Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by cluelusshusbund, Sep 1, 2014.
We are all actors.
Some people get paid for it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's the way uh huh uh huh I like it!
My English teacher used to say "Never throw Shakespeare flowers",
meaning don't fill up space blabbing about how good he is.
He's just brilliant.
That bit about the schoolboy is re-enacted day after day.
I think of it very often, if driving in the morning.
They are exactly the same as in his description.
Ah but that's the point, I wouldn't have suggested they were, however examining what it is they do does produce the consideration they are to some extent just that. However.... There is a difference between lying to escape prosecution for a committed crime or to aid in the exploitation of gaining wealth and lying for "entertainments" sake. I guess based on your history posting here you aim for entertainment MR?
And so now I'm a liar? Lying about what praytell?
Not at all. I would initially question how someone could have such good recollection of events yet not know exactly how old they were, rather than "between 10 and 12" (unless it's some sort of mildly cryptic way of saying that they were 11?).
Then I would suggest that it is more likely a case of false memory... a fabrication that we genuinely believe to be an accurate/true memory... and probably one formed in good faith. Maybe someone did guide them back, but because they were tired they overlayed other memories / images on top.
But it is not possible to say what happened, only what someone claims (and presumably genuinely believes) happened to them.
Not a good choice of word if you want to keep the peace.
I think that Stryder is inferring that you don't actually believe in all these things,
but that you pretend to believe in them in order to have a discussion.
Is that true, MR?
Are you sometimes an actor, trying to entertain us?
I DO believe in the paranormal. As for what it is or what it says about an afterlife, I'm not so sure. I also believe in bigfoot and ufos. Does that make me some sort of lesser person?
I accept your word on it.
And I accept that most mystics, ghost hunters etc also genuinely believe.
There are rogues, as in every path of life, but the majority are not so.
It is hard for some rationally minded people to comprehend.
They think that all believers in the paranormal are conmen and liars.
Or, more pertinently, trolls.
Which has led to your recent problems here.
If I thought you were a troll, I would support banning you.
I don't think that is the case.
It's the inherent demoralizing tactic of the ideological skeptic to disparage believers in the paranormal in some way, either as conmen or delusional naïve morons. It's not unlike religious fundamentalism, that attacks atheists as immoral people rather than debating their position. Why take the evidence seriously when the people who are presenting it are always untrustworthy?
I don't think not remembering your exact age entails that your memory of an experience at that age is false. There's lots of events I remember from my childhood without knowing how old I was. That's how memory works. It stores information based on emotion and intensity of experience, not on some abstract chronology of dates or years. It makes sense that this event WOULD be remembered because it had a powerful emotional effect on Kitt. He got lost at night in the woods and was scared. And the lady shows up and leads him back to the camp. That's not something you'd just make up.
Or, more correctly, it's not (usually) something one would invent deliberately.
"Two types of confabulation are often distinguished:
Provoked (momentary, or secondary) confabulations represent a normal response to a faulty memory, are common in both amnesia and dementia, and can become apparent during memory tests.
Spontaneous (or primary) confabulations do not occur in response to a cue and seem to be involuntary. They are relatively rare, more common in cases of dementia, and may result from the interaction between frontal lobe pathology and organic amnesia."
Great. So Kitt now has dementia because he remembers an experience that doesn't fit into your personal view of reality? Once again, the almost automatic vilification of anyone who experiences paranormal events.
I didn't say it was necessarily false by dint of not remembering... I merely raised it as a question as to how one could remember something clearly as significant yet not recall one's age at the time.
And bear in mind that memory does not equate to it having happened the way remembered. Furthermore a heightened case of peril/anxiety can put you in a state of hypervigilance, which can make you interpret things in ways far worse than reality.
As for not making it up, some are prone to doing just that. I'm not saying this is an example, but I would obviously question the accuracy of the memory compared to what actually happened.
But since this is not possible, we deem this anecdotal evidence, and treat accordingly.
Yeah, funny how you manage to conflate "confabulation is common in amnesia and dementia" and "common in dementia" with "all confabulations are only dementia or amnesia".
Try this one: Confabulation, false memory, or less often pseudomemory is a term in cognitive psychology defined as a recollection of something that never happened. This can range from something as minor as misremembering an item on a list to fabricating an entire detailed, vivid memory out of whole cloth.
And try not assume "automatic vilification".
(And, while you're at it, also don't assume that those arguing against "paranormal events" haven't experienced them. You may come across as [slightly] more rational).
That's the psychological meaning - and the article (which clearly states that it is discussing the psychological meaning) is obviously stating when/where it is to be found as a psychological issue.
But it is also a term merely for where one, say, fills in the gaps and then without questioning it accepts the filler as actual memory, quite innocently and with no inherent psychological trait. We all do it to some extent, except I suppose for those with photographic memory and perfect recall.
So please, off your high-horse, MR. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There was no vilification intended, although I'm surprised you seem to look for it so vehemently.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey I was just quoting the article you posted. If you don't like what that article said, then don't post it. As for Rational Wiki, I have no confidence in their articles being unbiased. There seems to be a skeptical agenda behind it that wants to present its beliefs as objective facts.
Do you have the Wiki article for the NON-psychological meaning of confabulation? One would think if such existed, it would definitely be covered there. Also, have you broken the news to Kitt that much of what he remembers from childhood never happened as he thinks it did? That his brain isn't working right when he remembers his past?
Except that you didn't merely quote it, you went beyond what it actually stated by assuming that "vilification".
OTOH, my bad, I'd assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you were serious about the topic and that you were at least familiar with the term "confabulation".
Oh, would that be "automatic vilification" on your part?
The human tendency to confabulate details and misattribute sources means that memory, especially in the long term, cannot be counted on as a reliable source of information.
Confabulation is the filling in of gaps in memory to make a coherent story.
I think it goes without saying that if you accuse someone of having a dementia-caused disorder of memory that you are indeed vilifying them to some extent. I would certainly take that as an insult. Wouldn't you?
Here's a quote from your own Rational Wiki article:
"The foundational works relating to confabulation in memory were produced by Frederic Bartlett and Elizabeth Loftus. Bartlett drew on the work of Hermann Ebbinghaus and contemporary social psychology of the day (early 20th century) to describe the process of confabulation. Loftus, working from the 1970s on, laid the groundwork for research of confabulation in modern cognitive psychology.
Multiple psychologists in the field have strongly protested the work of Loftus claiming that it is both unethical and unscientific to attempt to diagnose an individual who has never been met by the diagnostician. These psychologists cite multiple cases of corroborated repressed memory as evidence that simply because some people get it wrong doesn't mean they all do and that some people get some right and some wrong as is intrinsically discovered with most psychological memory experiments."
Separate names with a comma.