I become joint with Gauguin, and I'm kind of a hedonist. Partly.
Explain.
Wild Rider wrote:
Your unwavering faith in the validity of academic science made you enclose in quotation marks the last word or something else?
Something else: stupidity and absurdity of the myth that differs it even a hypothesis. And I already explained to you that faith is about you, but personally, I just seems logical to explore the world through a methodology of thinking that has given mankind all that he is, than to believe in fairy tales that no one ever been proven.
Wild Rider wrote:
Well, of course, research center of Monroe (even studying another question) cannot be considered competent
Yes > you can consider anything. Where are the experiments that either prove?
Wild Rider wrote:
For example, to write something about statistical error?
Well, what can I do - the scientists - the people, as a rule, mentally sane,and most of them are not quacks. So, if nothing but statistical error for some phenomenon does not explain why they would write something else? And you have, as I understand it, an interesting position:you seem to believe that statistical coincidences do not exist, right? That is, in the world there are two kinds of phenomena: opened and explained by scientists, and magic, and everything that looks accidental - magic, which is stupid scientists can't cope. It's called apophenia, my friend.
Wild Rider wrote:
I was impressed by the objectivity of this article
Here you have a sequence error: you impressed by the fact that several words in the article say, like, in favor of your position, and why you believed it was objective. In this research article, nearly a third is the artistic Director of the theater-Studio Reflection. As you are not awkward things during scientific discourse to show I have no idea.
Wild Rider wrote:
If you explain it in simple coincidence, then the world becomes simple and intuitive and it certainly.
If for any coincidence to see proof that you're immortal and all, someday will be better, the world is not so hopeless and pessimistic, of course. In General, the thing (unwarranted generalization) you have left a weak - everyone understands that scientists have explained a Titanic amount of things is not a coincidence.And the fact that some phenomena are coincidence, it is , pardon the pun - a coincidence. Let me also remind you that adaptor esoteric knowledge is not proved nothing.
Wild Rider wrote:
And the academician concluded that such a phenomenon even exists.
Well, why are you lying, you yourself have shown, in my opinion, an article where scientists tested this phenomenon on a large number of people who claim that they can. And have proven that there is nothing they can not. Just ,apparently, due to the fact that this experiment is stealing from you immortality, you decided to forget partially.
Wild Rider wrote:
...or so I explain.
If it is so, and it is confirmed by experiment, then of course it is and explain. Why would he lie, he is not esoteric.
Wild Rider wrote:
You always try to accuse the opponent of incompetence in any question
I only do that when the source gives reason to doubt their competence. Or maybe, quote where I accuse someone of incompetence unreasonably?
Wild Rider wrote:
it is not fully understood and intuitively reprises that wanted to tell your opponent?
Why would I want to think through? You nonsense your wrote made a direct legible text. See:
Wild Rider wrote:
we do not control their attention
This is nonsense.
Wild Rider wrote:
Free will exists only in reaction to a stimulus. Emotions.
And it's nonsense. What's the deal here? What is there to think out? Or I you have the right words to substitute? I'm with your child engaged, and with an adult like me a lesson uninteresting.
Wild Rider wrote:
Another illusion argument
Illusion?You want to say that the definitions given by me mentioned concepts are illusory? They don't exist? This selective orientation of perception on a particular object? Maybe then tell us where you get your ideas about its concepts? We have found that this is clearly not the textbooks, however, interesting that it for such a treasure trove of knowledge.
Wild Rider wrote:
I just don't agree that we are doing it on their own, although the absolute majority thinks differently. Well, as it is called, which term to use?
Delusion - great.
Wild Rider wrote:
You may likewise finding fault, and philosophers, fatalists are often accused of such incompetence?
Similarly, this is how? Pointing out that the term is employed absurd and false, and explaining its true content? Philosophers are fatalists argue that all is predetermined, ie, in particular, predetermined and what man at some point
quite consciously, will focus the view on a particular subject. Fatalism determines what events will happen, and not doing things for sentient beings. And, for that matter, I a position of absolute fatalism is not shared, so my words may be in conflict with these views. Wild Rider wrote:
Or think that they have a degenerative brain disease?If they can not arbitrarily to focus - certainly with the brain some trouble.
Wild Rider wrote:
it seemed to me that you are a supporter of determinism.
Supporter. Everything has a reason, everything is interconnected. Human will is not in any way negate. This pre-Marxist determinism denied of chance and statistical probability, the current from this mistake fixed. Learn what you're talking about, learn.
Wild Rider wrote:
I conscious regulation of emotion meant
Unfortunately, you have written is not what is meant - the meaning of your message came out completely different. And not much else I wonder why you turned out to be deterministic fatalism, and emotions-no. Although both, just the result of the nervous system, and if from a scientific point of view, the handling of these jawline strictly the opposite of what you have written, that from the perspective of the fatalism they should be equal, no?
Wild Rider
I on your place would not began to exaggerate the role of science in society, repeating the blunders of the Enlightenment. Science is only a useful tool for finding small parts and not the truth, any intelligent person should understand that. Although still forced to accept that the philosophical basis/starting point for scientific inquiry we need to change. Specifically, modern science is based on materialistic (also partly positivist and partly from analytical) began, and it is fundamentally wrong and unreasonable. It's hard to say whether this is delusion or beneficial to someone...but such a fact is.
Gauguin
Just the same science deals with search of truth. Looking for the laws on which there is our world, predict phenomena, and proves experimentally. All created by humanity, created by scientific knowledge.
Gauguin wrote:
modern science is based on materialistic (also partly positivist and partly from analytical) began, and it is fundamentally wrong and unreasonable
What is wrong and unreasonable? And how do you think it should be?
robespier26
robespier26 wrote:
Just the same science deals with search of truth
No, the search for the complete truth deals with religion. Science considers the detail. For example - the Bible describes the creation by God of the world, and in the textbook on Microbiology - what are microorganisms inhabit this world. Or if more figuratively in the Bible depicted the Tree of Truth, and in the textbook - small twigs, knots, etc.
robespier26 wrote:
What is wrong and unreasonable? And how do you think it should be?
Science should stand on the rails idealistic, obviously, because of the nonexistence of matter as substance.
Gauguin
The very existence of God has not been proved, and there is not even any clues to lead work in this direction. The same goes for heaven, hell and life after death. The creation of the world described in the big Bang theory and confirmed by numerous studies. Science describes the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, the origin of life and its evolution from the"primordial soup" to the person.