This a great forum for researching human nature.

[EE THr]

LSM---

...an imaginary nexus between the 'hopes' of certain people who sincerely want to believe its true and the credible appearance of a manufactured product.

Also in the form of those who are financially motivated, and send PMs with dealers' Websites, recommending that you buy their product.




My experience is that nobody gets as heated-up about something, as someone who has money at stake. And there has been some real hyper-pyro-ism at work here recently! Especially when manufacturer employment is suggested.

Me thinketh theyeth protesteth to mucheth....








Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

Morgan, you seem to be missing the point. LRL's of the type we're talking about (we're not talking about over-the-horizon radar for example) all of 'em are of the hand-held swivelling type. Same as dowsing rods. So their utility (if any) should as a minimum be in that same league.

The theories of LRL operation which are based on electronic "molecular frequency discrimination" and such like, are fictions created by fraudsters, and imagination on the part of people who home-brew stuff without having any understanding of what it is they're building (much less of "molecular frequencies") and are just trying to make something up that seems plausible to them. Some forum denizens actually know about this stuff and therefore know to rule it out as the basis for operation. Only when obvious false premises are gotten out of the way, can an inquiry begin into what may be plausible.

Note that I'm not ruling out the possibility that the electronics has some impact on the results of using the apparatus, only pointing out that the reasons customarily given are wrong.

Some other theories can also be disposed of. Dowsers/LRL'ers who have no working knowledge of physics usually get the idea that a signal from the target object moves the rods. That's a physics-based explanation, and it's provably false. One of the most common versions of the story is that the magnetic field around a pipe is what causes coathangers to cross when dowsing for pipes. A few minutes spent reasoning how an ordinary magnetic compass works and doesn't work, ought to disabuse a person of such a notion.

So how about a theory that a force not emanating from the target object but from somewhere else moves the rod? That's suspicious on the face of it because you have to be holding the rod for it to "work", no matter how you define "work". The apparatus is not designed to respond to something other than hand movement, it is designed specifically to respond to hand movement. You move the hand the right way, and gravity takes care of the rest. If hand movement is removed from the system, it simply doesn't work. Therefore, the apparatus is controlled by hand movement allowing the rod to swing in response to gravity, not by some unknown force. Eliminate the force of gravity by counterbalancing the rod, and then not even hand movement will avail. Hand movement is the entire physical phenomenon of a dowsing rod, inclusive of LRL for reasons already explained.

Having "been there and done that", I can assure you that the sensation that the rods are moving themselves is a compelling one (unless of course you're intentionally pointing them). It's a sensory illusion, something that stage magicians, physiological psychologists, and (we should assume) "certain salespeople" are familiar with since it's their job to understand this stuff.

The hands are moving the rods. If the movement is not conscious and deliberate, therefore resulting in the sensory illusion that the rods are pointing themselves in response to an external force, how do the hands know what to aim the rods at? A question like that obviously leads back to the brain. How does the brain "decide" what to aim the rods at?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

I wouldn't count on the brain deciding anything.

 

[woof!]

Well, EE, people go doodlebugging and the rods cross (or the rod points, if only one rod) at certain places. Something selects those certain places. And, evidently reports the selection via the hands. The pathway of control of the hands is through the brain. What selects those certain places?

I'm not asking whether the selection itself even makes any sense. I'm just pointing out that the brain must be deciding, rightly or wrongly, where the rods "should" cross.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

Just look at a brain, or a picture of one.

It's just a bunch of synapses, in a big blob of jello!

All the nerve lines in the body end there, and the brain is just a giant buffer system.

Can you honestly attribute all your memories, in full color, 3-D, as somehow being "stored" in there? And when you remember stuff, how do you see the memories, on a little LCD screen in there somewhere? Some kind of 3-D screen? Think of all the wiring that would take. And the memory capacity and processing system.

Even if something capable of all that could somehow fit inside a skull, exactly who is watching that little screen? And how?

And what kind of video processor would it have to have? And how many frames per second would it need to use?

More than memories, how do you see whatever you are looking at? Could eyeballs possibly have a scanning raster system? Do your eyes then transmit this scan to your brain? How many parallel bit paths would it take to accomplish that, and all the other processing that goes on? And again, does that information end up on a little screen in your brain? Also, again, who is watching that little screen right now?

Then you've got the rational thinking process, math processes, and more importantly, opinion forming. How much memory storage would be required just to recognize what a paperclip is? Much less recognize all the people, animals, cars, and everything else that you know. Then there is decision making. That would be based on opinion, weighed against all circumstances existing at that moment, plus possible future ramifications.

What would it take to process all that stuff?


If a person considers that a video camera "sees" what it is looking at, then he could consider that the camera sees things, almost the same as we do. But ask yourself: Is the video camera aware that it is seeing that scene?

Are you aware that you are seeing what what you are looking at right now?

That is considered the difference between matter and life. Life is aware of being aware.

A brain is merely matter.


So, the brain doesn't decide to move the rods. You decide to move the rods, either consciously or subconsciously.





I need to add that I don't intend to insist that this is true, or demand that anyone "believe" it. I'm just stating my answer to your question. What you think about it is up to you.

This is something that cannot be proven to others. But it can be proven to oneself.

8)

 

[aarthrj3811]

~ EE THr~

This is something that cannot be proven to others. But it can be proven to oneself.

Yes you are now on he right track…Prove that these devices work by going to a demonstration and putting your hands on the device…Just Call your closest Manufacturer…Art

 

[woof!]

EE, perhaps you're trying to draw a distinction between "mind" and "brain" although it sounds like you're headed outside the skull with this. It may prove interesting.

I suppose that most people who draw a distinction between "mind" and "brain" would define the brain as the "matter", and the "mind" as the processes that take place within that matter. Sort of like the difference between a microprocessor, and self-modifying code execution. In electronics I have to deal with microprocessors, code, and code execution as three different things, not just two. When it comes to the brain, I regard what it "does" as part of what it "is" since what it is, is continuously being changed by what it does.

Even from the standpoint of structure, you greatly underestimate the brain. It is not a blob of jello, it is a complex structure (obviously because it has to be a complex structure) with synapses numbering in the billions or trillions (somebody's figured out how many, I don't remember the number). And their organization is not random, it is patterned. A synapse is not like a binary computer bit containing only one binary digit of information, it is a structure which can have many connections of varying connectivity.

The simplicity which you attribute to the eye is just plain wrong. The eye is a sophisticated active image processing system which greatly reduces the bandwidth needed by the optic nerve and the visual cortex. Many optical illusions are based on tricking the image processing that goes on in the eye itself.

And that brings us to the subject of what kind of "executables" are "running" in the brain. The brain doesn't run Windows 7. The algorithms which run in the brain have evolved over something like a billion years to keep organisms alive in a complex and constantly changing environment. The algorithms were not stuffed into the brain, the algorithms and the brain are two different ways of looking at the same thing. The whole thing is extraordinarily efficient. Ideological evolution is a new (200,000 years??) monkey wrench in the scheme of things, but that's a very recent development from an evolutionary point of view and probably hasn't impacted brain structure and algorithms very much and doesn't need to: it works by influencing the pattern of execution of algorithms already in existence.

That in fact is the purpose of advertising. Advertising is about neurology. Some time back, R. J. Reynolds Co. figured this out, started doing high-end lab work using MRI and PET etc. What they know about influencing the execution path of algorithms in the brain is probably more sophisticated than anything the CIA has. They're looking for the points in the system which can be tripped to greatest advantage with the least expenditure of effort, just like a computer hacker, smart general (not like most!), or terrorist. Ultimately, it's about getting more dollars out of the brain than what you put into it. "Dowsing for dollars".

Stage magic is also about "hacking the brain" -- which often begins with hacking the visual image processing that goes on in the eye itself. Or, the stage magician creates a sequence of perceptions that doesn't exist in the natural world, so we aren't born to make sense of it. Often the stage magician can explain the whole thing, do the same maneuvers again, and you'll still "see" the same thing that you saw the first time.

In a post a few weeks ago I explained what "brain waves" have to do with "sensitivity", using the analogy of a superregenerative receiver, and explaining what that has to do with a dynamic information system that runs right at the thermal noise floor. We'll probably come back to that.

Enough for now.

--Toto

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: IDEOMOTOR - CHALLENGE FOR SKEPTICS
Reply To This Topic #71 Posted Apr 20, 2010, 01:32:14 PM Quote Modify Remove


Results 1 - 10 of about 9,130 for taught ideomotor effects.
Results 1 - 10 of about 9,990 for taught ideomotor response.
Results 1 - 10 of about 15,500 for taught ideomotor.
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400,000 for taught definition.
Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800 for trained ideomotor effect.
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700 for trained ideomotor response.
Results 1 - 10 of about 21,800 for trained ideomotor effect.\
Results 1 - 10 of about 16,700 for trained ideomotor".

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

You do have a broad and in-depth knowledge of existing scientific theory.

As I indicated previously, I'm not bent on a hard-core argument about it.

But, I'd like to point out a few things that you presented in your post that are, if you look closely, not scientific.

(And yes, I am headed outside the skull!)

...it is a complex structure (obviously because it has to be a complex structure)

You are using the conclusion as the premise. I realize that it seems imperative to do so, but, if you really want to be scientific, then adherence to the rule of logic is highly recommended.

I regard what it "does" as part of what it "is" since what it is, is continuously being changed by what it does.

Another violation of logic, if you really think about it.

A rock is continuously being changed, also, but does that mean that the rock is "doing" the changing? If a person is driving a car, and the engine is being electronically monitored by an analyser machine, the analyser will indicate changes going on as the person drives around. Does that mean that the engine is controlling those changes, or are they caused by the driver controlling the engine?

A synapse is not like a binary computer bit containing only one binary digit of information, it is a structure which can have many connections of varying connectivity.

This statement is so very generalized that it could be said to be true. But is there any actual data flow going on there? If this is some kind of multi-data serial system, then where is all the multiplexer circuitry located? And what would the processing speed need to be?

The eye is a sophisticated active image processing system which greatly reduces the bandwidth needed by the optic nerve and the visual cortex.

Actually, I didn't attribute any characteristics to the eye. I just asked a few questions.

"Sophisticated" isn't very specific! Is there some kind of video compression involved? If so, where is that circuitry located?

Does each rod (monochrome) and cone (color---three types, for three wavelength bands) have it's own path all the way back to the brain? If so, what circuit sorts it all out, and makes a picture of it? And, once again, who the heck is watching "that little screen," anyway?

Rods and Cones

The whole thing is extraordinarily efficient.

Again, not very specific! The existing "scientific" explanations for how all this works, roll off the tongue very easily and smoothly, often sounding like they are coming from a snake oil salesman. Since we are first taught in school that "nobody knows" how it all works; practically any explanation, especially by the "experts," will do, and seems much better than a big, empty gap in "scientific knowledge." They must say something about it, in order to retain their lofty positions as experts. But close scrutiny always reveals an actual lack of scientific methods involved in their conclusions, in this area.

In a post a few weeks ago I explained what "brain waves" have to do with "sensitivity", using the analogy of a superregenerative receiver, and explaining what that has to do with a dynamic information system that runs right at the thermal noise floor.

Can the frequency of brain waves possibly account for the astronomical speed that would be necessary to conduct all the data involved with all the sensory inputs, memory, and CPU? It seems that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, doesn't it?

 

[aarthrj3811]

Gee..I just posted where the new information on Ideomotor response could be found..just showing that we know more about brain function than the definition in the Skeptic dictionary from 1852…Art

 

[EE THr]

Art---

Thanks for explaining why you posted that. I was baffled.

 

[woof!]

woof!---

You do have a broad and in-depth knowledge of existing scientific theory.

As I indicated previously, I'm not bent on a hard-core argument about it.

But, I'd like to point out a few things that you presented in your post that are, if you look closely, not scientific.

(And yes, I am headed outside the skull!)

...it is a complex structure (obviously because it has to be a complex structure)

You are using the conclusion as the premise. I realize that it seems imperative to do so, but, if you really want to be scientific, then adherence to the rule of logic is highly recommended.

I regard what it "does" as part of what it "is" since what it is, is continuously being changed by what it does.

Another violation of logic, if you really think about it.

A rock is continuously being changed, also, but does that mean that the rock is "doing" the changing? If a person is driving a car, and the engine is being electronically monitored by an analyser machine, the analyser will indicate changes going on as the person drives around. Does that mean that the engine is controlling those changes, or are they caused by the driver controlling the engine?

A synapse is not like a binary computer bit containing only one binary digit of information, it is a structure which can have many connections of varying connectivity.

This statement is so very generalized that it could be said to be true. But is there any actual data flow going on there? If this is some kind of multi-data serial system, then where is all the multiplexer circuitry located? And what would the processing speed need to be?

The eye is a sophisticated active image processing system which greatly reduces the bandwidth needed by the optic nerve and the visual cortex.

Actually, I didn't attribute any characteristics to the eye. I just asked a few questions.

"Sophisticated" isn't very specific! Is there some kind of video compression involved? If so, where is that circuitry located?

Does each rod (monochrome) and cone (color---three types, for three wavelength bands) have it's own path all the way back to the brain? If so, what circuit sorts it all out, and makes a picture of it? And, once again, who the heck is watching "that little screen," anyway?

Rods and Cones

The whole thing is extraordinarily efficient.

Again, not very specific! The existing "scientific" explanations for how all this works, roll off the tongue very easily and smoothly, often sounding like they are coming from a snake oil salesman. Since we are first taught in school that "nobody knows" how it all works; practically any explanation, especially by the "experts," will do, and seems much better than a big, empty gap in "scientific knowledge." They must say something about it, in order to retain their lofty positions as experts. But close scrutiny always reveals an actual lack of scientific methods involved in their conclusions, in this area.

In a post a few weeks ago I explained what "brain waves" have to do with "sensitivity", using the analogy of a superregenerative receiver, and explaining what that has to do with a dynamic information system that runs right at the thermal noise floor.

Can the frequency of brain waves possibly account for the astronomical speed that would be necessary to conduct all the data involved with all the sensory inputs, memory, and CPU? It seems that they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, doesn't it?

Well, EE, I could take the easy way out and say "spend some time learning about the brain and how it works, and then get back to me" but that would probably bring the conversation to a halt. So I'll try to address some of the points you raised.

The rods and cones do not map to the visual cortex directly. The neuron network behind the retina does a bunch of image compression. It's lossy, but efficient.

The job the human brain has to do is complex. That's why it's as complex as a human brain, not as complex as the brain of a flatworm.

The whole thing is very efficient, because it has to be. It operates on the verge of thermal breakdown as it is, so it can't just ramp up the horsepower to get smarter: the way the thing works is what has to be smarter. Even in cold-blooded animals where thermal runaway is not much of an issue, the brain has to be efficient because differences in efficiency are critical parameters for selection (that's a euphemism for "deselection" which is a euphemism for "death"). Efficiency has been ruthlessly imposed on the reproduction with variation and selection process of neurological systems for nearly a billion years.

To reason about the brain's capability using a PC as a frame of reference leads to erroneous conclusions. The PC is an extraordinarily clumsy and crude device that's only been through a few generations of selection. Modern digital IC's are extraordinarily inefficient because the applications that run on them are designed to work orders of magnitude away from the noise floor to insure no loss of data. This hardware approach is in direct contradistinction to what communications engineers strive for, which is to work as close as possible to the noise floor. From the standpoint of thermodynamic efficiency, the present hardware model is completely bassackwards. I suppose in another decade we'll see the commercialization of computers which are designed to run at the thermal noise floor, designed using the principles of communications engineering and Bayesian statistics, and the idea of storing a "bit" in a location for 20 years will have been disposed of. A bit half-life of one second may suffice.

To ask what speed the brain has to run at to process information like a PC is an irrelevant question: it doesn't process information like a PC. The architecture is entirely different, and the way it processes information is not loaded in, it's inherent in the structure itself. The structure/processing is highly distributed and highly parallelized. And it's specialized, the only app it needs to run is "operate a human being".

Enough for now.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

With all due respect, it sounds more and more like you are trying to mix science with the biggest non-science of all time: Psychology.

That doesn't work.

Again, I'd like to point out that all of your seemingly profound statements about the brain and neurosystem are based on mere conjecture, without enough supporting evidence to even be called theories.

"spend some time learning about the brain and how it works, and then get back to me" but that would probably bring the conversation to a halt.

That's as much an insult as has been typical of some of the LRL proponents. Shame on you! I really don't appreciate it, and it has lowered your credibility in my mind, because I have found that people will use insults when they find that they can no longer pretend to have a foothold on real data.

If you feel that I need to be enlightened to some of your "higher learning" about the brain, then why not just say what's on your mind, instead of substituting a cheap-shot insult to avoid a real discussion? If you are so well versed in all of it, then you should be able to easily and quickly pull it out, off the top of your head, no?

The neuron network behind the retina does a bunch of image compression.

If you can so adeptly interpret that schematic of the LRL which was posted, you should be able to come up with some kind of schematic for all this "bunch of image compression," as well. Where is that? Or just a link to it? Or just the name of the person who mapped it out? Or is this only more non-science silver tongued phraseology pretending to be fact?

To reason about the brain's capability using a PC as a frame of reference leads to erroneous conclusions.

The use of similar data is necessary in communication, in order to establish a reference foundation. Without some kind of like data, it would be the equivalent to speaking a foreign language. I used computer terminology (I never mentioned a PC specifically---I could have been referencing a super computer) to get the idea across. Your selecting that out for the sole purpose of injecting a nit-pick, is further indication of your insincerity, and lack of adequate response; to merely attempt to prove your "point," by making me look wrong, rather than providing some real, proven, scientific information to support your claims. To be perfectly honest, I'm surprised that a person of your self-proclaimed high intellect would stoop so low. And in public, no less!



The rest of your post consists of repeating your previous unsubstantiated mantra, and a claim of proven knowledge about why evolution (itself only theory) supposedly has done what it has. Drivel.

So far, your offerings of information, to back up your statement about the brain, have been nothing more than diluted aberrations of the few known and corroborated facts in existence, and a disgrace to the name of science.

And as for your sophomoric attempt at an insult, I will not respond to any further posts from you, without an apology. That is because, if you can't acknowledge that it was wrong, you will only do it again, and insults are not discussions. And I have no reason to participate in a non-discussion.

 

[woof!]

EE, it is evident that trying to carry on a conversation with you about what the brain is and how it works and why, runs up against the same problem as trying to discuss an electronic schematic with some of the other folks here. I cannot in a couple posts here teach everything I know or have at least reasoned about. And in a conversation with someone having little knowledge in the subject, they can reasonably expect that if they've got ideas which are unsubstantiated they're going to be contradicted.

I wasn't insulting you. I was explaining the difficulty of carrying on a conversation about the brain with someone who is starting out with virtually no knowledge in that area. You're a smart guy, and if you spent the next several weeks researching the subject matter you'd learn a whole lot and it would make the conversation a lot easier. But I wouldn't expect you to make that rather substantial investment for this purpose. So I proceeded as best I could, drawing on principles I presumed you were familiar with. I hardly expected the response I got.

I'm still looking forward to your "outside the cranium" take on things. Proving such theories is (I suspect) impossible, but at least they can be rated in terms of plausibility in light of other things we already know, particularly relating to how the brain does and doesn't work.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

With all due respect, it sounds more and more like you are trying to mix science with the biggest non-science of all time: Psychology.

Shoot, tell that to someone who studies primate behavior, or who has a kid with Asperger's. Psychology is one branch of science that still has heaping gobs of undiscovered territory. And besides that, it's loads of fun to study.

It is one of the two primary reasons I even bother to visit this forum. I don't give beans whether someone wants to walk around with dowsing rods pretending to be a Big Time Treasure Hunter, or whether they plop down $10k for a Chuckie Special. What I do like to do, is observe why they do these bizarre things. Ya gotta admit, there's some twisted logic in some of the things you read here. So what's happened in the last 100k years that got it all so twisted? Why do people do what they do, and think how they think? That's as much science, as why the continents are how they are, or why stars do what they do.

 

[woof!]

One of the best books I've ever owned was "Physiological Psychology", written about 1890. In 1977 I gave it to a friend who was studying to be a shaman, to afford him a perspective on the craft that he otherwise probably wouldn't get. It was good science when it was written, and would pass muster as good (if elementary) science now.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

My problem with psychology is that they base 90% of it on dead guys opinions. And the other 10% on the behaviour of rats.

While probing the brain will produce some responses, so will sticking stuff into a car engine produce responses in the driver. There is a giant leap of logic when they state that they know how the brain works. This has obviously been politically driven, over the years, since it's inception.

Anyone can imagine how this train of thought could be taken further, but I don't think it's for this forum.

The point for this thread being, is that "science," as it stands today, will never be able to realistically explain successful dowsing (that is to say, if it exists).

I, too, think the whole thing is interesting, but I get bored when people go off on the path of "conjecture is theory," and "theory is fact," then try to use them as premises for logical conclusions, and call that "scientific." I don't care how many universities suposedly "believe" in psychology's non-facts, pigs still bathe in hogwash.

And the harder they insist that "fallacy is science," the less interesting it is to me.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[architecad]

~Woof~

Addressing the issue of "paranormal phenomena" (inclusive of the possibility that some LRL locates are the real deal and not just dumb luck or misinterpretation of data or worse) is an enterprise entirely worthy of the application of scientific reasoning, even though at this stage of knowledge it's in the realm of things that aren't reproducible under controlled conditions.

Thank You woof…we are treasure hunters..the conditions we work under are not controlled..Knowledge of our equipment, Knowledge of the area, research knowledge and where the type of objects is most likely to be hidden is a big part of being sucessful..Art

Thanks Art for your input. That's totally applicable in LRL.

Arch

 

[woof!]

Carl---

My problem with psychology is that they base 90% of it on dead guys opinions. And the other 10% on the behaviour of rats.

While probing the brain will produce some responses, so will sticking stuff into a car engine produce responses in the driver. There is a giant leap of logic when they state that they know how the brain works. This has obviously been politically driven, over the years, since it's inception.

Anyone can imagine how this train of thought could be taken further, but I don't think it's for this forum.

The point for this thread being, is that "science," as it stands today, will never be able to realistically explain successful dowsing (that is to say, if it exists).

I, too, think the whole thing is interesting, but I get bored when people go off on the path of "conjecture is theory," and "theory is fact," then try to use them as premises for logical conclusions, and call that "scientific." I don't care how many universities suposedly "believe" in psychology's non-facts, pigs still bathe in hogwash.

And the harder they insist that "fallacy is science," the less interesting it is to me.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I'm a bit puzzled, EE. Psychology is a huge field that's been the subject of scientific inquiry for thousands of years, and it's very much alive right now. The dead Mr. Freud etc. were just bumps on the road, and even they made some contribution. If you don't like the dead guys' opinions, just toss 'em out and lighten the load.

Dowsing ("successful" or not) really does exist. I can't imagine how one would explore the phenomenon from a scientific perspective without psychology, since what's going on between the dowser's ears is a key aspect of the whole thing. Judy's Howdy Doody: if it can dowse, psychology won't help our understanding of it. But not even Judy says it can dowse.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

Psychology may be a field, but it's not a science, and hasn't been since the Germans took it over. It is now a political religion, with no basis in science.

There is no actual scientific inquiry into Psychology nowdays, because that would violate political taboo.

You should know that the "psyche" in psychology, means "soul." And where is it now? A political religion that insists that there is no soul, that man is essentially a pile of minerals, and thinks with his brain. That's a textbook example of backward progress.

The fact that you didn't respond to any of my most pointed questions, but instead wandered off into the land of make believe, and insist that your pseudo-logic derived phony-facts must be true because they told you so in school, and well, because "everybody knows" it's true, and that science is no longer science, shows that you are another victim of fallacy worship.

The universities give grades for how well people can memorize the opinions of others (just because they wrote a book), and the results of animal tests; and then they give credentials based on how well people can do some kind of study, and try to pretend that the results show that the dead guys opinions were somehow relevant to it.

The total lack of solid factual evidence is why psychology has failed miserably to actually help civilization. Because it's a worship of contrivances which people are told to believe, rather than an actual applied science.

If car mechanics and engineers were only as successful as psychologists/iatrists, we wouldn't need to worry about the price of crude oil, or smog, because none of the cars would be running.

But, other than all that, it's just dandy.








P.S. The fact that you ignore my most significant points, and instead keep repeating that psychology is scientific, when it's obviously not, is why I consider it to be pointless to "discuss" it with you. I feel that it would be like discussing aeronautics with someone who doesn't know up from down. And your suggestions that I "study" that non-logic pseudo-science, so that I will then understand why it's "all good," merely corroborates my opinion.