telepathy, Life in the Spirit, Natural Telepaths, psychics, God, religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, artificial intelligence
The information herein is for the genuine psychic or Life in the Spirit (as the term is used herein) member, the latter being telepathy type interactions among the Judeo-Christian religions and similar (i.e. mysticism, union of man and spirit). Life in the Spirit is a deeper experience of God. These pages contain a Novel with a number of themes. The themes put together reflective and contemplative steps. Not all persons will like a particular theme - choose the one you can "imagine". From our main page you may link to specific themes of interest and most religions are catered for. The themes explore paths which can be "mysteries" or "hypotheticals" and which have a high chance of bringing the genuine person "online" to our style of telepathy. From the moment you read this page, you are entering a world parts of which could be fact or fiction - or it could all be true.
main home page
Insanity of the Religion of Law

(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 Neuroscientific Report

Psychic (Natural Telepaths) Medical Science


Chapter 15 - Extension: applying neuroscience techniques to the religion of law
 


I could write a whole text on this, so I decided to focus on a few examples from which I think any student with an IQ of about 150 can work out the appropriate code of conduct or diagnosis in any given legal circumstance.



"Ladies and Gentlemen, "Darth began, "I believe what I will present you with ought to apply, or should apply, to any particular line of legal reasoning that you might get involved in indirectly. In our neuro-psych field, we reach conclusion which we consider valid until circumstances proved to us something has changed and the conclusion needs to be reviewed or reconsidered or changed altogether."

"The particular diagnosis I want to introduce is "malice-in-law". It is either malice-in-law,  or no malice-in-law."

"Let me propose a hypothetical situation which will give you all the keys you need. Say the Catholic Church is concerned about loosing number attending mass. So they go to a top advertising agency which claims it always guarantees result. The Bishop doing the negotiation is a lovely simple man who trusts everyone to do the right thing."

"The advertising executive listens. The church wants to begin advertising something called Life in the Spirit. The Bishops explains all about this. The executive comes to the conclusion that it can be done, but he is not  going to explain how or when, he wants a contract signed to this effect, he guarantees 10% increased in attendance in the next 12 months or money back, and he also wants an additional $20,000 on top of the usual fee. The Bishop, a touch reluctant about this $20,000, he a monk originally with a vow of absolute poverty so he is not comfortable with someone who appears so greedy, but he succumbs to the image of the company and agrees and signs the contract on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church."

"A month later the residence of the local Cardinal is flooded with complaints from conservative Catholics. Apparently large billboards appeared in the city and suburbs. On the billboard a most luscious lovely model in a light blue long gown but with a split. The whole of one leg is exposed and it is a perfect leg and in fact police already had attended more than their usual number of accidents on roads facing these billboards. The model is beautiful, plush longish blond hair, lovely shape and firm breasts and that leg in particular. An image like that will attract male eyes from perhaps 14 year olds to 70 or even 80 year olds. Women on the other hand will be attracted also because they would want to know "what is this about." On the right of the image the strong words "The Catholic Church is Changing."

"The church panics, hires lawyers, wants to sue for defamation, claiming malice in advertising. The advertising executive is a professional, he has been doing this for thirty years and complete success. But he is also an Arab-Australian and some local papers had suggested a few years back he was part of some fundamental Islamic movement."

"The church lawyers are laughing, they can see the charge of "malice" will be so easy to satisfy the jury about."

"This is where you come in, the neuro-psychiatrist."

"I put it to you that as long as the modified Superego and Ego is sane-in-law, malice can not apply. Why? Can you guess? We all have some anxieties and fears and prejudices. These in a true professional do not cause any distortion to the Superego and Ego. But, when put on a witness stand the line of argument from the church's lawyers might go like this"

Lawyer: How do you feel about the Catholic church? You are a Muslim. Aren't all Christians infidels. I put it to you that you maliciously engineered an advertising campaign that will damage the church's reputation among all people.

Exec: Not so. I am a professional. I don't like any religion other than Islam, I think they all blasphemy against Allah, but that did not enter my considerations.

Lawyer: Come now! How could it not! You admitted you don't like Christians - you said they were infidels and blasphemers! That all blasphemy against God in your view. I put it to you that you were going to pay them back, having a chance, for their BLASPHEMY.

Darth had been walking up and down the steps in the centre and now stood at the front. "We know, or you will know, or should know, once you are accredited, that the dark forces in us are massive, in any of us. Any one of us could have millions of dislikes. If you are a skilled attorney but have no ethics or morals, you will find all of these or enough to persuade a jury that malice must have been the motive."

"When dealing with professionals of any kind, if the Superego and Ego is fine, I put it to you that malice-in-law is impossible. A contradiction in medical sense the way we know the body and brain and forces within."

"In fact, in our field, I suggest you never use legal expressions if you can avoid them. In that situation, if I was a neuro-psych asked for a conclusion whether there was malice-in-law, I would not use the word malice. I would find another way to write the same diagnosis. In order to avoid fixations setting in others, we need to be flexible about wording some of our conclusions meaning diagnosis. Don't let a lawyer confuse you. They may suggest to you to write a diagnosis something like "I can not see any intentional malice." I suggest to you that the word "intentional" is for lay psychiatrists, is for lawyers, for police, for politicians, whoever - but not for us. Either we can identify the intent, or not. The human brain and psyche has so many forces within - under our medical oath, can we afford to speculate? Surely that is for the jury or a sane judge, not for us. Either we can diagnose, or we are not in a position to do so."

"What about opinions? If you are put on a witness stand, a lawyer may try to get all these opinion from you about your diagnosis. Lawyers know human nature well, that is why they can persuade a jury about a great many things. They also know how simple the mind of a jury can be. Ordinary people are drawn and become fixated on role models, authority figures, and rumours. Opinions equate to rumours to the average person in this sense. Enough of these and the simple brain is persuaded the matter is so."

"I would go as far as to say, from my research in law, that law is 99% bullshit and 1% useful. I suspect the higher courts, but I did not do any serious research with these in Australia, it may be the other way around. But in the local courts and tribunals and perhaps the middle ones, that would be my biased and prejudiced opinion about law - 99% bullshit, a game to win, a game to bully using various techniques, a game of manipulation especially in Australian local courts that I observed."

"In a sense, to enter the altered Ego of a local court is like entering an unreal world built on illusion and force."

"Chances are high, based on my professional assessment, that the magistrate or judge thinks he is God. He or she is likely to assist the lawyer questioning you in order to prove to himself he is not insane-in-law and can manipulate and trick you into confessing that law is a greater religion than medicine. To the one whose Superego is God, what they do becomes an infallible religion. You, as a medical doctor, an expert, a professional, are like the Devil challenging the omnipotence of the religion the God sitting as magistrate worships. The magistrate or judge is not on you side. Any chance they get, they will try to reinforce a fixation in themselves through you. An illusion of grandeur that comes with a Superego that remodels itself in the image of a God. Was the Superego in Jesus such? Of course not. When asked directly, he avoided the question. That is a rational man. I, personally, perhaps having a touch of a mischievous nature, I can just imagine, I truly can, that if someone in some situation in a high or proper court of law tried to prove that I think or am the Holy Spirit, I can see myself saying yes out of spite and this in such a professional way they would believe me. In fact, I would do my best to persuade in such a way as to believe. Maybe I am not as rational as Jesus but I would be personally offended by that question so much that I can see myself doing my best to convince the court that I am. Different personalities. Jesus was a far more rational man than me about such issues, but I could not cope and would do my best perhaps for my own professional entertainment."

"In my analysis, any medical doctor, even a specialist, can be persuaded and manipulated by a skilled lawyer to put a diagnosis in the words they want. So, if you read my Alzheimer's report, here is a woman who is incoherent, incontinent, diagnoses with Alzheimer's years back, all her family knows she repeats her thoughts every few minutes hence no short term memory, and can no no longer use the telephone because she does not know how anymore, and yet a medial specialist writes in a medical report that she has "testament capacity and wants to leave everything to a particular relative." Contradiction in medical sense, common sense, and everything else. One probable reason for this is that the medical specialist was persuaded that the "testament capacity" refers to something other than anything to do with a "will". Many ways you can achieve this. Having said this, for this reason, in Australia in proper high courts, no medical report is allowed as evidence unless it is produced by a recognized medical-legal firm. And that is the reason: all higher courts know any medical person can be manipulated by solicitors or barristers (lawyers) to include in their diagnosis or summary any words the lawyers want."

"In other words, in the lower courts I have researched, law is a joke. Treat it as such if you are an expert witness. Be polite, professional but make sure your modified Superego knows this is a "joke" even if you don't quite see it. There is no case, so I believe, in which you would need to be called as an expert witness and be questioned about your diagnosis. Certainly, you may need to be called to explain that a particular diagnosis is your diagnosis, the words have not been changed, and how you derived at this - but this in your words, a proper judge in my view would not allow anyone to question how you choose to explain how you reached your diagnosis. Compare to a simple medical example. A mother calls a doctor, explains the symptoms, the doctor concludes this is possibly a serious condition and calls an ambulance. Say the child dies in the ambulance. Out of grief the parents want to blame and sue the doctor. What has the doctor actually done? To most other doctors, what the physician did was the correct medical response in the situation. To a lawyer putting that physician in the witness box, the lawyer is trying to prove that the physician is guilty of criminal negligence because he did not specify to the ambulance service that an intensive care ambulance was required. Little things can cause big problems when lawyers get involved."

"There is simply a chaos between the orderly world of medicine, and the practice of law. Perhaps your modified Superego ought to consider this view too: medicine is about healing people, law is about inventing ways to get compensation or advantage over others. Simple precept worth memorizing?"

"I suggest to you that your Superego should accept the view that law is disgusting and perverted. This will not change your Ego or your ability to be polite and respected in court, but it will put in place a natural caution, a protective barrier, a natural condom even if you want to associate in that way, between you and whoever is...to put it bluntly...trying to fuck you."

"If your first impression of a court of law is good, your Superego may begin seeing good in law. In my view, that ought to be a red alarm to you. Recall some legal decision you heard about in the newspapers that shocked or revolted you. Your protection in a court of law, as an expert psychiatrist, or a psychologist who has not medical degree but is accepted by the medical associations as qualified in psychoanalysis, is your Superego. Model it on Jesus if you like, Moses if you are clever enough to know the tiricks of law, Allah is you stick like glue to what Mohammed always said at the opening of any of his sermons and that is "Allah is compassionate and merciful." Never model your Supego on the ideal of the religion of law, regardless how you feel about the consitution of your country, because these are self-interest ideals and change with every new precedent sets and each such precedent has a 50/50 chance of either improving or perverting the course of natural justice. Human nature being human nature, over time on the balance of probabilities and available evidence, the framework of law is in fact perverted more and more. The extreme example of this is Hitler's Germany in which silly people called police were conditioned to become the Death Camp guards - because of their respect for the law you see."

"In order to train a soldier to be prepared to go and get himself killed or have his arms or legs blown off in the name of a cause few could possibly understand unless it is defence of one's own country in a direct way, the military relies on the simplicity of soldiers and leaders, role models, in whom more and more respect and confidence is conditioned over time. But this is actually good from a neuro-psych point of view because the role models are people they work with, see, talk to. It is a people to people type of experience. Police on the other hand are conditioned to respect the law, even when it is shit, so they in turn become non-thinking zealots and fanatics of a religion of law. The difference is law is a concept forced on people, it is not a military leader who earns respect and loyalty from his troops. A world of difference in the psychology of a soldier and police officer. In general, with rare exceptions, a soldier is only dangerous to the enemy in a conflict situation. A police officer is potentially dangerous to everyone in society. Perhaps you had seen a few years back this doctor in Australia who suddenly became a terrorist suspect. For a whole month the newsmedia showed the poor man in iron chains, in cages not fit for animals, in robes that looked like psychiatric restraining jackets. Police are fools, that is what your Superego ought to be clear about - because every person in the society knows that, deep down, every person knows that natural sense truth - general police officer is a mindless thug with a gun, that is his or her job. Don't be in conflict with the natural sense of the reality of the patients you deal with."

"For a lawyer to "prove" something, that does not mean "right" or "correct" - it means how to win a case. Say I am a typical lawyer. I don't care one way or the other what the facts or truth are - no - I want those facts and those truths only that can manipulate in the judge or jury a certain temporary belief system. That will win my case. I have no ethics or morals, law is not about ethics or morals or truth - it is only about winning. A religion shapes its own ideals and Superego. What that is, we have no understanding. We are about working out if a Superego and Ego s modified and mentally fine, not what exactly is its inner world, be it true or imaginary world."

"Can I also point our we only have comprehensive field, or clinical if you will, trial of this kind - the Alzherimer's report. Everything known about neuroscience and psychiatry at the critical levels, has been mapped onto the reality, a natural reality, of the situation in that report. Nothing has been engineered by anyone party to that report - reality came upon them and such people responded rationally the best they were able to. A natural reality is the only clinical trial we can accept as evidence and conclusive evidence of what reality is at a given point in time. Until another clinical trial helps us to refine or improve that science of ours, this is the benchmark.  Analogy. Maybe Freud's analytical theories are not the most appropriate in some situations but there are no serious alternatives, so we are forced to used these. We know they may not be the best sometimes - but they work - as any practising psychiatrist or psychologist accredited in such knows. Same with this new field of neuro-psychiatry. There are gaps in our knowledge and in time we will be able to improve this. Until then, as is our way of making a diagnosis - that is our conclusion, that our new field of psychiatry is the best we have until clinical trials can point to a better way. Compare to cancers. Some cancers do not respond well to a particular treatment but when there is no better way, at least the treatment offers some hope and even a chance of regression of cancer cells. What do you do as a medical doctor? Tell the patient to wait until a better drug comes along, by which time the patient may be dead, or you work out a proper treatment plan in accordance with the knowledge we have at this point in time? Same with this new science of ours, this new neuroscientific psychoanalytical theory if you will. It is the most reliable we have at this point in time, so we learn to use it in clinical practice - if such is warranted for a particular patient or situation."

"When in doubt focus on an aspect of medicine. A patient with rheumatoid arthritis may be prescribed steroids. After a while they come to you and you can see they now have Cushing's syndrome. What do you do? That syndrome can be caused by an overactive adrenal gland or taking too much steroids; or a tumour in the hypothalamus, in the pituitary gland or adrenal gland. Do you send the patient off on all sorts of intrusive tests just to make sure there is no tumour, or will you stick to what is known and that the cause is in fact the medication prescribed? Logically, or philosophically, the condition may be caused by a tumour - but what is the probability of this given the patient is on steroids known to cause Cushing's syndrome? Medical doctors are rarely fanatics for this reason - common sense based on knowledge and evidence. That, in truth, is the scientific way of reasoning. Law, on the other hand, and in general and in the lower courts that I have researched, is about control and domination and has no reason, or needs no reason. Whichever lawyer can control and dominate the presentation of evidence, what facts to bring out and which to make sure are not allowed as evidence, and many other manipulation techniques, and so on, wins the case. A good compensation lawyer will get expert psychiatrists writing all sorts of things. That is the sad truth about medicine, even the most professional people can be manipulated and once you are tricked once, human nature is to cover up a mistake and makes you an easy mark for certain styles of psychological, even psychoanalytical, blackmail techniques that experts in law learn during their so called professional training. It is not a profession as I would call a profession. It is closest to prostitution in what it is about in a relative sense, that is my presumptive diagnosis of the legal system at the lower courts levels. I stress the lower courts bit because I have not researched the higher courts. My guess is most would be all right - but I don't know. This is the sad part of our science too - my guess is most higher courts in most countries try to do the right thing by law and its intent, and people caught in legal scams and the like, but I don't know without doubt which means caution is advised."