[hechicxxrr]

Hi Chris,

You seem to have a rather scientific and rational approach to the subject. Your argument that auric sight is similar, if not equivalent to, retinal fatigue is a good theory. However, it seems to me, the arguement as to whether people really see auras or see visual illusions created by fatigue and psychosomatic desires can't really be proven one way or another.

This is because science and scientific fact are based upon empirically observed data. Science has to observe something, usually many documented times, before it is considered scientifically valid. The downfall to this approach is something is false until it shown to be true in repeated, documented cases. So, according to science a plane wouldn't fly prior to it's invention, when really planes could always fly we just didn't know how to make them.

I'm a mathematician myself. In mathematics we spend a great deal of time on the idea of 'proof'. In order to prove that something is true, one must eliminate even the slightest possibility that it is false.

Since we have no empirical measure of esoteric qualities, such as auric sight, we cannot prove them to be false. We can conjecture and even formulate plausible theories, but not prove them false. Likewise, we can't prove that auric sight is a real phenomenon because, as you point out, it could simply be a physical phenomenon.

-Z