From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:52:02 +0100 Archived: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:00:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:43:27 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:19:13 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Scattered Not Unified ><snip> >>In the recent exchanges, it was only one person who opined that >>"Abductees lie. Abductees make up stories and add all kinds of >>details to their narratives." The posts by others, about >>"dimensions" for example, were actually based on accepting the >>reality of the experiences. Experiencers should see that as a >>plus. ><snip> >Lest you misconstrue my words Mr. Treurniet, I did not imply >that there was nothing to alien abduction. I merely stated that >is a well known fact, something called confabulation. Several >abduction researchers have commented on this with regard to >alien abduction. <snip> >So what I was cautioning against is the mere acceptance of >abductee narratives at face value. Parts of the experience may >be real and parts may be fantasy invented by the abductee and >included in the narrative. Have to agree Jason. There are problems with all testimony; of mundane traffic accidents, sightings, close encounters, abduction experiences. First is the problem of 'perception'. That is, different people see different versions of the same event. This was demonstrated years ago by Prof Arthur J. Ellison, who used to give lectures on electricity and would sometimes make 'unexpected' things happen. On at least one occasion he arranged for a bowl of flowers on his table to "raise up" (by electromagnetism), while he continued the lecture. Only at the end of question time did one (nervous) member of the audience ask if anyone had seen something strange happen to the bowl of flowers during the lecture. Sceptic members said nothing had happened: "We would have seen it - but we didn't", others said they noticed " a wobble", while some excited members claimed they'd seen a "lifting by spirit hands". Subsequent research has confirmed those perceptual divisions. Here's a list, with paraphrased headings (for sensationalism and controversy the Press used misleading "political" divisions, and even some scientists were guilty of that): i) 2007 - dogmatic/sceptic people tend to be blind to unexpected events: www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html ii) 2008 - nervous people tend to be more dogmatic: www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1667.abstract iii) 2010 - anxious people turn to dogmatism, religion: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/99/1/148/ iv) 2010 - more intelligent people are less dogmatic, more inclined to non-traditional thought: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20455621 Those and more are summarized at: www.perceptions.couk.com/magic2.html#more1 Then we have the problem of memory, and especially memories 'recovered' under counselling or hypnotism. The fact that hypnotism can create illusory 'memories' was conclusively demonstrated (to me) by a short TV examination some decades ago, where a Canadian or American (I think) psychologist repeatedly asked one question of a subject (his secretary - IRCC) over a three or four day period. Let's say he began on a Tuesday - first he determined, by a question, that the subject had slept soundly the night before (Monday night) and had no disturbance during the night. Then he hynotised the subject and asked if there had been a sharp noise heard late on Monday night. The answer was Yes. On Wednesday he again hypnotised the subject and asked if the noise heard Monday night was "like a pistol shot" and again the answer was "Yes". Thursday he hypnotised the subject and asked what happened Monday night - the answer was "I was woken up by a pistol shot". On Friday, the (un-hypnotised) subject was asked what happened Monday night - the answer was "during the night I was woken up by a nearby pistol shot". We know that the subject had slept soundly all Monday night - but the same subject now had a firm memory of being woken by a pistol shot. We also knew that at no time did the subject receive any instructions from the hypnotiser and was merely asked one question each time. [BTW - there's a strong likelihood that the subject didn't actually know what a pistol shot sounds like.] Some surprising facts of false memory creation are at: www.perceptions.couk.com/percepts32.txt all summarized at: www.perceptions.couk.com/percepts.html Maybe we should also bear in mind the 'experimenter effect', the 'sheep and goats effect' and, an extension of those established by P.E.A.R, the fact that folk can unknowingly change the outcome of random number generators (or similar) by some sort of Psy-power. There's a New Scientist summary at: www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/espsy.txt Whether any of those mean that we cannot trust 'reality' is open to speculation. Cheers Ray D 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