"Consciousness," the missing 'unified theory' factor?

[ydoaPs]

Many years ago. Many times.

 

So, coincidence and heavily edited memory seem like a good start. Suggestibility may even play a role here.

 

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/neurobiology/labs/dudai/uploads/files/Science-2011-Edelson-108-11.pdf

Edited February 15, 2012 by ydoaPs

[owl]

So, coincidence and heavily edited memory seem like a good start. Suggestibility may even play a role here.

 

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/neurobiology/labs/dudai/uploads/files/Science-2011-Edelson-108-11.pdf

On what evidence do you base your personal opinion that my memory is "heavily edited?" I told the truth as I experienced it. It wasn't complicated. I didn't forget or alter any aspect of what happened.

 

To what "coincidence" do you refer? Simultaneous pain in the stomach? Mine with no reason and his without previous history?

How do you see "suggestibility" as part of the situation?

[ydoaPs]

On what evidence do you base your personal opinion that my memory is "heavily edited?"

Episodic memory is edited every time it is recalled. This is a fact attested by several studies. To one of which I linked above.

 

For someone who claims to have been a psychologist, you don't seem to know much about the human brain.

 

Here's another:

http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.22.5.555.50764

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jwxVKrn6u9cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=edited+autobiographical+memory&ots=YQbanUhVkB&sig=-6Rg2Dd7jg-r9jpGXPlM0mhwjlY#v=onepage&q=edited%20autobiographical%20memory&f=false

[Iggy]

So, coincidence and heavily edited memory seem like a good start. Suggestibility may even play a role here.

 

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/neurobiology/labs/dudai/uploads/files/Science-2011-Edelson-108-11.pdf

and also, I think, confirmation bias. If you read some of Owl's writings, like...

 

I had a very happy childhood... which gave me faith that love and good will was the majority of prevailing "reality." From this faith came confidence to explore "other realms" of Spirit and "magic", cosmology on larger scale than "life as we know it" ,and ultimately transcendence of all time/space "scales."

 

...I shared briefly (in the "Behold the Beauty" page) that I took my first out-of-body journey (to the "center of the cosmos") at age five under Dad's guidance, in deep hypnotic trance. This was his way of answering my question, "How big is God?"...

 

...There are many true stories of our family's early experiments with hypnosis and telepathy...

 

...Of the many Visions I received over the years, the greatest of these, before the "Cosmic Wave" and prophecy, came to me in 1980 after a week in solitude on Mt. Shasta. I was on a vision quest for clarification of the Great Pyramid Prophecy, which I had studied for many years...

 

You get the impression of someone who might, since childhood, frequently 'see' telepathic visions of other people. If a good amount of Owl's time is spent having psychic visions of other places and magical connections to other people, it would be odd if one of them didn't end up with at least a malleable resemblance to reality.

[owl]

Episodic memory is edited every time it is recalled. This is a fact attested by several studies. To one of which I linked above.

 

For someone who claims to have been a psychologist, you don't seem to know much about the human brain.

You said yesterday:

So, coincidence and heavily edited memory seem like a good start. Suggestibility may even play a role here.

... in reply to my previous reply that it happened long ago and that I have shared the account many times.

 

This implies* that, in the meantime, I have introduced elements that are no longer an accurate description of the account. (You didn't address my questions about what you mean by "coincidence" and "suggestibility" as elements which could falsify the telepathic experience.)

 

*I replied to that implication yesterday:

I told the truth as I experienced it. It wasn't complicated. I didn't forget or alter any aspect of what happened.

Fact: I was out of communication for many days.

Fact: I had eaten the same diet all those days.

Fact: I got a burning sensation in my stomach and an internal visual image of my son in distress.

Fact: I found him hospitalized with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer.

Fact: He had had no history of ulcers or any stomach problems.

 

Which of these simple facts do you suppose were "edited memory?" (See bolded re-statement above.)

 

I had not intended this thread to be all about the above personal/family experience. How about the experiment list and commentary on healing at a distance linked above?

 

and also, I think, confirmation bias. If you read some of Owl's writings, like...

...

You get the impression of someone who might, since childhood, frequently 'see' telepathic visions of other people. If a good amount of Owl's time is spent having psychic visions of other places and magical connections to other people, it would be odd if one of them didn't end up with at least a malleable resemblance to reality.

I have never introduced my spiritual/mystic/visionary writings in this forum for obvious reasons. Science has an extreme disdain for this whole realm, and I have been the object of extreme ridicule in other forums in which these writings were cited, not introduced by myself. (Btw, such "visions" are extremely rare for me, not ubiquitous as Iggy suggests above.)

My father's passion in life was the interface between science and the realm of consciousness, and I share that passion. He was a pioneer in demonstrations of the "power of the mind" through hypnosis, which I also used in my career as a psychologist. We did a lot of telepathy experiments with excellent positive results at home. I will not make this thread about them and make this into a feeding frenzy of ridicule.

 

I'd like to get back to the body of experiments cited in my link yesterday, if anyone here is interested in the experimental evidence for consciousness as a force or medium of information at a distance.

Edit; a correction to my statement in post 19:

Among the most “rigorously scientific “ (her words), those with double blind trials, he concluded that of 23 studies, 57% showed a statistically significant positive effect.

Turns out (having read the source material) that only 16 of those 23 were double blind trials.

Edited February 16, 2012 by owl

[ydoaPs]

You said yesterday:

 

... in reply to my previous reply that it happened long ago and that I have shared the account many times.

 

This implies* that, in the meantime, I have introduced elements that are no longer an accurate description of the account. (You didn't address my questions about what you mean by "coincidence" and "suggestibility" as elements which could falsify the telepathic experience.)

 

 

One would think a "former psychologist" would know the basics of revision of episodic autobiographical memories due to time, retelling, emotion, and suggestion. Since you claim to be an expert in the area, how about you tell me about autobiographical memory and how you somehow are not subject to these facts of the human brain. Someone with your claimed level of expertise would know how coincidence and suggestion are obvious factors to consider in this case.

[imatfaal]

The Cochrane collaboration has provided a review of intercession via prayer aiding those who were ill.

 

Intercessory Prayer for the alleviation of ill health the summary starts with

Overall, there was no significant difference in recovery from illness or death between those prayed for and those not prayed for

 

 

The review is worth reading and is not completely condemnatory - however it concludes as follows

 

The authors conclude that due to various limitations in the trials included in this review (such as unclear randomising procedures and the reporting of many different outcomes and illnesses) it is only possible to state that intercessory prayer is neither significantly beneficial nor harmful for those who are sick. Further studies which are better designed and reported would be necessary to draw firmer conclusions.

 

There just isn't the weight of evidence to support a claim that intercession via prayer has a beneficial affect.

Edited February 16, 2012 by imatfaal

[ydoaPs]

Fact: I was out of communication for many days.

Fact: I had eaten the same diet all those days.

Fact: I got a burning sensation in my stomach and an internal visual image of my son in distress.

Fact: I found him hospitalized with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer.

Fact: He had had no history of ulcers or any stomach problems.

 

Which of these simple facts do you suppose were "edited memory?" (See bolded re-statement above.)

 

Let's try out this plausible scenario:

You went out camping for a few days and felt ill, so you came back. You find your son in the hospital with an ulcer (co-incidence, no?). Finding him in the hospital by itself was an emotional event which could have led you to create the "visual image" part of the memory. That and the numerous retellings (since, as you should know since you were a psychologist, autobiographical memory is rewritten every time it is recalled) and the time since the incidence could have easily adjusted the story especially depending upon the reaction (suggestion) of those who heard the retellings.

 

It's exceedingly likely that your 10lb bass was really a minnow.

 

Are you seriously claiming to be a psychologist with zero understanding of memory and things that can affect it?

 

There are

anecdotes aren't evidence.

[Iggy]

I have never introduced my spiritual/mystic/visionary writings in this forum for obvious reasons.

You did so here:

 

I had been camping for a week or so in a wilderness area far from home, way before cell phones... totally out of communication. A burning sensation began in my stomach, though my diet had been the same for a week with no problem. It got worse, very painful, in fact, and an image of my son in distress kept appearing in my visual cortex, not "seeing" him as an external presence.

I finally hiked out and drove home to find that he was in the hospital with a severely bleeding peptic ulcer. There had been no previous episodes or indications of a stomach problem.

 

How did I get that information?

It makes more sense when put into context.

 

Perhaps you have good reasons for not wanting to discuss it, but if spiritual visions, or any type of subjective experience, are the true reason you hold certain beliefs about consciousness and the cosmos -- things you've been talking about on this forum -- then you may be doing yourself a disservice in not being upfront about that.

 

I'd like to get back to the body of experiments cited in my link yesterday, if anyone here is interested in the experimental evidence for consciousness as a force or medium of information at a distance.

Edit; a correction to my statement in post 19:

 

Turns out (having read the source material) that only 16 of those 23 were double blind trials.

The conclusion of the paper is,

 

The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.

Is that your position? Distance healing is difficult to study, but it should be studied more?

 

EDIT:

 

I also used in my career as a psychologist.

Since it keeps coming up, aren't you a stone mason? Did you take that up after your career in psychology?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Iggy

[owl]

ydoaPs:

One would think a "former psychologist" would know the basics of revision of episodic autobiographical memories due to time, retelling, emotion, and suggestion. Since you claim to be an expert in the area, how about you tell me about autobiographical memory and how you somehow are not subject to these facts of the human brain. Someone with your claimed level of expertise would know how coincidence and suggestion are obvious factors to consider in this case.

It is not a complicated account. See the list of facts above. My retelling of it is always nearly* the same, and the sequence of events was exactly as I said in my account above.

 

Let's try out this plausible scenario:

You went out camping for a few days and felt ill, so you came back. You find your son in the hospital with an ulcer (co-incidence, no?). Finding him in the hospital by itself was an emotional event which could have led you to create the "visual image" part of the memory. That and the numerous retellings (since, as you should know since you were a psychologist, autobiographical memory is rewritten every time it is recalled) and the time since the incidence could have easily adjusted the story especially depending upon the reaction (suggestion) of those who heard the retellings.[/Quote]

See my above reply.

Yes, I "felt ill, so (I) came back." Specifically, I had a painful burning sensation in my stomach simultaneously with a mental image of my son suffering. So I came with urgent intent to check out my son's condition.

 

The image of him suffering was in fact prior to my finding him suffering... with extreme stomach pain. It is a true story and I retell it as it happened above each time with few changes... *but the specifics of my diet and my son's medical history... in the more detailed version, depending on the circumstance of telling it ( re: the level of appropriate specificity.)

 

It's exceedingly likely that your 10lb bass was really a minnow.

... in your not-so-humble personal opinion as a very biased materialist who would not believe such an account under any circumstances... not to mention that you were not there and have no idea what I experienced... or how clear my memory of it is.

 

Are you seriously claiming to be a psychologist with zero understanding of memory and things that can affect it?

The account is true exactly as I stated it. I have sorted out distorted memories with my clients throughout my career. I understand the dynamics very well. There are no distortions in my above account.

 

There are reasons anecdotes aren't evidence.

I have already acknowledged the difference and presented my anecdote as personal testimony in support of consciousness acting at a distance, not as experimental evidence, which I have urged that we return to rather than making it all about me.

 

It makes more sense when put into context.

 

My anecdote was specific to consciousness as a factor 'at a distance'... like entangled particles "communicating" at a distance. My "How big is God?" question at age 5 has no place here. You bring it here (and the rest of what you quoted) with intent to assassinate my character (as a mystic) whom we all know are cannon fodder for materialistic scientists to ridicule, as already evident here.

Perhaps you have good reasons for not wanting to discuss it, but if spiritual visions, or any type of subjective experience, are the true reason you hold certain beliefs about consciousness and the cosmos -- things you've been talking about on this forum -- then you may be doing yourself a disservice in not being upfront about that.

 

I have been very candid with the above instance for a very specific purpose. You are the one dragging my mystic history into the forum for the obvious reason stated above.

 

Is that your position? Distance healing is difficult to study, but it should be studied more?

 

Yes. Even quantifying a significant degree of healing is difficult, and showing a statistically significant connection with distant healing intention (not identical with "prayer," btw) demands very rigorous experimental design.

 

Since it keeps coming up, aren't you a stone mason? Did you take that up after your career in psychology?

 

I worked my way through college as a mason's helper and then became a mason (stonemason/brick layer) and did both, masonry and psychology for many years.

Edited February 16, 2012 by owl

[ydoaPs]

So, you're denying the fact that your conviction that your memories are true has absolutely zero correlation to whether or not they are true? Interesting.

[swansont]

Wow, to think that the one time you had an upset stomach it coincided with your son's ulcer.

[Iggy]

Fact: I got a burning sensation in my stomach and an internal visual image of my son in distress.

you were not there and have no idea what I experienced

It happened for a fact and we have no idea what happened. Any questions?

 

I worked my way through college as a mason's helper and then became a mason (stonemason/brick layer) and did both, masonry and psychology for many years.

A bricklayer moonlighting as a psychologist. That would make a fantastic sitcom.

[DrRocket]

 

A bricklayer moonlighting as a psychologist. That would make a fantastic sitcom.

 

Titled "Stone Cold Crazy" ? (with apologies to Queen)

[Iggy]

Titled "Stone Cold Crazy" ? (with apologies to Queen)

 

My anecdote was specific to consciousness as a factor 'at a distance'... like entangled particles "communicating" at a distance. My "How big is God?" question at age 5 has no place here. You bring it here (and the rest of what you quoted) with intent to assassinate my character (as a mystic) whom we all know are cannon fodder for materialistic scientists to ridicule, as already evident here.

 

I have been very candid with the above instance for a very specific purpose. You are the one dragging my mystic history into the forum for the obvious reason stated above.

Nice of you to tell me my intentions.

 

You introduced your psychic vision, not me. It is an entirely subjective experience meaning the only way other people can judge it is to take your history into account. The boy that cries wolf doesn't get to say, "the first two times I cried wolf have no place here".

 

A nun who has been witnessing miracles all her life and telling stories about crying statues all her life doesn't get to demand that one of her entirely subjective stories gets taken in isolation, that the others not even be mentioned, and called a fact. That would be silly.

[owl]

So, you're denying the fact that your conviction that your memories are true has absolutely zero correlation to whether or not they are true? Interesting.

 

It’s not that convoluted. I remember the simple facts of the account very clearly. I tell it nearly* the same every time. (*See above footnote on that from previous post.)

There are not many “moving parts” or “gray areas” for “memory distortion” to mess with. You are free to disbelieve my account, which you clearly do, but it happened exactly as said.

 

Wow, to think that the one time you had an upset stomach it coincided with your son's ulcer.

I never said that I’ve only ever had one upset stomach. It’s true that this one coincided with his ulcer and with my mental image of him in distress, which urgently brought me “out of the wilderness” to check on his condition.

 

It happened for a fact and we have no idea what happened. Any questions?[/Quote]

I told the truth about it exactly as it happened. You can believe it or not. You choose 'not', and I'm fine with that... no need to convince you.

 

A bricklayer moonlighting as a psychologist. That would make a fantastic sitcom.

 

It wasn’t all that funny. I just liked working a skilled trade with my hands as well as a profession with my head, so I did both... umm... not at the same time.

 

The boy that cries wolf doesn't get to say, "the first two times I cried wolf have

no place here".

 

I have never lied here. The above implies that I have. I don’t see most of my history as a mystic as relevant here. I don’t claim that my rare visions, even “cosmic visions,” lend any more credibility to my speculative cosmology than any other scientist’s (amateur or pro) envisioning process as a part of developing a cosmology.... which, btw, is not the subject of this thread anyway.

[ydoaPs]

It’s not that convoluted. I remember the simple facts of the account very clearly. I tell it nearly* the same every time. (*See above footnote on that from previous post.)

There are not many “moving parts” or “gray areas” for “memory distortion” to mess with. You are free to disbelieve my account, which you clearly do, but it happened exactly as said.

 

 

I never said that I’ve only ever had one upset stomach. It’s true that this one coincided with his ulcer and with my mental image of him in distress, which urgently brought me “out of the wilderness” to check on his condition.

 

 

I told the truth about it exactly as it happened. You can believe it or not. You choose 'not', and I'm fine with that... no need to convince you.

 

 

 

It wasn’t all that funny. I just liked working a skilled trade with my hands as well as a profession with my head, so I did both... umm... not at the same time.

 

 

 

I have never lied here. The above implies that I have. I don’t see most of my history as a mystic as relevant here. I don’t claim that my rare visions, even “cosmic visions,” lend any more credibility to my speculative cosmology than any other scientist’s (amateur or pro) envisioning process as a part of developing a cosmology.... which, btw, is not the subject of this thread anyway.

 

The event in question happened when the dinosaurs still roamed the earth, there's an emotional component, the story has been retold and thus rewritten repeatedly, and there's obvious factors of suggestion involved. So, what you're saying is, you were either the most incompetent psychologist since Freud, or you weren't one at all? Unless, of course you're immune to all of the factors that cause memory revision AND you've found a way to distinguish revised memories from real memories in cases where independent verification is impossible.

 

It's been pointed out that this specific case is a textbook example of how memory could be expressed, but you're all "nah, brah, I'm confident that it happened exactly how I remember it despite the fact that confidence in memory accuracy has zero correlation with actual memory accuracy". You may as well claim to be a retired physicist and say "trust me, brah, Newtonian physics holds at velocities near c".

Edited February 17, 2012 by ydoaPs

[owl]

So, what you're saying is, you were either the most incompetent psychologist since Freud, or you weren't one at all? Unless, of course you're immune to all of the factors that cause memory revision AND you've found a way to distinguish revised memories from real memories in cases where independent verification is impossible.[/Quote]

 

Actually,that's not what I'm saying at all, though you are determined to spin it to be an inaccurate account (or a lie.) Like I've said a few times, it was a very simple sequence of events, unlike those which lend themselves to selective memory or distortion, with which I am very familiar as a psychologist. (Yes, I am, in fact, a retired psychologist, another 'believe it or not', which I care not in the least which you choose.)

I wrote about the incident soon after it happened, and my retelling of it over the years has not deviated from that record, so you can give up on the 'memory deteriorating over time' angle and just say that you don't believe it and leave it at that.

Again, had hoped that this thread could focus on the experimental literature, but this forum thrives on personal attacks over academic discussion... a sensationalist version of a science forum when it comes to subjects like this.

 

Anyone interested in discussing how entangled particles "communicate" at a distance, as a similar phenomenon, perhaps, to human consciousness communicating at a distance?

[ydoaPs]

Actually,that's not what I'm saying at all, though you are determined to spin it to be an inaccurate account (or a lie.)

 

What I did was point out that it is a prime candidate for memory revision. Anyone with any psychology experience would be able to do the same. You've literally done nothing to show that it's not except outright denying it (and apparently not knowing that such things happen initially).

 

I'm not determined to spin anything; you've just given me zero reason to think otherwise.

 

Like I've said a few times, it was a very simple sequence of events, unlike those which lend themselves to selective memory or distortion, with which I am very familiar as a psychologist.

 

Being "a very simple sequence of events" is irrelevant, actually. But then, who can be arsed to actually read papers? Amirite, guais?

[owl]

What I did was point out that it is a prime candidate for memory revision. Anyone with any psychology experience would be able to do the same. You've literally done nothing to show that it's not except outright denying it (and apparently not knowing that such things happen initially).

 

I'm not determined to spin anything; you've just given me zero reason to think otherwise.

 

Being "a very simple sequence of events" is irrelevant, actually. But then, who can be arsed to actually read papers? Amirite, guais?

To last sentence... huh?

 

A simple sequence of events is easier to remember than a complicated sequence, not "irrelevant."

 

Did you get this part?...

I wrote about the incident soon after it happened, and my retelling of it over the years has not deviated from that record, so you can give up on the 'memory deteriorating over time' angle and just say that you don't believe it and leave it at that.

 

I used to keep a journal of paranormal events in my life... long, long ago. I had actually *forgotten* that fact and that specific entry until remembering it in the midst of my last post. It took an 'archeological dig' to find it in my very old files, but, sure enough... here it is, fresh after it happened and just like re-told it.

Get over it.

[ydoaPs]

A simple sequence of events is easier to remember than a complicated sequence, not "irrelevant."

 

This is demonstrably false. For serious, read a paper once in a while. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong.

 

 

When did you write it down? Let's assume your family knew of your leanings toward belief in psychic stuff. You arrive at the hospital to see your son and tell him of the coincidence about you having stomach trouble at the same time and how weird that coincidence is. He says something to the effect of "we must have a psychic link or something!". That would be ALL it takes for the initial revision to produce false memory. And this would implant the false memory before writing. Let's say you told some people the edited story this, but before writing about the event. Each telling rewrites the memory and each reaction is an opportunity for suggestion to work its magic.

 

You've given absolutely zero reason to think this is not a false memory.

Edited February 18, 2012 by ydoaPs

[owl]

A simple sequence of events is easier to remember than a complicated sequence, not "irrelevant."

 

This is demonstrably false. For serious, read a paper once in a while. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. [/Quote]

 

Now you are grasping at straws and making a fool of yourself.

What paper would that be demonstrating that a complicated sequence of events is as easily remembered as a simple one?

 

When did you write it down?

 

Shortly after, while it was still very fresh in my mind, right after he got out of the hospital. I had already told my wife exactly what happened as soon as I got back.

 

Let's assume your family knew of your leanings toward belief in psychic stuff. You arrive at the hospital to see your son and tell him of the coincidence about you having stomach trouble at the same time and how weird that coincidence is. He says something to the effect of "we must have a psychic link or something!". That would be ALL it takes for the initial revision to produce false memory. And this would implant the false memory before writing. Let's say you told some people the edited story this, but before writing about the event. Each telling rewrites the memory and each reaction is an opportunity for suggestion to work its magic.

 

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for you to make up your own version of what happened? Like I tell him this and he tells me that, etc... which did not happen. There was no "initial revision," and the original journal account, as I said, is the same (though not 'word for word') as first related here.

 

You've given absolutely zero reason to think this is not a false memory.

 

Think what you want. I'm done with it.

[ydoaPs]

Now you are grasping at straws and making a fool of yourself.

What paper would that be demonstrating that a complicated sequence of events is as easily remembered as a simple one?

 

I'm not the one claiming to have been a psychologist yet demonstrating zero knowledge about the workings of false memory. Try reading the links I've provided.

 

Shortly after, while it was still very fresh in my mind, right after he got out of the hospital. I had already told my wife exactly what happened as soon as I got back.

 

Good, so you've just admitted it's the perfect example of an incident susceptible to false memory.

 

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is for you to make up your own version of what happened? Like I tell him this and he tells me that, etc... which did not happen. There was no "initial revision," and the original journal account, as I said, is the same (though not 'word for word') as first related here.

 

You said you wrote it down AFTER the visit. We all know that confidence in the memory's accuracy has no correlation with its actual accuracy, so how do you know that there was no revision? Psychologists everywhere would love to know.

[DrRocket]

Now you are grasping at straws and making a fool of yourself.

 

You have got to be kidding.

[ydoaPs]

You have got to be kidding.

 

Like I said, it's as though someone came in here claiming to be a retired physicist and says "Trust me, guys, Newtonian mechanics will hold at 99% c.".