From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:55:12 +0100 Archived: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 06:43:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Physiological & Psychological Effects Of >From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:33:33 +0100 >Subject: Re: Physiological & Psychological Effects Of Adrenaline >>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:25:28 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Physiological & Psychological Effects Of Adrenaline >>>From: Jacquie Cosford <jacquiecos.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:04:17 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Physiological & Psychological Effects Of Adrenaline >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:46:56 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Physiological & Psychological Effects Of Adrenaline <snip> >>>However, it is interesting how the mind works and one that needs >>>to be taken into account when investigating eyewitness accounts. >>>I can only go by experience, and my own reactions to a sighting. >>That's exactly what I am saying, that the way the mind works >>needs to be considered when dealing with witness accounts. >That's not what comes across, Joe. What comes across is an >unwillingness to address the the issue of cause and effect in >any kind of rigorous or systematic way. It seems that you are >not at all interested in considering whether 'the way the mind >works' can be the result of external objective triggers, some of >which might lay outside conventional explanation. In a sense, it doesn't matter if the trigger is anomalous or not; it is the witness's perception that it is something they haven't encountered before so to them it _is_ anomalous, whether it is a lantern or a 12-stone baby. >Instead of taking any kind of systematic approach to things, you >come across as as a rather clumsy sceptical spin doctor, making >reference to anecdotal evidence that demonstrates, to your mind, >that ordinary folk see Chinese lanterns and have pseudo- >spiritual experiences as a consequence. The implication seems to >be that we can generalise from this to a pervasive unreliability >of witness reports, together with an underlying view to the >effect that 'it's all in the mind'. I'm surprised you read it that way - it is a factor which should be considered when evaluating witness reports, that is all I have said, it is something that they have no control over and usually little or no awareness of. >It would clarify matters if you would let us know whether you >believe that 'the way the mind works' is the primary explanatory >factor in all sightings of anomalous aerial phenomena. At least >we would then know where you are coming from. If your answer is >'not in every case', you might also let us know whether think >that some objective triggers might be genuinely anomalous, or >merely mistaken attributions arising from explicable man-made or >natural phenomena. I don't believe any such thing. It is a factor to be considered. As I said before, it is immaterial whether the stimulus is genuinely anomalous or not, to the witness, it is anomalous at the time. >If you can't answer these questions then you can't be taken >seriously. I frankly don't care who takes me seriously. - Seriously. Regards, Joe Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp