Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO These people were under stress of the violence they just witnessed. Can we expect a more correct memory when not under stress? i think so.
You mean not under stress, like when viewing what one imagines is a ghost, huge primate or other large animal, UFO, etc.?
In any case, all of us rewrite our memories ... even the non-stressful ones. That's why Aunt Edna remembers Uncle Jim's birthday party differently than you do.
"...Memory re-consolidation is the process of previously consolidated memories being recalled and then actively consolidated all over again, in order to maintain, strengthen and modify memories that are already stored in the long-term memory. Several retrievals of memory (either naturally through reflection, or through deliberate recall) may be needed for long-term memories to last for many years, ... The very act of re-consolidation, though, may change the intial memory. As a particular memory trace is reactivated, the strengths of the neural connections may change, the memory may become associated with new emotional or environmental conditions or subsequently acquired knowledge, expectations rather than actual events may become incorporated into the memory, etc...." (Source: http://www.human-memory.net/processe...olidation.html)
I see. So you only respond to the first sentence of a post.
What does that mean? Humans do vary greatly on many things. Lumping us all together won't be very scientific will it. Our life experiences affect what and how we remember. We train ourselves to easily see things of importance to us. Repetition Repetition Repetition.
A guy sees a person fall off a horse. That is all he saw. A horse person saw the guy fall off and he saw the girth strap fail and the saddle and the guy fall off the horse.
A man sees a car speed away from an event. He says i saw a green late model car. The car enthusiast saw a green Mustang.
"I know what I saw" is therefore pretty much valueless as objective evidence. No, you can't trust your memories. Let the hating begin.
You can't truly trust the computer screen you are looking at to read this post because you aren't experiencing it objectively.
We don't directly experience the outside world. What we see/experience as the world outside our heads is simply a virtual model cooked up by our brains using sensory input and chemical reactions, tempered with past experiences and plenty of automatic guesswork by your mind.
Unless you can get out of your head, there is literally no truly objective way to prove you are really out in the real world walking around on 2 legs and doing your thing. You could just as easily be a brain in a jar being fed complex electrical stimuli or even a computer AI stuck in a game of "The Sims 40,001" 10,000 years into the future.
In the end, we simply have to assume objective reality exists because it generally works and we have no other alternative. But if it really was objective reality, so called supernatural events should not logically exist.
I'm here to tell y'all that some of them do. I can never go back to the simplistic physical, "current science proves everything" belief system... and neither could literally millions of witnesses to the unknown throughout human history. And of course, those things don't make sense within the world as we know it... but could that simply be because we misunderstand/misinterpret the true nature of reality? I don't know for sure but I suspect so.
If seeing a ghost or a flying saucer isn't enough to find acceptance that the current scientifically understood material world isn't the whole story, go study quantum mechanics. QM is a scientific discipline that is literally hanging on the ragged edge of "accepted reality" by it's fingernails and demonstrably proving that stuff exists beyond the limits of the Scientific Method. Unfortunately, Science (despite being highly useful) has it's limits and isn't capable of taking us "all the way" to a complete understanding of everything.
The truth is, the human mind has barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding All That Is.
What it means is that the meat of what I'm saying is that you can't trust eyewitness reports of an event. That's why skeptics in this forum keep insisting on hard objective proof for the claims that are being made here. You chose to respond to this sentence of mine:
Quote:
You mean not under stress, like when viewing what one imagines is a ghost, huge primate or other large animal, UFO, etc.?
and not the rest of what I'm saying. I hope that's clear enough.
You can't truly trust the computer screen you are looking at to read this post because you aren't experiencing it objectively...The truth is, the human mind has barely scratched the surface when it comes to understanding All That Is.
I think that's called a straw man argument - it has little to do with what I'm saying, which is about the reliability of recalled memories as evidence of the extraordinary. What else do you have?
I think that's called a straw man argument - it has little to do with what I'm saying, which is about the reliability of recalled memories as evidence of the extraordinary. What else do you have?
What I'm saying is that either side of the argument is on equal ground. How can you prove the supernatural doesn't exist when you can't even prove the normal world is real?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.