edgar cayce

MayCaesar

Oracles ultimately rely on a very simple phenomenon: if you phrase a certain statement in vague enough terms, then that statement can be interpreted as truth. Famous oracles only differ from unknown ones in their ability and eagerness to promote their vague statements, but the nature of their work is all the same. It is an insubstantial activity that does not have any practical applications.

Know that old story coming as far back as to Assyrian times? There a very poor person goes to a witch to ask her how he can get rich. She hears him out, plays with her cards for a bit, thinks a little, then says, "There will be a horse race tomorrow. Bet everything you have on the small black horse, and you will be rich."
Next day, he comes back to her and says, "You lied! I lost everything. The small black horse didn't win the race."
The witch, without blinking an eye, says, "Yet you are richer now. You did not have anything yesterday, because you did not value what you had and were willing to risk it all on advice from an old woman. And now you, at least, have some knowledge. Use that knowledge well, and you won't be poor again."

maxx

I know that;   it is easy to speak in vague terms and which can be interpreted in many ways; one only has to look at daily horosopes to see that. the god dee simply brings up claiforina as a bases for cayces being a fraud; although many of his predictions did come true in which of all fairness a few may have been a guess hit, yet he got the stock market crash of 1929 correct, ww2,  hitlers rise to power, the death of 2 future presidents, the collapse of the soviet union; and these were predicted in the 1920s.  he also predicted the shifting of the poles for our very era and this is occurring, it has been in the news, the poles are moving. However, people forced these predictions out of him, for he was a holistic healer and could produce ways to cure others from a distance even with out knowing them, or their location.  that was documented many times back when he was giving readings. if he was a fraud, then he was one who wanted no money nor fame for what he did. the only reason he gave the readings was to help those who needed it. I see nothing so mysterious abiuyt the brain being able to do things yet we do not understand. he used hypnosis as a tool and we still do not know the limits of hypnosis.  brains are basically biological computers and just like radio waves. there is no reason why it can not transmit and or receive and I fail to see any reason why these electrical impulses are doomed to be contained within our skull. we know about the wave possibilities of electrons and other particles and how they only collapse when and in the act of measuring and or observation/look a little deeper in the mechanics and physicists say we are controlling the electron by our consciousness behavior@MayCaesar

maxx

first I never blindly claimed he was real; my post was on thoughts on how he did what was reported; and yes I could provide testimonials on the people back them as well as the science journals he was listed in but I am not paying money just so you can say so what.  you say ?  you want ? how about the line you said about you not blindly following what others have told you? What experiments did you use to determine the age of the earth? How did you measure the expansion of the universe or when was the last time you used carbon dating? you do not ! you simply rely on others and what you have been taught and that is just what religious people do and you put them down for doing exactly what you do yourself; believing with out producing your own evidence and facts and saying it is true because others told you so and that my dear is a hypocrite! @Dee

MayCaesar

This is not really an argument. Just because we do not know everything there is to know, does not mean that we should accept claims from random witnesses as unconditional truth. There are many things in the world that are hard to explain at first; there are very few things that turn out to be anything more than a simple misinterpretation, however.

Almost any famous individual you read about actually is much simpler in real life, than his/her glorified historical version. And especially when it comes to people with allegedly unique abilities, it almost always turns out that nothing unique was actually taken place, and it is all just one urban legend that has been perpetuated by people for a very long time.

I would like to see some evidence of those alleged outstanding mental powers before I seriously consider their existence. Can any of those oracles allegedly predicting wars from decades ahead answer a simple question, such as "What is in my right pocket?" or "What time is it with a 5 minute precision", without using any external devices and hints? I am yet to meet one that does, and all alleged oracles, witches, etc. I have met always start changing the subject, when it comes to concrete, immediately verifiable things.

It is much easier to claim unusual powers when all you do is make vague predictions that "Something terrible will happen some time soon, and many people will suffer", than when you do something that can be immediately experimentally verified. Okay, this witch can tell me the day I die, but can she tell me what color my panties are without looking? I did not think so.

maxx

I do not believe that if true, such things such as remote viewing would work like that.  there as well have been many times police used and benefited from "psychics" to help them solve a cold case.  As well the military and governments have studied the phenomenon  for years. True, there are things that happen that are strange that eventually have a logical explanation, yet you have failed to state that there are just as many if not more occurrences that simply defy explanation. @MayCaesar

ZeusAres42

@maxx

Are you not familiar with the following terms at all?

• Control group
• Experimental group
• Placebo group
• Double-blind procedure

In brief, the only way to draw proper conclusions is via proper methodical and systematic experimental research. If you can provide us with any data that meets these criteria then we might give your hypothesis that psychic healing works to heal the sick and that Edgar Cacey was one to do it a bit more consideration.

maxx

data,, I doubt that back in the early 1900s there were any of that for caycee but you can look up the rest of  it easily without my help.  do you not think since the governments of the world began research into it that they would not have the 4 lists you asked for? yes again there are many many fakes in this world and yet again however there are many things that defy explanation.  just how many people have you tested yourself in such situations instead of relying on others to tell you that something is not true?@ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42

@maxx

data,, I doubt that back in the early 1900s there were any of that for caycee but you can look up the rest of  it easily without my help.  do you not think since the governments of the world began research into it that they would not have the 4 lists you asked for? yes again there are many many fakes in this world and yet again however there are many things that defy explanation.  just how many people have you tested yourself in such situations instead of relying on others to tell you that something is not true?

Remember that you're the one with this hypothesis. So the burden of data/evidence is on you to provide what you hypothesize. I do need any help to look for evidence of beliefs that I am already without.

And yes, there are many fakes. But there are also people that believe what there doing or saying is true and so in that respect, they are not a fraud. In order to lie one has to know the truth. Preaching and producing nonsense requires no such conviction.

As for your last bit, I could just as easily ask you the same question. With that being said, I don't just rely on what I am told; I don't believe in everything I hear or read, especially wild claims such as psychic healing can heal the sick which by way has no basis in medicine.

Also, the appeal to ignorance doesn't really make for a good argument.

maxx

oh I always ask myself and I look for myself and I do not rely on others to tell me what is true or not, that would be hypocritical of one to deride others with derision when they say something without facts or having others to produce the facts yet all the while doing the same ones-self
. you do that to religious people on here and yet you do the same. do you go out and make experiments on how old the world really is?   no  you simply rely on what you were taught as you grew up.  where is your evidence that the world Is billions of years old old aside from what others say?  believing what we are taught without our own checks which I doubt you do, is dogmatic and shows a closed mind as well as stagnation. let me see your experiments that prove that something that you were taught is correct @ZeusAres42

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

oh I always ask myself and I look for myself and I do not rely on others to tell me what is true or not, that would be hypocritical of one to deride others with derision when they say something without facts or having others to produce the facts yet all the while doing the same ones-self
. you do that to religious people on here and yet you do the same. do you go out and make experiments on how old the world really is?   no  you simply rely on what you were taught as you grew up.  where is your evidence that the world Is billions of years old old aside from what others say?  believing what we are taught without our own checks which I doubt you do, is dogmatic and shows a closed mind as well as stagnation. let me see your experiments that prove that something that you were taught is correct

Have you actually got an argument that addresses what I said beforehand as opposed to one based on presumptuous theories about me personally, and also one that doesn't goes off on a tangent?

If not, then I think we're done here.

Dee

@maxx

****first  I never blindly claimed he was real; my post was on thoughts on how he did what was reported; and yes I could provide testimonials on the people back them as well as the science journals he was listed in but I am not paying money just so you can say so what. 

Right , so Uri Geller back in the 70's was genuine using your criteria , scientists are just s easily duped when it comes to psychic trickery just like they were in the 70's when all

around the world Geller was hailed as genuine , the only people qualified are those who are skilled deceptionists as in Magicians /mentalists which is why the Randi foundation in the U S has not had a single psychic come close to claiming  a 1 million prize for a demonstration of a genuine psychic feat , this is something you keep ignoring and failing to address why'd that?

 *******you say ?  you want ? how about the line you said about you not blindly following what others have told you? What experiments did you use to determine the age of the earth? How did you measure the expansion of the universe or when was the last time you used carbon dating? you do not ! you simply rely on others and what you have been taught and that is just what religious people do and you put them down for doing exactly what you do yourself; 

Right , everything you quote is based on scientific facts which can be easily verified by high school science students you're attempting to lump in pseudoscience which is nonsense with scientific facts which have mountains of evidence to support them.

You cannot even provide an example of a genuine psychic event because they are none , whys that?

*****believing with out producing your own evidence and facts and saying it is true because others told you so and that my dear is a hypocrite*****

You mean believing something that's built on mountains of evidence is wrong but believing a man who claimed eating raw rabbit skin cures cancer must be right because he says so .... Oooookay 

James Randi, who is convinced that Cayce was a fraud, writes: 

Many of the letters he received—in fact, most—contained specific details about the illness for which the readings were required, and there was nothing to stop Cayce from knowing the contents of the letters and presenting that information as if it were a divine revelation. To one who has been through dozens of similar diagnoses, as I have, the methods are obvious. It is merely a specialized version of the ‘generalization’ technique of fortune-tellers.

Here are just a few of Cayce the Cons failed prophecies......
Cayce is criticized for making dramatic prophecies that failed to come true: California would slide into the oceanNew York City would be destroyed in a cataclysmthe US would discover a death ray used on Atlantis in 1958China would be converted to Christianity by 1968

What happened there Maxx do you think?

Dee

@maxx

****first  I never blindly claimed he was real; my post was on thoughts on how he did what was reported; and yes I could provide testimonials on the people back them as well as the science journals he was listed in but I am not paying money just so you can say so what. 

Right , so Uri Geller back in the 70's was genuine using your criteria , scientists are just s easily duped when it comes to psychic trickery just like they were in the 70's when all

around the world Geller was hailed as genuine , the only people qualified are those who are skilled deceptionists as in Magicians /mentalists which is why the Randi foundation in the U S has not had a single psychic come close to claiming  a 1 million prize for a demonstration of a genuine psychic feat , this is something you keep ignoring and failing to address why'd that?

 *******you say ?  you want ? how about the line you said about you not blindly following what others have told you? What experiments did you use to determine the age of the earth? How did you measure the expansion of the universe or when was the last time you used carbon dating? you do not ! you simply rely on others and what you have been taught and that is just what religious people do and you put them down for doing exactly what you do yourself; 

Right , everything you quote is based on scientific facts which can be easily verified by high school science students you're attempting to lump in pseudoscience which is nonsense with scientific facts which have mountains of evidence to support them.

You cannot even provide an example of a genuine psychic event because they are none , whys that?

*****believing with out producing your own evidence and facts and saying it is true because others told you so and that my dear is a hypocrite*****

You mean believing something that's built on mountains of evidence is wrong but believing a man who claimed eating raw rabbit skin cures cancer must be right because he says so .... Oooookay 

James Randi, who is convinced that Cayce was a fraud, writes: 

Many of the letters he received—in fact, most—contained specific details about the illness for which the readings were required, and there was nothing to stop Cayce from knowing the contents of the letters and presenting that information as if it were a divine revelation. To one who has been through dozens of similar diagnoses, as I have, the methods are obvious. It is merely a specialized version of the ‘generalization’ technique of fortune-tellers.

Here are just a few of Cayce the Cons failed prophecies......
Cayce is criticized for making dramatic prophecies that failed to come true: California would slide into the oceanNew York City would be destroyed in a cataclysmthe US would discover a death ray used on Atlantis in 1958China would be converted to Christianity by 1968

What happened there Maxx do you think?

Dee

@maxx

Police psychics failure rate is as expected , read on from the Sceptical Enquirer ....

The Bottom Line

Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.

Common sense suggests that if psychics really had the powers they claim then they would long ago have identified the “Unabomber” or have discovered the remains of missing Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa. If they cannot accomplish such missions individually, how much more telling is their collective inability to do so.

****As well the military and governments have studied the phenomenon  for years. 

Yes and all have stopped using  money on resources on what they realised was B S 

******True, there are things that happen that are strange that eventually have a logical explanation, yet you have failed to state that there are just as many if not more occurrences that simply defy explanation. 

Like what for example?

MayCaesar

@maxx ;

You assume that those who disagree with you never check anything and just blindly believe what the society tells them, yet do not think the same about yourself. That is a dangerous line of thinking, my friend, making it very likely that someone will eventually exploit it. There is no easier way to be tricked than to believe that you are the only one out there who cannot be tricked. People with the highest degree of arrogance tend to be the ones that fall down the heaviest.

I was born in Soviet Union. The society in which I grew up taught its people very strange values. People were supposed to be cogs in the machine, serving the community like ants. It was wrong to be smarter than others, richer than others, happier than others, more outspoken than others, different from others in almost any regard. You stood out in any way - you became a target of peer pressure, authority abuse and constant shaming from common folks.
Believe me when I say that I know first-hand just how deep societal conditioning can go.

But to assume that absolutely everyone who disagrees with you does so solely because of that conditioning - is a fallacy. You assume, for example, that I only think that the world is billions years old because others told me so. But what do you really know about my background? What if I tell you that I have taken multiple graduate-level courses on the subject and read a couple of sophisticated books?
And even had I not - what makes you think that there is absolutely no rationale in my position, other than "others told me so"?

Never assume anything about others until you have actually learned something about them. People will surprise you in many different ways if you think you can know them after a few minutes of talking to them, and more often than not those surprises will not play out in your favor.

maxx

I am not talking about propaganda or mind control; I am talking about what almost everyone in this world does; believe in what is taught by schools, parents, and peers without ever challenging what one is taught. people simply rely on other peoples evidence and accept it and unless you have a high degree in field archeology with the knowledge of how radioactive uranium decays into lead. you are going to accept what others show you as evidence. you would not have any idea how old bones were simply by looking at them nor how old parts of the earth is. you grow up with what you are taught and most people will continue to accept those teachings once an adult. in the same way. many people grow up accepting a creator and they few would challenge their own beliefs once an adult. If pressed for evidence they may point out intelligent design or something of the sort.  As you well know, evidence can be manufactured. it can be destroyed. ewe accept what we are taught; which is why I try to keep a very open mind about things we do not understand. I tend to question everything regardless of any proof. the world being 4 billions years old? maybe and maybe not,  if I were to accept that the earth has been transformed by many upheavals long ago then I doubt that there is nothing original to actually date left. do I believe in some sort of creator?  I do not know, if there is one then I may think that the universe was created for the benefit of the creator and we are but by-products of the creation. what I am saying is that unless we have the ability to do our own tests upon such things, then we have to rely on the evidence of others and we in general, have no way to know if it is true other than them saying so.@MayCaesar

Plaffelvohfen

@maxx

You really should watch this clip:  

It relates perfectly to what you are talking about when you write that people simply rely on other peoples evidence and accept it...

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I tend to question everything regardless of any proof.

With regard to this, there is a saying: "You need to keep your mind open, but not so open that the brains fall out". If you question everything regardless of any proof, then how do you learn about the world exactly? If no proof ever does anything to you, then how do you tell plausible hypotheses from implausible ones?

It is okay to ask questions and see where they lead. But if you ask questions and, no matter what answers you get, you still keep asking the same questions over and over again - then what is the point of those questions in the first place? You do not arrive anywhere from asking a question, if you are not interested in the answer.

You do not have to accept any theories. But if you are interested in a certain aspect of how the world works, you will have to do some learning and fact-checking. And if no fact-checking ever resolves anything for you, then you will never learn anything about the world.

Lastly, with regards to the "manufactured evidence" - you can manufacture some pieces of evidence, but you cannot manufacture the structure of reality producing that evidence. People who believe that Earth is 6,000 years old say that all the dinosaur fossils were made up by scientists. That would imply that scientists planted countless fossils all around the Earth, sometimes in very hard to reach places, and have been doing it for a very long time - and somehow not a single whistleblower ever pointed it out. Do you find it likely? I do not.
"Evidence can be manufactured" is not a valid excuse to dismiss all evidence which is inconvenient to your world view. If this piece of evidence is manufactured, then you can find another one that is not. And if every single piece of evidence that contradicts your world view has to be claimed to be manufactured in order for your world view to survive, then your world view does not deserve to survive.

maxx

I agree with most of what you said save for one thing;  the structure of reality does not create evidence and the structure of reality is all dependent upon ones frame of reference and that has been shown many times in quantum mechanics@MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

Which is why I try to keep a very open mind about things we do not understand. I tend to que

Indeed , which leaves me wondering what don’t we understand? What is an example of something “supernatural” that baffles science? I keep asking but you cannot answer why’s that?

You don’t “question everything “ you dismiss what’s uncomfortable as in you cannot explain why no one has ever demonstrated a psychic ability and you totally ignore evidence Cayce was a fraud, your mind is totally closed and will remain so as you take pride in your gullibility 

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

The word proof, however, is not a word that should really be used in science. It's much better I think to use the word evidence. The following excerpt states this nicely:

Proof vs. Evidence

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof". What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea. Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics. What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses. https://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

That whole article makes for good reading actually.

maxx said:

I tend to question everything regardless of any proof.

With regard to this, there is a saying: "You need to keep your mind open, but not so open that the brains fall out".

Similarly, several people often tend to conflate the appeal to authority fallacy with the deferring to authority heuristic.

Dee

For anyone who’s interested in reading Cayces brilliance in print here you go .....In Atlantis according to Caye they had TV , laser and death rays ...... maybe @maxx is thinking about the Flintstones ( a cartoon) they had TV ........You May find it hard getting a copy as they’re probably all sold out ......Maybe @maxx could lend the members his much thumbed copy?