Psychic School - psychic medium tutorials and help

[bslactivist]

Hello can you subtitle this video please - for deaf and hard of hearing people to access to your videos - in youtube you can add the feature to add subtitles.

[lynnandjim]

if you had sharing i...the world you would do it for free...jesus did.... but u have 2 make buck tell me who from the spirit world asked me craig>>>> more like craig lol northen ireland mate but can ur spirit fly that far

[psychicmovies]

The online school a small charge of £4 per month or £25 for a year. All my work for Spiritualism and my real Wold Psychic School is done for free. Most TV fees are given to charity.

[foxeternity]

i wanna in

[Rybot9000]

Crick then goes on to describe a case of a woman who suffered damage to the anterior cingulate sulcus, resulting in aboulia (loss of will). Others have observed loss of self-interest in Ventromedial PFC damage (Saver and Damasio (1991)). Crick's partner in "crime", Christoph Koch calls this the unconscious homunculus and builds a strong case for it in The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach. No need to go into that as well. I think I've made my point.

[Rybot9000]

My third assumption was that the decision to act on one plan or another is also subject to the same limitations. In other words, one has immediate recall of what is decided but not of the computations that went into the decision, even though one may be aware of a plan to move.

Then, such a machine... will appear to itself to have Free Will, provided it can personify it's behavior--that is, it has an image of "itself"." - Francis Crick (1994, p 255-256

[Rybot9000]

My second assumption was that one is not conscious of the "computations" done by this part of the brain but only of the "decisions" it makes--that is, its plans. Of course, these computations will depend on the structure of that part of the brain (derived partly epigenetically and partly from past experience) and on its current inputs from other parts of the brain.

cont...

[Rybot9000]

In Francis Crick's book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, he includes a postscript on Free-will.

"My first assumption was that part of one's brain is concerned with making plans for future actions, without necessarily carrying them out. I also assumed that one can be conscious of such plans--that is, that they are subject at least to immediate recall.

contd...

[Rybot9000]

It is my opinion that Richard Dawkins is a poor source for information on free-will. Better sources would be people who actually study neuroscience, like Pat and Paul Churchland, Dan Dennett, Christoph Koch or the late Francis Crick. Even Marvin Minskey, Sigmund Freud or anyone else who takes the brain seriously. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. There are thousands of people more qualified to comment on free-will than Richard Dawkins.

[Rybot9000]

Furthermore, Buddhism explicitly rejects the concept of a soul entirely and free-will along with. These people are not well-known of commiting immoral acts. Many many more prominent historical figures held this view, from several founders of the USA to Einstein. I'm not sure what country you are referring to, I'm Canadian, but the USA was not founded on the "truth" of free-will. Quite to the contrary...

[Rybot9000]

Your view is far too simplistic in addition. Pick up the current issue of Scientific American Mind and read about how trauma causes a methylation of DNA to inhibit gene expression. It has consequences for the brain's stress response hormone cortisol. We are only beginning to measure such differences. An appeal to ignorance does not make free-will true. Complexity does not make it true. Pragmatism does not make it true. It is not a matter of truth, how we choose to apply knowledge.

[Rybot9000]

As Arthur Schopenhauer said "man cannot will what he wills". It is that simple. But to get technical free-will doesn't exist on any level. Open a psychology textbook, it is nowhere to be found. It works just fine with reward and punishment, quite basic in that regard. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, but usually it does. It logically follows that a normal brain performing abnormal behaviour was abnormally raised or had abnormal experiences.

[Rybot9000]

Actually, all you've done aikiboy is misrepresent that facts. The weighting you talk about is fairly basic. It doesn't endow the system with "free-will". Will is not the ability to make decisions it is the decision already made. At a fundamental level you do not have access to the processes that produce qualia, 'you' simply are qualia. You cannot be "the brain" because you are not aware of the processes. You are only aware of the results.

[GaySingleMulatto]

I'm just returning to employment - I know it's costly to run any website - (I tried, I withdrew) but I can't afford to contribute - as I would lose my car insurance and it's subject. So, though I'm delighted to learn of your presence, I can't join alysium at present. However, I do have every reason to believe I'll join you in England before too much longer! YAAY! Adrian

[andrewf128]

beloved leader- kind of reminds me of that simpsons episode with the space cult..

[dezmika]

i love the front page of you site, my reply s, science has the answers.

[andrewf128]

if education is the transfer knowledge and information based on fact then what do we call it when someone teaches someone else about their delusion?

[psychicmovies]

Sceptics as well as spiritual seekers are welcome to debate on the psychic schools forums. Please drop in and we will gladly discuss this topic with you.

Craig

[Rybot9000]

Causality is a good ruler of delusional thought. If something violates causality, like consciousness, free-will, etc.. then it is probably false. If it is true, you will never be able to properly explain it and it will remain wishful thinking.

[aikiboy1111111]

So free will is false. Ok. Well what is predetermining my actions? God? God itself is an unfalsifiable claim. Also, if free will doesn't exist, does that mean then that the law ends up becoming redundant? I mean think about it. Say if I stole a car, if free will doesn't exist, that means I am predetermined to steal that car, and I am not responsible for my action. So we should therefore be punishing that which is responsible for pre-determination. Wouldn't that destroy the entire legal system?

[Rybot9000]

That which is determining your actions is your brain. The brain is what is held accountable. However, not every brain is susceptible to accountability. If you are asking what the "first cause" was, then you are asking a question that is impossible to answer. I simply demonstrate that the brain is the direct antecedent of the will and it obeys causation, thus free-will is false. It is illogical to reject this fact because you imagine a slippery slope, or because you can't fathom a first cause.

[aikiboy1111111]

Not really. The will is free because you are your brain, hence you are making the decisions and free will exists. As a result, my argument is not a slippery slope fallacy, just simply pointing out that logically it follows that if there is no free will, there is no conscious entity that is responsible, and therefore no grounds for punishment. The punishment would be therefore to punish the brain directly (i.e. termination). My point is that free will exists because you are your brain. You are

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) the byproduct of the chemical reactions that take place in your brain, and the sum of all the memories and thoughts stored in that brain. Since you are effectively nothing but brain functions, and that brain does not entirely obey causation, but calculates and logically weighs all data coming in, it makes a decision. The brain, which effectively is you, then makes the decision, and it decides all on its own. With the exception of learning disabilities, neurological disorders, and

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) tumors, all of which can hamper the brain, and are the exemptions you speak of, there is nothing that hampers the brain (oh, drugs of course, but that falls under choice). There is nothing forcing the brain to make one choice over another. A person's brain chooses how it makes sense of data coming in, and in its own judgment, decides what course of action to take, and then commands the body to do so. In some cases, it does things against its own "better judgment" purely because it can.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) In conclusion, since you are your brain, under normal conditions, you have nothing which prevents you from making one choice over another. You are free to make one decision over another, hence free will exists. To deny that is to deny responsibility. This is what large chunks of the religious do by saying, "God made me do it" or "the devil made me do it." Predestination is a responsibility shirk. Unless you actually have something physically impairing your brain or have an external force

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) placing you under duress, you are free to make your own decisions and implement them, hence free will (the limit of course being that you can't do things which are contrary to the laws of physics. You can decide to jump off a building, but you can't decide to fly since gravity prevents that.) If there is no responsible party then law and morality have no place. Richard Dawkins himself pointed this out in one of his books where he said, "we are servants to our genes and good and evil

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) don't exist." (I'm paraphrasing of course.) We however, rise above our genes and supposed deterministic causes purely because of our complexity and because we are self aware, as Dawkins also pointed out during his debate with John Lennox. We are self aware animals with the ability to assess information and, barring impairments to the brain or physical factors restraining us or putting us under durress, free to make our own choices and responsible for our actions.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) If there were no free will, then there would be no need for any of us to be responsible for our actions. Hence, a legal system would be ineffective, as criminals are predestined by design or by genes to do what they were going to do, and a legal system and punishment wouldn't change that. The very fact that we can choose to commit a crime or not, and the fact that we can learn, is what makes the punishment system in our country so effective. People choose to commit a crime, despite

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) having fear of the punishment, but many end up reforming after going to prison, purely because they have time to think about things. Another indicator of free will as opposed to determinism, is the fact that you get criminals from all walks of life. If criminal mindset were hereditary, the descendants of criminals should also be criminals, and only certain families known to be criminals for all generations. However, there are examples of children from non-criminal parents who commit crime

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont). An example of this is the Colombine shooting. The parents of the kid who did the shooting were decent upstanding people, and noone suspected that he would do something like that. He did it however, and there was nothing pressuring him to do so. The only indicating factors we have are that he was oppressed and bullied alot. He weighed the variables, and decided that killing his teachers, class mates, and then himself, was the most effective way to get it to stop and send a message.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) There was also no history of mental illness in his family. Also, he wasn't forced by the bullying to kill, because kids are bullied every day in school, and not every one of them kills or we would have heard it on the news. Some just ride it out through high school, some even commit suicide without murder, like one case that made the news 2 years ago up here in Canada. The point is that the brain decides what is best for it. For the most part, the brain does so freely, not dictated by

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) genes any more, and certainly not dictated by a supreme creator. So what is there left to predetermine how people will act? Brain disorders, tumors included, threats, duress, and the physical laws. The first three account for only a minority of cases, and most everyone would realize that free will only applies to decisions that the human body can physically do. So, the brain is free to do as it likes, and it does. Hence, it must be responsible for its own actions.

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) As shown before, if free will did not exist and everyone was predestined to carry out their actions, punishment would have no effect against changing said actions (remember, this is based on the idea of gene programming taking over since there is little to no evidence for a God existing). So, based on that, without free will, we would have to trash the legal system. This is not a slippery slope argument, merely a simple logical step from the demonstration that there is no use for a

[aikiboy1111111]

(cont) system to regulate and control our actions when those actions cannot be controlled owing to overriding programming or predestination. Also, by showing that one is one's brain, and for the most part free, free will exists. I hope this answers your reply to my post, and demonstrates the illogic of your suggestion that free will doesn't exist.

[cantyoureadmoron]

Quite simply put "lol".

[madhobbit]

mr parker, what percentage of the population do you think are Clairvoyant?