From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 01:12:24 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:46:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:00:37 -0400 >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:28:18 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:31:23 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>>><snip> >>No. Here's what happened with regard to Jacobs. Jacobs is >>skeptical of the claims by abductees that the aliens have done >>something to them to blur their faces as to prevent fear or >>panic in the abductee. Jacobs is skeptical of this because the >>aliens have shown their faces to abductees on many occasions >>starting with the first abduction. So Jacobs keeps this in his >>mind. >>From the way Jacobs worded it I do not believe Jacobs points his >>finger at them and calls them liars. I believe he's a bit more >>crafty and, as he pushes on with the hypnosis, he gets them to >>realize they can see the faces after all and that their belief >>the aliens did something was an invention. >It has been argued that false memories can actually be implanted >using hypnosis, even unintentionally. "... as he pushes on with >the hypnosis, he gets them to realize they can see the faces >after all." So which memory is more likely to be true? >>>My point was that, without 'ground truth' data, labeling a part >>>of the abductee's experience as confabulation requires a >>>subjective judgement that may not be correct. The label should >>>not be used to dismiss the experience as reported. Otherwise, >>>the researcher would be adding his/her own perspective, i.e., >>>making things up. >>That issue may arise in a scenario but in this example it's not >>apt. >I think it is, especially if hypnosis was involved in arriving >at the "truth". >>>I suggest that, unless a person is prone to serious mental >>>aberrations or known to be lying, his/her claims about what >>>happened during an alien abduction experience should actually be >>>taken at face value. But the claims should not be judged as true >>>or false until there is a better understanding of the >>>phenomenon. >>Ufology is in such a sad state that even when an alleged >>abductee is caught lying, caught hoaxing, even on multiple >>occasions, the person is still paraded around as if they were >>100% legit. >>So obviously your take would not help us much. >>>Abductee claims in common should lead to only interim >>>conclusions about the how and why of what's happening. This is >>>because alien intelligences seem to be involved and, by >>>definition, are unpredictable from a human perspective. An >>>abductee's claim that is unsupported because it is truly a >>>confabulation should fall away over time without being so >>>labeled. >>I disagree with the notion that false memories fall away with >>time. How can they fall away if the person doesn't realize the >>memory never happened or has been altered? It is my belief that >>unless work is done to separate the true from the false memories >>that the confabulation may actually increase with time. >My suggestion that false memories should fall away over time is >based on the law of large numbers. That is, "the average of the >results obtained from a large number of trials should be close >to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more >trials are performed." >In your example from Jacobs' work, if only one person >encountered beings with faces hidden, and many other people >never see hidden faces, then we might conclude in the long run >that beings don't hide their faces. The lone report about hidden >faces would be an outlier and could be ignored, even without >being labeled confabulation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't embrace hypnosis when it seemingly verifies your beliefs and then reject it when it does not. Pick one or the other. Your argument that we should simply believe abductees at face value as long as they aren't obviously lying or have mental problems, as you suggested earlier, is not a convincing argument in my opinion. -Jason Gammon 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp