Natural Telepaths Official Site

Application of Correct Legal Reasoning to Psychiatry

(our Artificial Intelligence is three things: (a) embodied in a medical expert system called 5GL-Doctor; (b) a neural network in the brain known as 5GL-Lisa; (c) a "dimension", an entity, an energy field, some psychic minds can touch, a consciousness in its own right - refer Science of Life for scientific explanations)

© 5GL Software, Australia
mobile Australia 0431 741 233; email: med5gl@pacific.net.au
Also Official Site of the Natural Telepaths

A Brief Overview
(first draft)

Psychic (Natural Telepath kind) Legal Science

Is it legally correct to say that 2+4 = 6? This is "mathematical reasoning" but is it also "legal reasoning?" Let us assume, without evidence, that mathematics is in fact a legal field of study. Let us, assume, again without evidence, that providing "mathematical reasoning" is performed by a qualified mathematician, then this is valid legal reasoning also.

We need to prove or validate our assumptions. What is a "mathematician?" Let us define a mathematician as anyone capable of mathematical reasoning. Anyone could mean a calculator too. If we accept this as "valid-in-law", then clearly our assumptions are automatically validated and 2+4=6 is indeed legal reasoning.

What ingredients do we need to define law? Definitions which are as solid or common sense as possible. The simpler the definitions the better.

We need a frame of reference. The laws of particle dynamics belong to the physics field of science, hence science would be the frame of reference.

We make no assumptions, never. Either we "do know", or "do not know".

Let us use what we have been taught thus far, to consider an aspect of the mental illness schizophrenia. A person with such an illness might have a need to go around naked. But is this valid psychiatric thinking? We don't know, but if we can establish if this is legal reasoning, then yes, we might be confident if it may also be valid psychiatric reasoning.

Consider the statement "a person with schizophrenia might have a need to go around naked". But hold on. When I have a shower I have a need to walk around naked in order to step out of the shower. Does that mean I am a schizophrenic?

Correct legal reasoning is absolute, it has never any exceptions.

That means, if we accept the above as valid-in-law, that the statement "a person with schizophrenia might have a need to go around naked", is not correct, or is invalid-in-law.

If it is invalid-in-law, then it can not ever be correct medical or psychiatric thinking.

Consider the statement found on Natural Telepaths pages "In December 2004, psychic mind weapons hit all Australian police, judges, magistrates, similar, destroying the core life within, thus ensuring death of the body will not halt the process of life."

We don't mind what this actually means, be it false, be it a belief, or delusion, merely whether is is valid-in-law.

To study this, we need to take the statement apart carefully. "In December 2004" seems clear enough and the frame of reference is time.

The term "psychic mind weapons" is clear enough too and the frame of reference is some kind of weapon.

And so on, everything is clear except for "core life". We don't to which frame of reference this belongs.

In order for the above statement to be legitimate then, the definition of "core life" has to be defined. So, we read what is a most tedious and laborious and a pain in the neck treatise called Science of Life and sure, there is such a definition, and it refers to a complex entity, something that holds within what the psychics call a "second consciousness".

So, regardless whether we believe or not, accept or not, or want to laugh out loud, the statement itself is valid-in-law because it satisfies what thus far we have deduced is valid-in-law.

This can become a touch more complex. If you labour through the horrendous volumes of information on the Telepaths site, it would seem they got carried away with their military weapons, whatever these weapons are, and hit all super-rich of the world and most military generals and a great many airforce pilots. Their strategy to remove, or block the path of evolution, for any type who is part of domination and control mechanisms that make poverty, starvation, homelessness, unemployment, such things, possible. The legal system and its army of police is their primary target in every country - this while they don't admit directly is valid-in-law by our reasoning.

Using valid legal reasoning, we can correctly anticipate what a party will do next, or has already done but has not announced it.

The statement is valid-in-law, clearly, regardless of what it actually means to you. What it means is a personal decision on your part. You may hate the notion of telepathy or psychic matters, and if you do then you don't want to believe the statement, and then you try and find flaws. The problem is you would be using a false framework to find flaws - you would be revealing flaws or "insanity" in yourself instead of in the statement - a common psychiatric technique by the way during psychoanalysis.

Only a correct legal framework can be used to find flaws.

In fact, a careful analysis of all the information reveals no legal reasoning flaws in any of it!

Except, that is an awesome conclusion considering the horrendous volume of information presented on their web site. Common sense suggests that it is humanly impossible to present such and it still be "sound-in-law" if it was not actually true!

Shit! We just came across the problem Freud had when he suddenly out of the blue understood that his psychoanalysis theory could identify a telepathic event - one hell of a shock to a man like Freud but he overcame it.

Using correct legal reasoning, we can prove that which is impossible to understand or accept by the natural human brain or psyche. How far do we go? Let us, hypothetically, assume we are psychiatrists - medical doctors. We are not weapons specialists, nor experts on psychics, or anything like that. If a statement presented is legitimate in it is valid-in-law, our analysis stops at this point and we can only give a clean bill of mental health. As to what it means to others - it is up to others to explore or wonder about or worry about or fear or laugh at, whatever.

There is a complication. Using our legal reasoning, we will also conclude (from the psychics site Tales in the Spirit) that Darth's claim that he is the "Holy Spirit" is valid-in-law. This is where the detachment only psychiatrists are trained to make, comes in handy, cause this is impossible to seriously grasp on its own. So what if Darth is the Holy Spirit? What has that to do with us? A concern for theologians perhaps but not for us if all that we have examined is valid-in-law.

Unless we will to make it a personal concern - but to do this, we would need to understand Catholic theology because strictly speaking the term "Holy Spirit" is part of their belief system.

What about a reverse situation? Consider the small tale below:

The Telepaths were seeing in their mind's eye, the vision crystal clear, a man in a suit sitting in a library with piles of open texts. A woman, an elegant woman with blond Hair (Helen) cames close, glances about casually as if suspicious she might be being observed, then sits down on a chair next to him and gives him a kiss. "Wish to make love?" She smiles, tossed her blond hair.

"Sure." The man stands and pretends to pick her up in the way he is about to lay her across the table.

"Not here!" she laughs softly, "I meant in the spirit."

"Oh, boring." Darth sits down again. Helen leans to him, glances through some of the huge volumes. "Law cases? Which?"

"Supreme courts and High Court", Darth explained, "just our (i.e. Australian ones), and my analysis using our legal reasoning is that it is bullshit after bullshit. Let's face it, Anglo-Saxon law is about protection of greed, those with huge estates, and those willing to pay huge sums of money to get for themselves court orders that get them a financial advantage. Any pretext will do to get some of the court orders. That is about all the Anglo-Saxon law is about you know. How many people they evict, make homeless, separate from families, they don't care because a mindless army of thugs called police protect the Anglo-Saxon shit and their perverted and corrupt religion of law."

"I love it when you do that!" Helen smiled and rubs her nose against his and gives him a passionate kiss.

Is Darth's remark correct? Could we try to prove him incorrect? Well, we could try to prove him incorrect, but that would require understanding the framework of law he is using. A tall order, in fact, not our business as hypothetical psychiatrists. His statement is valid-in-law which to others just means it is his personal opinion perhaps. However, he has used some strong words - these we know come from deep feelings. We have a suspicion that perhaps his observation is coloured or biased by deep feelings.

Except - he is sitting next to a most lovely looking sensual woman. He is a man. Are his colorful remarks relevant to his observation, or are they a kind of tango between two people ready or wanting to mate?

We don't know. When there is no conflicting reason, then sure, we could use our legal techniques to work out if Darth's observation is biased by his deep emotions (be such emotions positive or negative).

.