"Ghosts" implausible.???

As You Like It said:
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
Then, the whining school-boy with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like a snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then, a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden, and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then, the justice,
In fair round belly, with a good capon lined,
With eyes severe, and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws, and modern instances,
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Click to expand...

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.
Sorry teacher.
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.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
So you ask where did you call actors liars, and then explain how they are all liars. Nice..I hope none of your friends are actors.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

And so now I'm a liar? Lying about what praytell?
 
Magical Realist said:
Good story. There's many such personal accounts like this. Often a ghost will look and sound just like a solid person. Alas, Sarkus would say it was a reflection of the moonlight off the lake. lol!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re "Lying"
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?
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Re "Lying"
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
They think that all believers in the paranormal are conmen and liars.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sarkus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
From article:

"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,[6] and can become apparent during memory tests.[7]

Spontaneous (or primary) confabulations do not occur in response to a cue[7] and seem to be involuntary.[8] 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.
 
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Magical Realist said:
Once again, the almost automatic vilification of anyone who experiences paranormal events.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Magical Realist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. ;) There was no vilification intended, although I'm surprised you seem to look for it so vehemently.
 
Dywyddyr said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Magical Realist said:
Hey I was just quoting the article you posted.
Click to expand...
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".

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 it's beliefs as objective facts.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Except that you didn't merely quote it, you went beyond what it actually stated by assuming that "vilification".
Click to expand...

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?


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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top