"Ghosts" implausible.???

[Dywyddyr]

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?

I certainly would.
But what you are still failing to grasp is that I didn't accuse anyone of suffering dementia.
One more time: the fact that confabulation is present in sufferers of dementia is NOT a conclusion (nor an accusation) that all confabulation is in and of itself a diagnosis of dementia.

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."

Which does nothing for your "point".
Yes, it's not a good idea to diagnose someone you've never met (I didn't do that).
Yes, the fact that some people get things wrong doesn't mean everyone does (but, on the other hand, it's also not an indication that we can automatically conclude that those not specifically and categorically shown to have got it wrong are thereby to be excluded from the possibility that they could have got it wrong - something further backed up by the links in my previous post).
We are ALL prone to mistakes, errors of memory and "filling the gaps": this is neither an accusation of dementia, nor of lying, but an admission that memory isn't perfect.
People tend to place greater faith in the accuracy, completeness and vividness of their memories than they probably should.

 

[Magical Realist]

I certainly would.
But what you are still failing to grasp is that I didn't accuse anyone of suffering dementia.
One more time: the fact that confabulation is present in sufferers of dementia is NOT a conclusion (nor an accusation) that all confabulation is in and of itself a diagnosis of dementia.

The Wiki article you first quoted in no sense corroborated your definition of confabulation. It specifically defined it as dementia or amnesia caused. In the context of the thread then, you DID accuse Kitt of having THAT kind of confabulation--the only kind I can find on reputable science sites:

"Confabulation is a memory disorder that may occur in patients who have sustained damage to both the basal forebrain and the frontal lobes, as after an aneurysm of the anterior communicating artery. Confabulation is defined as the spontaneous production of false memories: either memories for events which never occurred, or memories of actual events which are displaced in space or time. These memories may be elaborate and detailed. Some may be obviously bizarre, as a memory of a ride in an alien spaceship; others are quite mundane, as a memory of having eggs for breakfast, so that only a close family member can confirm that the memory is in fact false.

It is important to stress that confabulators are not lying: they are not deliberately trying to mislead. In fact, the patients are generally quite unaware that their memories are inaccurate, and they may argue strenuously that they have been telling the truth. Neither should confabulation be confused with false memory syndrome, the phenomenon whereby otherwise normal individuals suddenly "remember" supposedly-repressed incidents of childhood abuse or other trauma. Confabulation is a clinical syndrome resulting from injury to the brain.---http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/confabulation.html

Which does nothing for your "point".
Yes, it's not a good idea to diagnose someone you've never met (I didn't do that).

You as good as diagnosed Kitt with confabulation and I assume you've never met HIM. So yes, in fact you have done this.

 

[Sarkus]

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?

I didn't say that it "never happened as he thinks it did". I have said that his memory of what happened may be inaccurate, or if accurate that his interpretation of events at the time (that he subsequently remembers) may have been affected by hypervigilance etc.
And it may be that he interpreted it as he now recalls, and has reinforced the memory through self-convincing. Note that I am saying it may be. I am merely trying to conclude on a more rational explanation - which is what anyone should do before concluding on the paranormal, and on "ghosts".

But because there is no way to test what happened, as I have explained previously his evidence is anecdotal, and treated accordingly.
Is this to say it is definitely wrong, that it definitely did not happen as he recalled? No.
Is this to say that it might be wrong? Yes.

 

[Magical Realist]

I didn't say that it "never happened as he thinks it did". I have said that his memory of what happened may be inaccurate, or if accurate that his interpretation of events at the time (that he subsequently remembers) may have been affected by hypervigilance etc.

If a memory is inaccurate, then indeed what you remember never happened as you think it did. You yourself pontificated the likelihood that someone might have rescued him, just not the person he thinks he saw and later confirmed with the photograph. Also that he didn't hear her walking in the woods you would dismiss as never happening either. What gives you the authority to dissect people's own memories like that? Does Kitt have a tendency to misremember things? Or is it really just that anything paranormal that happens to anyone must automatically be dismissed as never happening? Is that it?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It specifically defined it as dementia or amnesia caused.

That would be false.
I'll quote again: "confabulation is common in amnesia and dementia" and "common in dementia".
Nowhere does it say that confabulation is confined solely to dementia.
In fact it initially states "a memory disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world" and later gives specific conditions under which this may occur.
My other links, which you appear to be ignoring [sup]1[/sup], expanded on the use of the term. (And, like I said, it's my bad for assuming that you were in any way serious about the topic: I thought that you'd be familiar with the word).

the only kind I can find on reputable science sites

Ah right.
So you've both ignored my other links AND decided (on what basis I don't know) that Rational Wiki doesn't class as "reputable".

You as good as diagnosed Kitt with confabulation and I assume you've never met HIM. So yes, in fact you have done this.

See my footnote.

1 I suppose it's psychologically beneficial to you to constantly play the victim card. Maybe it's a case of "I must be right, otherwise I wouldn't get picked on so much" coming into play.

 

[Magical Realist]

My other links, which you appear to be ignoring [sup]1[/sup], expanded on the use of the term. (And, like I said, it's my bad for assuming that you were in any way serious about the topic: I thought that you'd be familiar with the word).

Ah right.
So you've both ignored my other links AND decided (on what basis I don't know) that Rational Wiki doesn't class as "reputable".

You act surprised. Did I not initially state that I didn't trust Rational Wiki as an unbiased source of information? Perhaps YOU have a memory disorder. Oh but that's not an insult see? We ALL make mistakes..blah blah blah...

As for what the Wiki article ACTUALLY said, continue thru the paragraph to the last sentence:

"Individuals who confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to bizarre fabrications",[3] and are generally very confident about their recollections, despite contradictory evidence.[4] Most known cases of confabulation are symptomatic of brain damage or dementias, such as aneurysm, Alzheimer's disease, or Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome (a common manifestation of thiamine deficiency caused by alcoholism).

See my footnote.

1 I suppose it's psychologically beneficial to you to constantly play the victim card. Maybe it's a case of "I must be right, otherwise I wouldn't get picked on so much" coming into play.

Where in all of this am I the victim? You were the ones accusing Kitt of having a memory disorder, or a false memory, or a pseudomemory, or whatever. So at least own what you did. Attacking me as somehow "playing a victim" won't help your case one bit.

 

[Sarkus]

If a memory is inaccurate, then indeed what you remember never happened as you think it did.

Do you not see the difference between the claim "it never happened as you think it" and "it may never have happened as you think it"?
You seem to be insisting that I said the former, for some reason. Why?

You yourself pontificated the likelihood that someone might have rescued him, just not the person he thinks he saw and later confirmed with the photograph. Also that he didn't hear her walking in the woods you would dismiss as never happening either.

I merely suggest that the memory may be flawed, or based upon an incorrect interpretation at the time.

What gives you the authority to dissect people's own memories like that?

I am my own authority in what I choose to do or not - and I choose to remain skeptical rather than take people's word at face value, without further scrutiny, when what they describe would defy the current understanding of physics.

Does Kitt have a tendency to misremember things? Or is it really just that anything paranormal that happens to anyone must automatically be dismissed as never happening? Is that it?

I have no idea of Kitt's tendency. I merely pointed it out as a possibility. Why do you choose to dismiss the possibility?
I have not dismissed the recollection as never happening as recalled: I am merely raising more rational alternatives.

It does beg the question, though, why you would choose to take people's word as absolute truth, without further consideration of what are surely more rational alternatives?

 

[Dywyddyr]

You act surprised.

Nope.

Did I not initially state that I didn't trust Rational Wiki as an unbiased source of information?

Yup, you did.
By hand-waving.
And you haven't explained at all why you dismiss my other links.

Where in all of this am I the victim?

Here: Once again, the almost automatic vilification of anyone who experiences paranormal events.
I.e. you're in the group of those who have (claimed to have) "experiences [of] paranormal events".
Kitt just happens to be your stalking horse here.
I notice he himself hasn't bothered to jump up and assume accusations [sup]1[/sup]...

You were the ones accusing Kitt of having a memory disorder, or a false memory, or a pseudomemory, or whatever.

Yeah, as Sarkus has pointed out, noting the FACT that memory is not as accurate or reliable as we like to think is NOT the same as an accusation that a particular memory IS automatically false.

Attacking me as somehow "playing a victim" won't help your case one bit.

Oh, is that yet another "I'm the victim" ploy?

1 And, in point of fact, I'm assuming (from what I know/ remember of Kitt) that he's taken it in the manner that it was meant.

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you not see the difference between the claim "it never happened as you think it" and "it may never have happened as you think it"?
You seem to be insisting that I said the former, for some reason. Why?

Hey it's your hypothesis and ad hoc diagnosis, totally lacking in evidence though it is. Are you now backpeddling and saying the memory COULD be accurate and that it COULD have been a paranormal event?

I merely suggest that the memory may be flawed, or based upon an incorrect interpretation at the time.

May.. could.. might.. And so it MAY have been a real experience too. Are you admitting that now?

I am my own authority in what I choose to do or not - and I choose to remain skeptical rather than take people's word at face value, without further scrutiny, when what they describe would defy the current understanding of physics.

So it IS all about protecting your physicalist worldview then from the threat of trans-physical agencies. Why didn't you say so? This pretending to put stock into some flimsy theory about false memories could totally have been avoided in that case.

I have no idea of Kitt's tendency. I merely pointed it out as a possibility. Why do you choose to dismiss the possibility?

I have no reason to doubt his memory of what happened. It was a profound first hand experience I have no way of discrediting or even any business discrediting. Such experiences are reported all the time. So I have no reason to think they can't happen.

I have not dismissed the recollection as never happening as recalled: I am merely raising more rational alternatives.

The alternatives are rational only to the extent that the recollection never happened as recalled. It is the whole premise of your speculation, which at best seems to based on some faulty, non-clinical notion of confabulation.

It does beg the question, though, why you would choose to take people's word as absolute truth, without further consideration of what are surely more rational alternatives?

The more rational alternative IS that Kitt's memory is in fact totally normal and an accurate record of his past experiences. It's what we assume about everybody's memories, unless we know for a fact they have a memory disorder. It's also what we assume about our own memories. So yeah, I believe in memory I guess, at least until there is some evidence for it being flawed.

 

[Magical Realist]

Here: Once again, the almost automatic vilification of anyone who experiences paranormal events.
I.e. you're in the group of those who have (claimed to have) "experiences [of] paranormal events".

Where did I ever claim to have experiences of paranormal events? When did this happen? I'd be really interested in knowing that..lol!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Where did I ever claim to have experiences of paranormal events? When did this happen? I'd be really interested in knowing that..lol!

Ah right.
So the entire premise behind your constantly pushing the topic (not just in this thread) is that you're merely taking someone else's word for something you yourself haven't been through?
If that's the case (i.e. all of your case is based on hearsay) then I apologise [sup]1[/sup].

I also note that you're being disingenuous if not outright dishonest:

Are you now backpeddling and saying the memory COULD be accurate and that it COULD have been a paranormal event?

No "backpedalling involved".
An possible explanation was put forward. You choosing to view it as being claimed to be the ONLY explanation is entirely your own fabrication.

some flimsy theory about false memories

The fact that you say shows just how little you've bothered to A) take note of what;'s been said here and B) explored the literature in the first place.

The more rational alternative IS that Kitt's memory is in fact totally normal

And what you're ignoring is the fact that a "normal" memory is not a perfect recording device and is also subject to post-event revision.
I.e. a "normal" memory is one that is fully capable of "inventing" a ghost as a rationalisation, to claim otherwise (as you are doing here) is simply showing a basic ignorance of anything published on how memories function (which also lends the lie to your comment "faulty, non-clinical notion of confabulation").

1 And I suggest that UNTIL you have experienced something you're haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

 

[Sarkus]

Hey it's your hypothesis and ad hoc diagnosis, totally lacking in evidence though it is. Are you now backpeddling and saying the memory COULD be accurate and that it COULD have been a paranormal event?

I'm not backpedaling at all. I don't know if it could be accurate. I don't believe it is, but if it is then it defies all known understanding of physics.

May.. could.. might.. And so it MAY have been a real experience too. Are you admitting that now?

If it is not impossible then it is always a case of "may"... and from the infinite "may"s we try to be rational with what we conclude.

So it IS all about protecting your physicalist worldview then from the threat of trans-physical agencies. Why didn't you say so? This pretending to put stock into some flimsy theory about false memories could totally have been avoided in that case.

WTF? You have issues with people who try to be rational in their thinking? If you consider that some form of protection then that is your choice, no matter how biased it is.

I have no reason to doubt his memory of what happened. It was a profound first hand experience I have no way of discrediting or even any business discrediting. Such experiences are reported all the time. So I have no reason to think they can't happen.

You mean other than our understanding of physics?
You think it more likely that a spectral form of a long-dead person guided Kitt back, as he recalls his interpretation, than any other explanation? I have no reason to doubt that he believes his memory - but while the memory of the interpretation may be accurate, if the original interpretation is not then... :shrug:

The alternatives are rational only to the extent that the recollection never happened as recalled. It is the whole premise of your speculation, which at best seems to based on some faulty, non-clinical notion of confabulation.

It is not based on anything other than the notion that either memory can be inaccurate, or that even if perfect it is only as good as the initial interpretation of events.
And these are more rational to me than the recollection happening as recalled - they don't require anything that defies our current understanding of physics.
Now, come back with something more than anecdotal evidence that stands up to the same scrutiny than our current understanding of physics has done... and you may be on to something.
But heck, you see this as protectionism!

The more rational alternative IS that Kitt's memory is in fact totally normal and an accurate record of his past experiences. It's what we assume about everybody's memories, unless we know for a fact they have a memory disorder. It's also what we assume about our own memories. So yeah, I believe in memory I guess, at least until there is some evidence for it being flawed.

Then it is no wonder you believe what you seem to, when you take things at such face value without applying any seemingly competent notion of rationality (at least not what seems competent to many of us).

 

[Magical Realist]

Ah right.
So the entire premise behind your constantly pushing the topic (not just in this thread) is that you're merely taking someone else's word for something you yourself haven't been through?
If that's the case (i.e. all of your case is based on hearsay) then I apologise [sup]1[/sup].

Yeah...we do that everyday. On the TV news. Online. By telephone. People reporting things they experienced that we didn't and believing in them. So when did you stop believing in other people's experiences? Are scientists' reports of their own experiences of their experiments/data to be dismissed now because you didn't experience it yourself?

I also note that you're being disingenuous if not outright dishonest:

No "backpedalling involved".
An possible explanation was put forward. You choosing to view it as being claimed to be the ONLY explanation is entirely your own fabrication.

Only someone who believes the paranormal CAN'T exist would NEED an alternative explanation to Kitt's firsthand experience. But by saying now it is only an alternative--a mere possibility--you are back to admitting the paranormal CAN exist. You thus contradict the very assumption motivating you find an alternative explanation in the first place.

The fact that you say shows just how little you've bothered to A) take note of what;'s been said here and B) explored the literature in the first place.

What? That Patheos atheist blog? Yeah..that was a real authority there.

And what you're ignoring is the fact that a "normal" memory is not a perfect recording device and is also subject to post-event revision.
I.e. a "normal" memory is one that is fully capable of "inventing" a ghost as a rationalisation, to claim otherwise (as you are doing here) is simply showing a basic ignorance of anything published on how memories function (which also lends the lie to your comment "faulty, non-clinical notion of confabulation").

And yet you have zero evidence that the event didn't happen exactly as Kitt remembers it. No testimony from other people. No data supporting false memory syndrome or why it would even have occurred. Just the assurance that nothing paranormal ever happens thus entailing the need for a "rational" explanation. An assurance which you yourself undermine by insisting your explanation is only an ALTERNATIVE to the paranormal one.

1 And I suggest that UNTIL you have experienced something you're haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

Do I need to experience dark matter before talking about it? Or quantum entanglement? Or marriage ? Or the Roman Empire? Or death? Or ANY of the thousands of subjects we discuss everyday without actually having experienced them? That'd certainly leave few topics to discuss now wouldn't it?

 

[Kittamaru]

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.

If you don't understand how that could be, I would question your understanding of human memory; important details or unusual events tend to stick much better than more mundane ones (such as ones age).

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm not backpedaling at all. I don't know if it could be accurate. I don't believe it is, but if it is then it defies all known understanding of physics.

How do you know the paranormal defies all known understanding of physics? It certainly doesn't contradict the notion of block time in physics where the past, present, and future all exist at once. And if by chance we ARE beings, not of matter, but of pure energy, then it sort of follows that we'd continue on after we die since energy is never destroyed. In any case, assuming the paranormal and physics to be incompatible makes the double mistake of thinking we know all about what the paranormal is, and of thinking physics defined in this present day represents all the understanding we will ever have of it. Is it not physics itself that already posits things such as other dimensions and universes, a possibility that would certainly explain the existence of transphysical beings? You just need to be more openminded before dismissing out of hand the very possibility of the paranormal.

 

[Manifold1]

How do you know the paranormal defies all known understanding of physics?

The same question implies that there will be paranormal events that will find themselves well rejected on the basis of science. Though some will remain, there are a small handful of them, but some exist.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yeah...we do that everyday. On the TV news. Online. By telephone. People reporting things they experienced that we didn't and believing in them. So when did you stop believing in other people's experiences? Are scientists' reports of their own experiences of their experiments/data to be dismissed now because you didn't experience it yourself?

And here, back again to the eternal "either/ or", "one or the other".
Reported experiences within standard parameters may be accepted at face value (which isn't the same as pushing those reports).
Reported experiences that go against everything we know (and have verified) require substantiation.

Only someone who believes the paranormal CAN'T exist would NEED an alternative explanation to Kitt's firsthand experience.

That would be entirely false.
There's a vast difference between offering an explanation based on what we already and automatically believing something can't exist.

But by saying now it is only an alternative-

Go back and read what was written.
Nowhere did anyone say that what was put forward was the only possible explanation: i.e. it is not a case of "saying now".

What? That Patheos atheist blog? Yeah..that was a real authority there.

Oh right.
I mention literature and you decide I meant ONE particular blog (one which you can't even be bothered to state why you dismiss).

And yet you have zero evidence that the event didn't happen exactly as Kitt remembers it. No testimony from other people. No data supporting false memory syndrome or why it would even have occurred. Just the assurance that nothing paranormal ever happens thus entailing the need for a "rational" explanation.

And zero evidence that it did happen exactly that way.

An assurance which you yourself undermine by insisting your explanation is only an ALTERNATIVE to the paranormal one.

If you have to resort to outright lies then you aren't helping your case.

Do I need to experience dark matter before talking about it? Or quantum entanglement? Or marriage ? Or the Roman Empire? Or death? Or ANY of the thousands of subjects we discuss everyday without actually having experienced them? That'd certainly leave few topics to discuss now wouldn't it?

If you haven't experienced something either directly in person or been through a full and exhaustive education then your opinion remains just that: an opinion. With zero weight.
Reading second or third-hand accounts, of dubious provenance and rigour, doesn't make for a firm footing on any subject.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by Magical Realist
Yeah...we do that everyday. On the TV news. Online. By telephone. People reporting things they experienced that we didn't and believing in them. So when did you stop believing in other people's experiences? Are scientists' reports of their own experiences of their experiments/data to be dismissed now because you didn't experience it yourself?

And here, back again to the crank's eternal "either/ or", "one or the other".
Reported experiences within standard parameters nay be accepted at face value (which isn't the same as pushing those reports).
Reported experiences that go against everything we know (and have verified) require substantiation.

The thing is , " the everything we know " is not everything the Universe has yet to show us

 

[Dywyddyr]

The thing is , " the everything we know " is not everything the Universe has yet to show us

Yep, typical excuse.
While almost certainly true it's no excuse to accept things with zero hard evidence and that are directly contrary to what we do know,

 

[river]

Yep, typical excuse.
While almost certainly true it's no excuse to accept things with zero hard evidence and that are directly contrary to what we do know,

Yet what we " do know " EVOLVES