On another thread I was challenged to "prove" that electricity exists by Kambiz. It seemed a tad off-topic, so I've started this thread to explore the nature of such "proofs".

To answer you Kam, I'll quote from an article by an electrical engineer named William J. Beaty:

"Mrs. McCave was invented by Dr. Seuss. She had twenty three sons. She named them all "Dave."

"Whenever we ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY," that's just like asking Mrs. McCave "WHO IS DAVE?" How can she describe her son? There can be no answer since the question itself is wrong. It's wrong to ask "who is Dave?" because we are assuming that there is only one Dave, when actually there are many different people. They all just happen to be named Dave. Who is Dave? Mrs. McCave cannot answer us until she first corrects our misunderstanding.

For the same reason, we will never find a simple answer to the question "what is electricity?" because the question itself is wrong. First we must realize that "electricity" does not exist. There is no single thing named "electricity." We must learn that, while several different things exist in wires, people wrongly call all of them by a single name.

So never ask "WHAT IS ELECTRICITY". Instead, discard the word "electricity" and begin using the correct names for all the separate phenomena. Here are a few of them:

* What is electric charge?
* What is electrical energy?
* What are electrons?
* What is electric current?
* What is an imbalance of charge?
* What is an electric field?
* What is voltage?
* What is electric power?
* What is a spark?
* What is electromagnetism?
* What is electrical science?
* What is electrodynamics?
* What is electrostatics?
* What are electrical phenomena?

The above questions all have sensible answers. But if you ask WHAT IS ELECTRICITY?, then all of the answers you'll find will just confuse you, and you'll never stop asking that question. "

So again, Kam, before I can show a proof, you'll have to define which of the terms above dealing with electricity you mean.

- entity

I should be able to do something with all this, thanks.
Could you list the same for this question?

What is psychic?

Define what YOU mean by "psychic"?

Are you asking what MY definition of psychic would be?

The term was first used by chemist William Crookes to describe the medium Daniel Dunglas Home (1833-1886).

- entity

NO!

From what I just read you should never ask What Is Psychic?
I’m asking for you to do the same for my question.


Thanks

I'll give it a whirl later today. It's 4:20 in the a.m. here, and I need to go to bed.

- entity

4:20 ha! OK, sleep good.
No rush, thanks a lot.

Good, we have a new thread, thanks Tom....

We are here to learn and philosophize, but I have no time at the moment, I will be back soon, but I agree with you lostpoet, we may need to define the term "psychic"

Kam

As an aside, does anyone know or has read any kind of scientific release or study about how people are naturally good at certain things, naturally? like singing for example, I have a friend who's family cannot sing a note one is tone deaf - yet she can sing like a bird with no study or training...she just opened her mouth and it all came out perfectly...

I think we have too much time on our hands...

Can someone explain why do such silly threads? This feels like a green prison

I can only imagine where this "electricity" question spawned from.

I don' want to derail the thread but if I understand where Kambiz is coming from, I believe he might be happier with:

I want you to remember a dream you had ... good ... now prove to me that you dreamt that. And while you're at it, can you prove whether you dream in color or black and white?

Even though you may swear on your mother that you had that very specific dream, you can't prove it ... so is it fair to say you're lying and it didn't happen?

Sometimes people have significant experiences yet they can't prove them with "documentation". It does not mean they they didn't happen or that those experiences or phenomena don't exist.

So you wake up from a nightmare. Can you prove that you had a nightmare ... or are you just clamoring for attention? It certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen ... I'm just asking.

It's not the event's happening that is questioned, but rather the nature of the event.

Dreams are an observable phenomena. You can measure brain activity, eye movement, respiration, etc. during dreams states and detect whether a person is indeed dreaming. Once that is ascertained, if the person claims to have had a prophetic dream, that is easily tested. The subject is interviewed immediately after their dream, and the various aspects of their dream are noted, recorded under scrutiny.

If the events that were dreamed actually occur, and the events are strikingly unlikely to have happened, it's worth looking at further. If the person claims to do this constantly, that could be tested for validity.

While most people dream, I'm unaware of anyone who has proof of the ability to consistently dream strikingly prophetic dreams.

To see the ability to dream as an indication of the reality of psychic abilities seems a stretch to me. While a personal experience that goes unrecorded doesn't mean that a phenomenon doesn't exist, it also certainly doesn't mean that it does.

- entity

I'm sorry, did I write anything about prophetic dreams?

Dreams are an observable phenomena? You can observe brain activity and such, so saying dreams are "observable phenomena" is highly debatable ... but either way, WHAT you dream isn't.

So even though you may swear on your mother that you had a very specific dream, you can't prove it ... is it fair to say you're lying and it didn't happen unless you provide "documentation"?

I think some of you understand where I'm trying to go with this, so ... take it away.

I think I answered your question, but I'll try again...

No one would say you're lying about having a dream, unless perhaps you said that it was a prophetic dream that foretold future unlikely events. In such a case, documentation would be necessary.

It's not the fact that you have had a dream that is in question. It's the meaning that you assign to that dream that might be questioned.

As an analogy -- People have "intuitive flashes" all the time. They're not lying when they say so. The "flashes" or images the person thinks of and remembers did occur in their mind, although we can only go by the person's testimony as to what they actually thought about.

What comes into question (and what CAN be documented and tested) is: A) What does the person say they thought about during their "intuitive flash"; B) Do these "flashes" have any significance; i.e.: Do the unlikely events that they thought about become reality?

I hope that answers your question.

- entity

Alexandre:
"So even though you may swear on your mother that you had a very specific dream, you can't prove it ... is it fair to say you're lying and it didn't happen unless you provide "documentation"?"

I think it depends on how common or uncommon the dream or event is. If someone says "I had a dream where I went to the grocery store and bought some apples", is is really worth trying to decide if they were lying?

Since dreams happen all the time and everyone talks about them, I think it's safe to say dreaming is common and doesn't really need to be verified. If I said I went to the post office yesterday, should I be ready to prove it and have proper "documentation"? Given how mundane the event is, I would say no. I don't think someone would be gullible if they believed that w/out question.

Now, if I said "yesterday I jumped 50 feet straight up. No one saw me do it, I didn't video tape it, and I can't do it again...but I swear it happened", I could understand people having their doubts. People don't just jump 50 feet every day. Given how extraordinary that event is, I would say yes, proof should be provided. I think someone would be gullible to believe that w/out question.

I think that believing someone who told you they had a specific dream would have to be on a case by case basis, as it is by nature unknowable. Of course this is sticking to the pretense that this is not about prophetic dreams, which would be easily testable.

I would simply consider it a talent, a natural gift that has resulted in the increased development of the parts of her brain, and subsequent muscle groups (throat, voice, etc) that enable her to sing so beautifully...Perhaps just the proper combination of DNA that allows this...Not present in either parent, but when combined, presto!

I have a friend who is an amazing virtuosic guitar player. As a hack guitar player, I was always in awe of his skills. One day I complimented him on his 'talent'. He got somewhat offended and said 'I've worked my *** off and practiced countless hours to be able to do this. There's no talent involved.' So how much is really a 'natural' affinity to play or sing well, and how much is passion or drive to put in the work to achieve it?

I think that often there is a confusion in the minds of some in the public about "talent" and "study."

My wife is a successful professional portrait artist. Occasionally, when she is demonstrating in public, people will ask if she "always had the talent or did she take lessons." It seems with some people it has to be one or the other.

She was born with good eye-hand coordination and a fantastic color sense. She drew a piano in perspective when she was four-years-old. Her parents encouraged her as did artist neighbors as she was growing up in the Hollywood Hills.

Art classes in college helped a little but it was years of study on her own and with private teachers combined with hundreds and hundreds of commissions that brought her to the level she is today...all fueled by her enjoyment of the process. I always considered it a combination of the two: talent AND study fueled by interest.

About singing - Kate Smith, famous in the 40s and early 50s television was a natural singer. Never had a lesson in her life and was hugely successful and well-loved as a performer. I think Al Jolson and others of his era were the same.

Of course, in those days there were plenty of places to be bad and learn your craft. No so much today.

Silvertone, I believe that one compliments the other. Both are needed in order to play the guitar like your friend.

You also have ability that it takes to play the guitar well. Just not in the same proportions as your friend.

Alexandre, I think entity was responding to my question relating to prophetic dreams.
Yes dreams are common and for sure psychic phenomena are not, but I can assure you that there is no onus on anyone to PROVE that this exists or not...

....it all comes down to experience.....I have encountered someone with psychic abilities and I can assure you that their occurrence is 1 in a trillion individuals.....I think Nostradamus was one of them, and I can assure you Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Moses, Baha'u'llah, Krishna, Zoroaster and Buddha were others with this ability.......but if anyone goes back and looks at my post about the babies in the Derren Brown thread then you will notice that the deductions that can be made are very logical and reasonable....

1. A baby in the womb cannot utilise his eyes, there is no use for them. If his twin sister develops the ability to SEE within the womb, then she can argue till the cows come home that she has eyes, but twin brother wont believe him.

2. The eyes do exist in the womb, only 1 in a trillion may actually be able to see things when in the womb.

3. The fact that no-one can use the eyes in the womb and has no conscious knowledge of their existence does not mean it does not exist.

4. It is not for the seeing baby to PROVE that she has eyes, nor is it for the NON-SEEING baby to prove that they do exist....all will be revealed when they are born into the next plane of existence.....IT'S OK

Just like all material things on earth, they are proven to exist either through the perceptible senses, or their existence is proven throught the deduction of other known principles (electricity and heat are examples of this). There is no entity (hi Tom) in its own right that is known as electricity, its a combination of entities that are known to exist which when combined provide us with electricity, we can therefore deduce that electricity exists.

In like manner, it makes sense (well to me anyway) and I can "deduce" that we have unknown faculties as humans that develop in this earthly plane that are not intended for use on this earthly plane, they are the "eyes of the unborn baby" in this world....but only 1 in a trillion (guessing with that figure, but it is huge) can trully claim to have psychic eyes on this plain, the rest of us are blind I'm afraid

Kam