Royal Mail's Nobel guru in telepathy row

Liar42 liar42 at aol.com
Wed Nov 7 06:40:36 EST 2001


> Frankly I would have  thought researchers into such stuff would be falling
over themselves to  produce proper proof.<

What, to write some sense censored idiots some paper?

Might not occur to you that for magic 
magic is regarded as the proper way to communicate about a lot of it.

In Germanic magic it is not custom to write about magic, and magic is regarded
as the suited means to communicated about magic.
In Red Indian magic it also does not seem custom to write about magic.
I have not heard from Aborigine magic that they fall over themselves to write
about magic.

Maybe someone who is blind regards it as the proper way to learn about a
picture to write about it, but others might regard it as the easiest way to
learn about it to look at it.

And even if someone blind were to hop up and down that the only proper way to
learn about a picture is to write about it, and that others must write about
pictures for him,
others who see might continue to regard as the proper way to learn about a
picture to look at the picture,
and regard to just read about it to never be the same as to look at it.

They could read from morning to evening about it and it would never be the same
than to see it.

And the blind people could demand forever that the proper way to learn about
pictures is to write about them, and that all must do so now,
but that is unlikely to make all artists and all persons liking to watch their
pictures ceasing the believe that to make pictures and to look at pictures is
relevant there,
and that to learn about a picture in a written way is never the same as seeing
it, and a lot would rather see the picture than read about it.

And even if a blind one kept expressing that he does not understand why they
don't all write about pictures, because that is the proper way to perceive
them,
others might rather look at pictures.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list