beth

I kinda tend to agree with Koy on this.

Koyaanisqatsi

I do

Ok, not knowing where you're going with this (as I'm responding in "real time" ), think about the concepts you've raised in that last declaration.

"Our memories are a lot more faulty than we believe." In that sentence alone, you've clearly delineated two disparate consciences; "our" and "we." Here, follow along and let me explain more in what you next typed (if you've smoke enough...)

"Our" confidence in the accuracy of "our" memories has "no correlation to the actual accuracy of those memories."

I agree, but think of what you're arguing; that there is a "we" and an "our;" one of which is "higher" than the other; "higher" and "separate."

"We" can do things to ourselves that "we" aren't aware of. See what I'm getting at, in regard to a projected "betrayal," for lack of a better word? Didn't you just reveal that you inherently/intuitively understand a dichotomy, at least, of your own psyche?

In other words, the event occurs and we project backward onto the event elements of "premonition;" the mind seeking out order in chaos going so far as to extrapolate backward and artificially "insert" a "premonition event" into a past experience that wasn't "actually" there?

Highly plausible. We do seek to organize chaos and in so doing a "current" event that traumatizes us in some manner, results in a retroactive projection into our past memory storage of a premonition of that event. Plausible for traumatic events; questionable for "normal" deju vu, yes; i.e., when you think you've had a conversation or met a person or experienced a "benign" event already.

"Questionable" in the sense that the lesser trauma associated with these lesser events does not intuitively (at least) coincide with the plausible retroactive projection of premonition in the event of a more serious traumatic event.

Again, a plausible explanation due to the arguable level of trauma involved in the event, but not necessarily conclusive; just "reasonable doubt," which, as you know, I'm all in favor of.

Also plausible, but not necessarily conclusive and I'll explain why with my own experience. My best friend since I was 13 (some twenty four years now) went hiking on the anniversary of his mother's death (that's no relevant, though, except psychologically). He had gone alone and decided to scale a section that consisted of of a lot of shale, so it collapsed and sent him sprawling down the face to a final point where if he hadn't managed to stop his fall, he would have fallen to his death. He remained on that tiny outcrop for at least eighteen hours, thinking the whole time he was dead (and went through all of the things we've read about from others in that situation).

I knew nothing of this, living in NY, some three thousand miles away. At about two am (when he was just realizing that he was fucked and would probably die), my other best friend and mutally good friends with my friend stranded on the mountain called me and said, "I'm really worried about Marshall, I think something terrible has happened to him."

Ok, she was worried about Marshall, because he told her he was going climbing on his mother's deathaversary. But Marshall never calls anyone when he goes out so there was no expectation of a phone call to say he was "all right;" he had never done this, so there was no reason she should have been waiting for contact. He is also not the type to scale Mount Everest; just go hiking in the woods. I said, "Don't worry, he's probably just not wanting to call anyone on his mother's recent death; he's just doing his thing."

At five am, I get another call from Emily, this time she's in tears and clearly freked out. "What's wrong?"

"I don't know. I couldn't sleep. Something is wrong with Marshall, I just know it, and I can't reach him." (and no, they weren't a couple; just mutually good friends).

Because her demeanor was so extremely aggitated, I told her to relax; that Marshall had probably gone up to meditate and contemplate and fell asleep in his car.

At about eight am my time (five am her time), she calls again, even more freaked out. "What?"
"I just know something happend! I've been calling his home phone and cell all night long!"
"It's ok, he'll probably call you in about an hour as he wakes up." At that moment she screamed, because she was watching TV in the background and the morning local news was "breaking" a story of a man stranded above the Pacific Coast Highway being rescued and his name being flashed on the screen. It was, of course, our mutual friend.

Now, to know Marshall is to love him and to know that he generally does things that aren't ever that extreme and to know Emily is to love her and to know that her reactions were completely irrational; in fact I can personally attest to the fact that I have never heard her (in the twenty years I've known her) to react in the manner she did.

She knew that something was wrong at about the time when something went wrong and knew further that something was dire at the point just prior to his "salvation" (for lack of a better term).

Now, does this necessarily mean a god exists? No, of course not. But it does hint at something more than just the four dimensional paradigms we have so far mapped, IMO. Telepathy? Precognition? A glimpse into a possible future before that future is realized as a result of possible overlap of simultaneous existence? Unknown, but, again, not necessarily an "unnatural" or "supernatural" event.

It was progressive and by no means retroactively projected. I know, because it happend in "real" time from my perspective and hers and Marshall's, though I did not have any such "precognitive visions" or "feelings."

Another long winded way of saying, it was not an "event" that was easily dismissed or explained through, shall we say, "conventional" thinking. Much like theist claims of "experiencing Jesus" or "Allah" or whatever ever, except that this involved real people in real time.

To me, it says, "Materialism is incomplete." To theists, it probably says, "God moves in mysterious ways." Of the two, only one makes rational sense (the first, in case any cult members are reading).

Agreed in principal, though skeptical in concept. Not that emperical evidence stands paramount, but that emperical experience may provide deeper insights into a our multi-dimensional existence; currently four dimensions, but theoretically, more.

Agreed, but not convinced that warrants dismissal. But then, that's the main reason I continue to argue with cult members .

It is plausible (and verifiable) that energy "communicates" within our current understanding of multi-dimensional space (the four dimensional space we currently accept and the "higher" dimensions we currently theorize about); it is therefore also plausible that it communicates in ways as yet unknown.

The only thing that's not plausible, due to it's supposition, is that a magical fairy god king mystically created it all . I still think, however, that all of experience (human and other) could be representative of a "subconscious" projection of a more complex universe than currently theorized.

braces_for_impact

I find Koy's idea fascinating as well, but out of my own sense of practicallity, I think Jamie_L is probably closer to the mark on this one.

I know exactly what you mean here. Most people I meet have some sort of 'supernatural' story. Sometimes these people are close friends, my girlfriend, or family. This is when it becomes tough to be a skeptic. It can be difficult to explain to people that you do not believe in the ancedote they just shared, or at least their interpretation of it. Usually I find that people who share these stories then want an alternative explanation, and if you don't have one, you are seen as rigid, as in having a closed mind. If you bring up topics such as the fallibility of memory, the senses etc, they are often insulted.

What's a skeptic to do?

Koyaanisqatsi

Analyze the givens without prejudice and ask piercing, revealing questions without implying bias in order to try to discern a plausible (if not readily possible or impossible) explanation, of course, while making sure one's plate is full in case it gets taken away in emotional reactionism .

I don't necessarily have any problem with people talking about anomolous events; it's when they declare proof of "super" naturalism that my spines erect.

Seeing a "ghost," for example, could be as simple as a spaceship picking up earlier radio broadcasts, if one excepts current physics and the notion that we all communicate our existences through photon rebound.

Remember, the Earth is hurling through spacetime at a speed less than light; which means that perhaps experiences of "ghosts" (particularly in the manner I described typically happened in early "ghost" lore), would be no more "remarkable" than an intersection and a receiver dish; a "transmission" that was simply "picked up" by a human sensory interpretation device (aka, a "body") hitting that particular "transmission" of a particular event.

In other, other words; I'm more open to the notion that such described events might have a plausible, if perception expanding "cause" than to necessarily dismiss such a plausibility (note the word "plausibility" all you theists ) as invalid a priori (not that Jamie has; let me make that perfectly clear).

It all depends on the degree of separation, IMO. Give it to me as an abstract without any contextual reference and I'll describe plausible explanations accordingly. Give it to me as a personal friend's experience and I'll apply more "rigourous" deconstruction.

Tell me it's a fairy god king that magically mandated it from "heaven" and I'll recommend a good psychologist.

Aquila ka Hecate

Absolutely.

That's the explanation I have the real problem with.

My own experience I've gotten around to explaining by Jamie_L's notion.

After all, I have seen how faulty our memories can be-although when it happens to you it can be a stretch.

But in the interests of being a 'good skeptic' I've always marked it as 'probability no.1'.

However, now you mention the 'transmitter/receiver' bit, Koy, I have to relate my own weirdo:

My father died in June 2001.

I was close to him, the eldest of two children, and the one most like him in temperament.

But by that year I hadn't seen him or spoken with him for a good two years.

Hence I was in no position to know he was even ill, let alone dying(better add here that I had had no contact with any other member of the family, near or far-in fact I was living in a wilderness of my own making, where the only people I knew had been strangers a few months ago-but that's another story).

I was sitting on my bed, can't remember what else I was doing, when I suddenly had a very clear 'vision' of my father-just a head-and-shoulders shot.

Not as he was when I last saw him, but at perhaps the age of 25.

(He was 68 at death)

It was a couple of days later when I read in the newspaper that he had died.

I know-did I perhaps pick it up from the newspaper subconciously?

Or more likely, have I projected a sequence of events which was not at all how it happened?

I see no way of finding out now.

But the theory of us experiencing, somehow,our selves in more than four dimensions has a huge appeal,,perhaps understandably.
(And if the person shares genetic material with you, does that not maybe make it a little more tenable?)


I would like to explore the many-dimensions idea further.

(I am trained in both theoretical physics and astronomy, so I have a chance of understanding what you're on about, Koy!)

All said, however, I have to admit reluctantly that the fried memory syndrome is perhaps the most tenable.

Sigh.

And now it's time for me to bugger off home, sadly.

s5o8

Jamie_L

Thanks for the reply …… I prefer frank answers and I did not take offence. I would imagine people get upset when you question their recollection of events because it affects their credibility. They would probably think you are implying that they are lying or question their mental state and ability to handle power tools.

I posted this thread to gather other people’s interpretations and experiences. Personally I would prefer to attribute this to a completely rational explanation if I can.

I kind of knew that our memories are dodgy but thought that it was mostly in situations of trauma or extreme emotional stress.
I did not at any stage discussed this with my brother so I do not know why he said what he said and without verifying with him I must say that your explanation seems completely valid.
The discussion with my partner was very brief, I told her that I woke put with this date in my head clear and vivid not a day of the week or any thing like that it was day/month /year. Afterwards she just asked me how I knew I just shrug my shoulders and said nothing.
I have not discussed this with them again. They all know that I am an atheist and they’ll take the piss it I start questioning their recollection.

I am very interested to know more about the memory research you spoke about and I would appreciate if you can provide me some info on your sources.
I don’t know if I would want to know too much on how bad our memories are. It would be a bad thing to go thru life second guessing everything one remembers.

Arken

You have a funny idea of 'simpler' you know...

Jamie_L

S5o8

I first became interested in finding more out about memory by reading the memory entry at The Skeptic's Dictionary website. At the end of that entry there are a number of bibliographic sources listed. I bought a copy of Elizbeth Loftus' Eyewitness Testimony. Loftus is a memory researcher who has done a lot of what appear to be quality scientific studies of memory. The book discusses issues that apply to criminal eyewitness testimony, but there is a lot of information about memory in general. And really, criminal cases are one aspect of life that really puts memory in a place of paramount importance.

I really enjoyed reading that book, and it's the source that I usually fall back on when I think about memory-related issues. I haven't read any of the other books in the bibliography list, so some may be even better.

I also have a keen interest in how supposed psychics and mediums convince so many people of their powers. Again, I have friends who are believers in such things. Malleable memory can again play a key role here, where people remember things much more favorably for the psychic than what actually happened.

The two things about memory that I think I have learned are these:

1) Studies show now correlation between how confident someone is in a memory and how accurate it is.

2) Studies show it is not very difficult for the details of a memory to get changed without the subject realizing it. Emotional trauma need not be involved, though emotion can play a powerful roll.

If this is a topic you are interested in, I highly recomend some reading. If anything, it helped me become aware of things to watch out for in trying to preserve the integrity of my own memories, and it has also taught me to be a lot more skeptical of people who make extraordinary claims based on memory - something that again can be useful.

An interesting not related to criminal procedings: Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, yet it is the evidence that juries place the most weight on. That is a scary thought, and one reason I no longer support the death penalty.

Jamie

Viti

I think this thread belongs in Science and Skepticism so am moving it.

For the record, I usually just shrug, say "That was weird" and forget it. I don't expect everything to be explainable at this time.

Skeptics can help though. In chat once a guy told me about his supernatural experiences and I pointed him to a website about Sleep Paralysis aand Hypnogogic hallucinations. He had never heard of this and it turned out it fit his experiences exactly. He was very relieved to find out he had not been haunted.

Jamie_L

Since LadyShea brought up sleep paralysis, I'll add this:

I had read about sleep paralysis and how it pertained to things from alien abduction to visitation by angels to hauntings etc. I nodded to myself and thought "that makes sense." I had experienced mild sleep paralysis before, but just the paralysis, not the hallucinations.

Years later, I actually had a hallucinatory sleep paralysis experience. I heard voices. I was haunted by a feeling of another presence. I would wake myself, struggle through the paralysis, then fall asleep and have it happen all over again. All told, I woke three or four times. Then finally I got to sleep and fell into lucid dreaming, something else I'd never really experienced. That was trippy. I can only imagine if I were prone to abduction or religious fantasies, then my dreams would have seemed like conversations with strange or heavenly beings (instead of lurid sex dreams).

All-in-all, that was an eye opener. If I hadn't been a skeptic who had dones some reading on the topic, I would have been totally freaked out. It's not at all surprising that people attribute those things to supernatural causes.

Now, take a sleep-paralysis incident and overlay some memory reconstruction (after talking to a UFO or religious zealot), and you can explain all sorts weird things that people claim happened to them.

I have a friend who is convinced he woke up and saw a ghost in his room, and that he was able to walk around the room and see her from all sides, and that it absolutely was not a dream. Again, I hate to call into question his memory of events, but...

Jamie