Of course it wouldn't appear so to you; apparently you've a vested interest in not recognizing it. Its ironic how you presume to lecture me about my ability to recall memories of my own experiences yet you're willfully blind to whats right in front of your face.
Repeating this doesn't help you. I asked you to show how your highlight proved what you were saying. Can you or can't you?
Thats a pretty long "no".
If "no" is all that you got out of that, you may want to work on your comprehension skills.
If you don't believe I'm wrong then what are you arguing against?
There is a difference between believing that it is
impossible for you to be right and believing that you are wrong.
No kidding? I reckon you must fill in the gaps of your own shoddy memory with bald presumptions -- or is that something you only reserve for people with recollections you find objectionable?
Pure Argent said:
I consider you a reliable witness if there is evidence backing up your claim. For example, if you claimed that you had coffee this morning, I would have no issue, because I know that coffee exists and that people drink it in the morning very commonly. However, if you claimed that you had been abducted by aliens, no, I would not believe you, because there is no evidence that it occurred.
This applies to my own memories as well.
Its one thing to point out that memory is fallible. Its quite another to imply that your presumptions concerning another's experiences trumps their firsthand recollection of said experiences.
Unless that presumption - namely, that memory is fallible - not only can be but has been proven. You have yet to offer a shred of evidence against it. All you are doing is saying "I know that my memory is correct". That does not help your case.
Who said anything about ruling out "mundane" explanations?
You. As you followed this very sentence with:
I've repeatedly stated that even assuming the explanations put forward they are still insufficient in themselves to account for every feature of the events in question -- that includes even the "paranormal" interpretations you dread so much.
My highlight.
Presumably you include mundane explanations in your list of explanations which don't account for every feature of your experience. If you didn't, you wouldn't be harping on about how there is no explanation for what you experienced.
Beyond that, you have failed to give us any reason whatsoever to think that mundane explanations cannot account for your experience. All you've done is say that they can't. That doesn't help you.
Of course, your other fall-back is to try and convince me that you're a better judge of my recollections than I am.
Except that it isn't, because I have never done that.
Stop strawmanning.
Actually,
emotionally charged experiences are much more likely to be remembered vividly and clearly.
You need to read
more carefully.
Certain details are likely to be remembered more clearly. Other details are likely to be missed.
As far as your own experience goes, I find it likely that you remembered that you heard
something which seemed strange at the time and which had no immediately identifiable source. The fact that you couldn't find a source, and that the information imparted seemed strange, imprinted on your memory, and remained. The actual content of the message didn't - at least, not as strongly. It was later altered.
Because I've direct access to my own memories so I'm in a much better position to discern how much I remember, and how clearly.
No, you aren't. Again, there's no magic flag that declares "THIS MEMORY HAS BEEN ALTERED". All you have is a memory with nothing to compare it to. You cannot tell if it has been altered.
Problem is that what I recall appears incongruent with [and is therefore threatening to] a worldview you're strongly vested in.
Again, no. I really see little point in continuing this conversation if you can't even understand that I am not strongly vested in my current worldview. I've explained this to you already.
Right. And the only "evidence" you have that my memories are incorrect is that they appear to contradict a world-view you've invested much faith in.
No. The evidence I have that your memories are incorrect is that
memory is fallible, that you have no evidence that your memory is correct, and that the things which you are positing as an explanation are not known to be possible.
<snip>
Your position is already build on straw and almost beyond parody. The fact that you can't even address the point being made in the segment you're responding to clearly demonstrates such.
And what point do you claim I missed?
You're dismissing my own reports out of hand, despite your lack of positive or negative evidence concerning their veracity.
I have already given you the evidence that your memory is likely wrong.
Memory is not perfect. Dismissing something with evidence in hand that it is incorrect is not "dismissing it out of hand".
"Great strides" yet you've no answers to the very
rudimentary questions I posed to you. Someone is very deep in denial.
Try again. Rather than repeating nonsense that I've already responded to, try coming up with an answer to what I've said.
PixyMisa has explicitly stated that it is a physical impossibly for the mind/consciousness to exist independent of a brain, and you interject to support him in his claims. Stop with the denial.
Try responding to my reply in context next time. Quote-mining only makes you look foolish.
As it does when you quote-mine Pixy. If you've ever looked at any of the consciousness threads that he participates in, you'd know that, once again, Pixy's position and my own align perfectly.
You might try to be a little less transparent with your lies.
So you don't think this is an insult? What world do you live in?
