[DonQuichotte (OP)]

   

Is The Free Will Just an Elaborate ...Illusion ?

More of a pointless philosophical abstraction than an illusion.

Free will is as real as we are .
Scientific experiments 's right interpretation is enough evidence for just that fact .
See above thus .

[David Cooper]

The brain does thus not do much in fact  , so to speak , the mind is the one doing almost everything , the brain merely generates the data it receives from our senses to be sent to our consciousness somehow thus , and then afterwards , the brain just receives back the corresponding process of the mind via reflecting its image , an image most scientists take for the cause of the process , thanks to materialism thus .

Which is why brain damage has no impact on the capability of the mind, and it's also why a fly can think every bit as well as a human, because its mind is not constrained by its tiny brain.

[cheryl j]

There  are no such things such as "materialistic " findings ,as there are no such things such as the materialistic "methods ",  simply because materialism is just a false conception of nature , an ideology , a world view ..

Okay then, if you don't like the term I used, then replace it with "methods and experiments involving the physical processes of chemistry and physics, cells etc". Again, just because some scientists choose to study those aspects, it doesn't prevent anyone else from investigating "the rest of reality as a whole." No one is tying their hands.

Unless you see the hand of God or some immaterial force in every single physical interaction, there is no reason why experiments involving just chemistry and physics or cells should necessarily be "false." My point earlier, was that I would think those experiments and findings would still be useful, even for someone  who believes in free will, in ruling out where it is not.

Mystics, however aren't fond of any constraints or boundaries, so they don't find them helpful. Basically, their view is "anything can happen, any way, any time" as illustrated by  Sheldrake's quote: “Morphic resonance is non-energetic, and morphogenetic fields themselves are neither a type of mass nor energy. Therefore there seems to be no a priori reason why it should obey the laws that have been found to apply to the movement of bodies, particles and waves. In particular, it need not be attenuated by either spatial or temporal separation between similar systems, it could be just  as effective over 10,000 kilometres as over a centimetre, and over a century as an hour."

There may be things beyond what physics understands, but I don't see how one makes use of that premise, without having any idea what, specifically, those things are, and without having any evidence for them. Being open minded is one thing, but believing "anything can happen because of things we don't know about" is paralyzing, not helpful. 

[cheryl j]

I am well aware of those scientific experiments regarding when patients' brains get   scanned ,while those patients are asked to perfom or think about a decision , like raising one of their arms : scientists think they can predict   the specific decision -making of those patients many seconds allegedly before the latter would be aware of his/ her  presumed decision-making in question , when scientists  see that the raising of the arm precedes the firing of those corresponding brain regions involved in that process  : those scientists do not realise the fact that they  do take   the image of that process for its cause thus, by assuming that the firing of those specific corresponding brain regions is the  actual decision -making process in question, while the firing of those corresponding brain regions in question are just the image of that process in fact , the image of the process that does occur always afterwards thus , after the actual cause of the process that precedes it , logically....



.....Consciousness as a sort of a transmitter might be the one sending its "data " somehow to the physical brain to raise the patient's arm, prior thus to the firing of those brain corresponding regions  thus  :those scientific experiemnts do prove this fact in fact ., which does prove the fact that those scientific experiments are a matter of ...interpretation thus  .

The brain is just the image of the process of the mind thus , not its cause , that's why the arm gets raised before the brain fires : it is in fact the mind thus that causes the arm to be raised , and then afterwards the brain just reflects the image of that mind process of raising the arm .

You've misread something in those experiments, whether you agree with them or not. The arm does not get moved before neurons fire. Neurons in the brain fire before the patient experiences the conscious decision to move his hand. They are saying brain activity precedes the conscious experience, which makes it harder to argue that brain states are just a reflection of consciousness, or that the brain is the just middle-man between consciousness and the body. The only way your interpretation works is if you were to claim that there is some part of the immaterial consciousness process that occurs before you are conscious of it, but that really messes up your concept of free will. Quite a sticky wickett, isn't it.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The brain does thus not do much in fact  , so to speak , the mind is the one doing almost everything , the brain merely generates the data it receives from our senses to be sent to our consciousness somehow thus , and then afterwards , the brain just receives back the corresponding process of the mind via reflecting its image , an image most scientists take for the cause of the process , thanks to materialism thus .

Which is why brain damage has no impact on the capability of the mind, and it's also why a fly can think every bit as well as a human, because its mind is not constrained by its tiny brain.

[/quote]

Brain damage just disconnects the specific brain damaged areas from their corresponding aspects of consciousness , it does not make the latter go away .
The physical brain is just the image of the process of consciousness, not its cause .
The physical brain as both a generator ( via our senses thus ) and a receiver of consciousness, the latter as some sort of a transmitter , i guess .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

There  are no such things such as "materialistic " findings ,as there are no such things such as the materialistic "methods ",  simply because materialism is just a false conception of nature , an ideology , a world view ..

Okay then, if you don't like the term I used, then replace it with "methods and experiments involving the physical processes of chemistry and physics, cells etc". Again, just because some scientists choose to study those aspects, it doesn't prevent anyone else from investigating "the rest of reality as a whole." No one is tying their hands.

What you do not seem to be getting so far is that science has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical ,including consciousness  or the mind , free will, life , memory , feelings , emotions, evolution and the rest ,  thanks to materialism : that's the mainstream "scientific world view " that's , obviously false .

Even when the most physical of all sciences , modern physics , tries to study the physical laws ,atoms , sub-atoms , the universe ...or  the physical side of reality even modern physics , biology , and the rest of all the other sciences do take for granted as the whole real thing or as the whole reality thus , when all sciences do just that , they just give us a distored and one sided version of reality by assuming that physics and chemistry are all what there is to reality as a whole , and by reducing reality as a whole thus to just physics and chemistry , by excluding the existence of the mental or non-physical side of reality they do reduce to the physical , while the mental or non-physical is irreducible to the physical  .
In other words :
When science assumes that reality as a whole  is just a matter of physics and chemistry as all  sciences for that matter have been doing for so long now , thanks to materialism, they cannot but try to come up with a theory of everything = a theory of nothing , that presumably pretends to explain everything just in terms of physics and chemistry .

When scientists just study one part of reality , the physical or material one , they have been taking for granted as the whole reality , they cannot but give us thus a distorted  version of reality as a whole , logically .
But , fact is : reality as a whole is  not just a matter of physics and chemistry, not just material or physical  .
It's perfectly ok that  scientists thus do study the material or physical side of reality , nobody is against just that , on the contrary ,but,  scientists should not take the latter side of reality for granted as the whole real thing , as the 'scientific world view" .
Scientists should thus stop trying to explain everything just in terms of physics and chemistry + just in terms of the extensions of the latter .

All sciences should thus reject that false "scientific world view " , by rejecting materialism , and therefore by including the missing mental or non-physical part of reality, or just the parts of the latter with which they can deal empirically .
In short :
Physics and chemistry are not all what there is to reality as a whole, are not all what there is to life , its evolution emergence and origins ... .
The mainstream   false "scientific world view " has been thus assuming that physics and chemistry are all what there is to reality as a whole, unfortunately enough  .

All that gotta change , simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical , so, any attempts of all sciences to try to describe , explain and therefore make us understand reality just in terms of physics and chemistry , all those attempts do just give us a distorted version of reality as whole , simply because they miss the mental or non-physical side of reality without which any approach of reality as a whole is , per definition, reductionist and therefore incomplete+ fundamentally false  .

Unless you see the hand of God or some immaterial force in every single physical interaction, there is no reason why experiments involving just chemistry and physics or cells should necessarily be "false." My point earlier, was that I would think those experiments and findings would still be useful, even for someone  who believes in free will, in ruling out where it is not.

There are  no such  things  such  as just physics and chemistry: nothing is just physics and chemistry  , not even at the level of scientific experiments involving just physics and chemistry : the latter are just a part of the whole picture , otherwise , try to explain to anyone for that matter how just physics and chemistry can account for the intrinsic relative self-organization of living organisms, for example  .

To say that we are just hardware programmed by DNA software is just a mechanist teleological absurd notion and analogy that cannot explain really how the self-organization of living organisms , how DNA ....do what they do : to try to explain that in evolutionary terms does also fail in addressing that issue and more :

For example : how can DNA , physics and chemistry , let alone the materialist version of evolution explain how certain migrating birds do know exactly when how and where they should be migrating ?

Mystics, however aren't fond of any constraints or boundaries, so they don't find them helpful. Basically, their view is "anything can happen, any way, any time" as illustrated by  Sheldrake's quote: “Morphic resonance is non-energetic, and morphogenetic fields themselves are neither a type of mass nor energy. Therefore there seems to be no a priori reason why it should obey the laws that have been found to apply to the movement of bodies, particles and waves. In particular, it need not be attenuated by either spatial or temporal separation between similar systems, it could be just  as effective over 10,000 kilometres as over a centimetre, and over a century as an hour."

That has nothing to do with mysticism .
The laws of physics do occur only at the material or physical side of reality , they can therefore only partly explain what does occur at the material or physical side of reality , the latter that has been taken for granted as the whole reality as such .
But when one would try to take the fact into consideration that reality as a whole is not just material or physical, then , the whole pic changes radically as to suggest that the laws of physics themselves or the physical conventional  causation are not all what there is to reality as a whole , a fact which does imply that there might be some more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying even the laws of physics themselves = other totally unknown and totally different forms of causation, totally different from the laws of physics thus .

There may be things beyond what physics understands, but I don't see how one makes use of that premise, without having any idea what, specifically, those things are, and without having any evidence for them. Being open minded is one thing, but believing "anything can happen because of things we don't know about" is paralyzing, not helpful.

Physics and chemistry , or rather the material or physical side of reality as a whole is just one part of the whole pic , so, to assume that that single part of the pic is the whole pic , as all sciences have been assuming it to be so far , to assume just that thus is a false premise , or rather a false conception of nature in science , that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " , a false 'scientific world view " in all sciences that has serious implications for how all sciences " see " reality as a whole , for how they try to explain it , describe it ,and therefore that has serious implications also for   how all sciences have been trying to make us understand reality , and therefore for our understanding of what reality might be through science , the latter that gives us thus just a distortion of reality  as a result.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I am well aware of those scientific experiments regarding when patients' brains get   scanned ,while those patients are asked to perfom or think about a decision , like raising one of their arms : scientists think they can predict   the specific decision -making of those patients many seconds allegedly before the latter would be aware of his/ her  presumed decision-making in question , when scientists  see that the raising of the arm precedes the firing of those corresponding brain regions involved in that process  : those scientists do not realise the fact that they  do take   the image of that process for its cause thus, by assuming that the firing of those specific corresponding brain regions is the  actual decision -making process in question, while the firing of those corresponding brain regions in question are just the image of that process in fact , the image of the process that does occur always afterwards thus , after the actual cause of the process that precedes it , logically....



.....Consciousness as a sort of a transmitter might be the one sending its "data " somehow to the physical brain to raise the patient's arm, prior thus to the firing of those brain corresponding regions  thus  :those scientific experiemnts do prove this fact in fact ., which does prove the fact that those scientific experiments are a matter of ...interpretation thus  .

The brain is just the image of the process of the mind thus , not its cause , that's why the arm gets raised before the brain fires : it is in fact the mind thus that causes the arm to be raised , and then afterwards the brain just reflects the image of that mind process of raising the arm .

You've misread something in those experiments, whether you agree with them or not. The arm does not get moved before neurons fire. Neurons in the brain fire before the patient experiences the conscious decision to move his hand. They are saying brain activity precedes the conscious experience, which makes it harder to argue that brain states are just a reflection of consciousness, or that the brain is the just middle-man between consciousness and the body. The only way your interpretation works is if you were to claim that there is some part of the immaterial consciousness process that occurs before you are conscious of it, but that really messes up your concept of free will. Quite a sticky wickett, isn't it.

[/quote]

I thought i misread those experiments  indeed , afterwards .
But , that does not change anything regarding my point of view on the subject .

Consciousness is not caused by the brain's activity , that's the core issue here :

That's by the way the biggest error ever made in science : the image of the process of consciousness gets mistaken for its cause :

The Biggest Error Ever Made in the Name of Science :

The mind is not in the brain , so, when one would assume that it is , as the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " has been doing , then, it' s pretty logical to assume that the conscious feeling of raising the arm gets experienced after the firing of neurons : those scientific experiments are a matter of interpretation thus , and the latter depends largely on how one perceives reality as a whole to be , including the nature of consciousness or the mind thus .

[RD]

The physical brain as both a generator ( via our senses thus ) and a receiver of consciousness, the latter as some sort of a transmitter ...

Current understanding, (that the mind is entirely within your skull), is sufficient to explain all observed psychological phenomena,  [ telepathy/souls/afterlife have never been proven to occur ].

So there is no need for your thin-client model of consciousness, and no evidence for it.

You’d need to provide some evidence to overturn current understanding, e.g. demonstrate the existence of the servers for these thin-clients, (where are they ?) , and evidence of transmission of data from to/from the server , ( if someone wears a tin-foil balaclava will they be unable to retrieve archived data , (aka remember), because the connection to the sever has been blocked ? )

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The physical brain is just the image of the process of consciousness, not its cause .
The physical brain as both a generator ( via our senses thus ) and a receiver of consciousness, the latter as some sort of a transmitter ...

Current understanding, (that the mind is entirely within your skull), is sufficient to explain all observed psychological phenomena,  [ telepathy/souls/afterlife have never been proven to occur ].

So there is no need for your thin-client model of consciousness, and no evidence for it.

You’d need to provide some evidence to overturn current understanding, e.g. demonstrate the existence of the servers for these thin-clients, (where are they ?) , and evidence of transmission of data from to/from the server , ( if someone wears a tin-foil balaclava will they be unable to retrieve archived data , (aka remember), because the connection to the sever has been blocked ? )

The only people who wear foil-hats, but not in jest, (or wallpaper their home with it), are psychiatrically ill, trying to block the voices in their head which they misinterpret as remote mind-control via radio-waves.

[/quote]

Any anti-reductionism theories , either the dualist or idealist ones, regarding either the nature of consciousness , its function, its origins , its emergence or its evolution ,  or regarding the  communication of consciousnss or the mind somehow with the physical brain ,and vice versa , have never pretended to have all answers on the subject , on the contrary , unlike the reductionist materialism in science  on the same subject of mind and body  .

It all comes down to the following then :

Just tell me then why and how did you come to believe in the materialis "fact " , or rather in the materialist core belief assumption that reality as a whole is just material or physical , incuding the mental  the mind or the non-physical ?

Has science ever proved the materialist "fact ", or rather the materialist core belief assumption to be "true " regarding the nature of reality as a whole , ever ? Obviously ...not , never, ever, obviously  .

In short :

To believe that consciousness or the mind are caused by the physical brain's activity , or that the mind is in the brain ,are just  logical extensions of the materialist core belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality as a whole , no empirical facts .

You're therefore just a secular materialist believer who has been taking his own materialist belief for granted as the 'scientific world view "

Congratulations : you have not only been believing  in a big materialist lie , make -believe , but you have been also taking that big lie for granted as the 'scientific world view " .
Way to go , genius .

[RD]

... have never pretended to have all answers on the subject

I never asked for "all answers", just that you would have to produce some hard evidence to demonstrate your hypothesis is what is occurring in reality. I gave you two suggestions in my previous post, [  just occurred to me a water-tight submarine with thick steel walls would be a better example than a metal-foil balaclava ]. If you can find something which  blocks the alleged transmission of data to/from brain to/from the alleged external storage device, that would be very strong evidence to support your case.

Just tell me then why and how did you come to believe ...

Belief is a matter of evidence. There is no hard evidence to support your hypothesis.
Come up with an experiment which anyone can replicate which  demonstrates the orthodox "materialist" view is wrong and your "belief" is correct, then people will believe you are correct, (and give you a Nobel Prize , there are other prizes too).

[David Cooper]

For example : how can DNA , physics and chemistry , let alone the materialist version of evolution explain how certain migrating birds do know exactly when how and where they should be migrating ?

A lot of birds follow simple programs to migrate. Experiments have shown that if you put them in the right kind of circular container, they may flutter against the side for hours, then move to another part and flutter there for hours more. Had they actually flown rather than being trapped in a container, the directions they fluttered in and the durations of those flutters would have taken them directly along their programmed migration route. These programs are subject to random mutations which result in different birds ending up in different places, with some going thousands of miles off course, the result often being death in an ocean or other unsuitable habitat, but sometimes they survive and establish the genetics for new migration routes which make the species more robust.

[David Cooper]

Brain damage just disconnects the specific brain damaged areas from their corresponding aspects of consciousness , it does not make the latter go away .
The physical brain is just the image of the process of consciousness, not its cause .
The physical brain as both a generator ( via our senses thus ) and a receiver of consciousness, the latter as some sort of a transmitter , i guess .

Why do you imagine that every little bit of functionality of consciousness relies on a piece of hardware in the brain which carries out the same function? When you damage part of the brain, you directly damage the function there and not merely a linkage to identical function elsewhere. The brain provides the functionality directly.

[cheryl j]

What you do not seem to be getting so far is that science has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical ,including consciousness  or the mind , free will, life , memory , feelings , emotions, evolution and the rest ,  thanks to materialism : that's the mainstream "scientific world view " that's , obviously false .

And what you don't get is the idea of relevancy.  It doesn't matter what science assumes or doesn't assume about other parts of reality if those parts aren't relevant to what an individual scientist is examining. If a botanist fails to include string theory or magnetism or Lorentz contractions or angels or plate tectonics in his plant experiment, he isn't going to generate false conclusions unless those things actually have some effect on the plant mechanism he is studying. And you need evidence to show that they might be relevant. Otherwise one is stuck with never being able to draw any conclusions at all if one believes anything can happen in any way because of things we don't know about. And that is mysticism or simply being irrational.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

For example : how can DNA , physics and chemistry , let alone the materialist version of evolution explain how certain migrating birds do know exactly when how and where they should be migrating ?

A lot of birds follow simple programs to migrate. Experiments have shown that if you put them in the right kind of circular container, they may flutter against the side for hours, then move to another part and flutter there for hours more. Had they actually flown rather than being trapped in a container, the directions they fluttered in and the durations of those flutters would have taken them directly along their programmed migration route. These programs are subject to random mutations which result in different birds ending up in different places, with some going thousands of miles off course, the result often being death in an ocean or other unsuitable habitat, but sometimes they survive and establish the genetics for new migration routes which make the species more robust.

[/quote]

You did not answer my core questions :  you were  just migrating somehereelse instead :

How can physics and chemistry alone account for such  sophisticated innate or intrinsic migration  'programs " of those birds ?

Did phsyics and chemistry "create " some sort of  sophisticated gps or radar for those specific migrating birds to follow somehow and how exactly ? and how does that process  looks like ?  Can you describe it to me ? in some specific clear form or another ?

How do phsyics and chemistry alone show those migrating birds  the way they should take back and forth , let alone precisely 'dictate " to them when they should migrate , how and where exactly  they should migrate , without almost ever being lost ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What you do not seem to be getting so far is that science has been assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical ,including consciousness  or the mind , free will, life , memory , feelings , emotions, evolution and the rest ,  thanks to materialism : that's the mainstream "scientific world view " that's , obviously false .

And what you don't get is the idea of relevancy.  It doesn't matter what science assumes or doesn't assume about other parts of reality if those parts aren't relevant to what an individual scientist is examining. If a botanist fails to include string theory or magnetism or Lorentz contractions or angels or plate tectonics in his plant experiment, he isn't going to generate false conclusions unless those things actually have some effect on the plant mechanism he is studying. And you need evidence to show that they might be relevant. Otherwise one is stuck with never being able to draw any conclusions at all if one believes anything can happen in any way because of things we don't know about. And that is mysticism or simply being irrational.

[/quote]

No, you do not get it yet , despite your irrelevant empty rhetorics or false analogies :

Let me instead try to draw you a pic of some sort :

As a painter yourself , when you do assume, via some false belief of yours on the subject you might have been taking for granted as the mainstream artistic "true" holistic version  of nature ,  when you do assume thus that a certain part of a given  painting is all what there is to that specific painting as a whole , while assuming that the other part of that same painting does not exist as such or at least that you cannot see it somehow , does that mean that the whole pic of that painting is just that specific part of the pic only, you have been assuming that 's what all there is to that pic as a whole ?

That's exactly what all sciences have been doing in relation to the universe as a whole , via that materialist false mainstream 'scientific world view ", ironically unbelievably incredibly paradoxically absurdly ...crazy enough .

[cheryl j]

The mind is not in the brain , so, when one would assume that it is , as the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " has been doing , then, it' s pretty logical to assume that the conscious feeling of raising the arm gets experienced after the firing of neurons : those scientific experiments are a matter of interpretation thus , and the latter depends largely on how one perceives reality as a whole to be , including the nature of consciousness or the mind thus .

No, it's not a question of interpretation at all. You can claim the experiments were improperly done or fraudulent if you want, but there is really only one interpretation, unless, as I said, you decide there is some part of the immaterial process of consciousness that occurs before you are conscious of it, which contradicts its definition. Or I suppose you could claim consciousness' effects can go backwards in time.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Brain damage just disconnects the specific brain damaged areas from their corresponding aspects of consciousness , it does not make the latter go away .
The physical brain is just the image of the process of consciousness, not its cause .
The physical brain as both a generator ( via our senses thus ) and a receiver of consciousness, the latter as some sort of a transmitter , i guess .

Why do you imagine that every little bit of functionality of consciousness relies on a piece of hardware in the brain which carries out the same function? When you damage part of the brain, you directly damage the function there and not merely a linkage to identical function elsewhere. The brain provides the functionality directly.

[/quote]

Should i try to go back to my dusty attic or closets to try to find my old  tv set or radio analogies , in order to try to find out about where exactly should i look inside of my old and still functioning tv to see whether Obama or CNN are still living in there inside of that old tv of mine or not  ?

Should i try to try to reverse-engineer my old and still functioning radio to see whether the programs it used to broadcast or would broadcast , to see whether they are still living inside of my radio or not ?

Not to mention that i , maybe , should destroy both my tv set and radio just to see if those respectively received images ,and programs were/are 'created " by respectively my tv set and radio ?

Come on, be serious .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... have never pretended to have all answers on the subject

I never asked for "all answers", just that you would have to produce some hard evidence to demonstrate your hypothesis is what is occurring in reality. I gave you two suggestions in my previous post, [  just occurred to me a water-tight submarine with thick steel walls would be a better example than a metal-foil balaclava ]. If you can find something which  blocks the alleged transmission of data to/from brain to/from the alleged external storage device, that would be very strong evidence to support your case.

Just tell me then why and how did you come to believe ...

Belief is a matter of evidence. There is no hard evidence to support your hypothesis.
Come up with an experiment which anyone can replicate which  demonstrates the orthodox "materialist" view is wrong and your "belief" is correct, then people will believe you are correct, (and give you a Nobel Prize , there are other prizes too).

[/quote]


(Just try to answer this core seemingly  easy question instead of sending the ball back to me :
Where is then the extraordinary  evidence for the extraordinary claims of materialism ,and hence for those of the 'scientific world view " regarding the nature of reality ?

Can you or will you just try to deliver just that then , for a change ? Can you or will you do just that then ?

Oh, boy , you will most certainly be making such a fool of yourself as a result , to the point that  you will turn out to be  such an entertaining guy after all , despite your complete lack of humor, tact  and imagination so far , the latter you can never be able to compensate or hide behind your silly arrogant insulting and condescendent phony , just kidding , boomerang attitude , a boomerang that failed to hit its intended targets , and hence comes back to hit you right in your bullie = weak ...mask of a face .
Take off that mask , i must add , be a man , and just try to deliver the extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary  materialist "scientific world view " claims .Deal ? )




Try to answer my questions ,first , instead of migrating somewhereelse via some inexplicable magical performances tricks , thanks to physics and chemistry alone   "travel guide program " that allegedly has been created in you via the magical astronomical mutations powers of the materialist version of evolution goddess.

Deal ?

[RD]

Try to answer my questions ,first , instead of migrating somewhereelse via some inexplicable magical performances tricks

You’re the only one here proposing “inexplicable magical performances tricks” like telepathy,
which are either tricks (fraud) or claims of a deluded person.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Try to answer my questions ,first , instead of migrating somewhereelse via some inexplicable magical performances tricks

You’re the only one here proposing “inexplicable magical performances tricks” like telepathy,
which are either tricks (fraud) or claims of a deluded person.

[/quote]

Oh, come on : just be a big boy , and answer my questions , please ?

Deal ?

Come on, you can do it ...yes, you can ...