From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:28:15 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:07:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:31:50 -0400 >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 01:12:24 -0400 (EDT) >>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 ><snip> >>>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. >I don't see the connection between the last comment about my >beliefs and the proposal that the law of large numbers would >minimize the effect of occasional confabulations. That is, the >Bayesian subjective degree of belief should change to account >for new evidence and should asymptote to the real value as the >sample size increases. Of course, if a confabulation is >consistent over time, perhaps because of a researcher's bias, >then such a process will still lead to an incorrect belief. The problem is that your claim that confabulation will naturally be exposed and drop off. I disagree and believe that confabulation can increase with time, going through an evolutionary process if you will. I could give examples of how certain abductees have slowly but surely changed their tune with time to being merely a lab rat to a spokesperson for the aliens or messenger to humanity. Also, your belief doesn't take into effect the notion of contagion between abductees, that of sharing of information either accidentally or deliberately. So a confabulated aspect of the alleged abduction event can be transmitted and incorporated into other abductees' narratives. >In any case, nowhere have I embraced hypnosis for memory >recovery. My beliefs, such as they are, come mainly from reports >of abductees' conscious memories as well as physical evidence >accompanying suspected abductions. Recovered memories fall into >a different category for me because expectations are brought to >a hypnosis session by all involved. Good to know. I personally believe that the notion of 100% conscious memory to be a myth. I believe that certain memories may be consciously maintained but that the majority of the experience to be kept from conscious recall. I also believe that if we only focused on the conscious memories than there would absolutely be no way to separate the potential confabulated material as well as to see past various potential screen memories. Screen memories are pretty much only revealed under hypnosis. The conscious memory would be say, the owl that was staring at the abductee through the window or the strange deer that communicated love with it's eyes. -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.
[ Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp