Definition of Consciousness

[Belz...]

Then what would it be and how would you go about asking it and getting an answer from it?

If you can get data to your conscious mind, then it is part of your conscious mind. By definition.

 

[Belz...]

Yea! I don't buy the theory that human memory is so faulty we cannot be sure what has happened to us.

And yet this is what science shows us. It is irrational to deny evidence based on personal preferences. The data shows that people misremember things all the time, even important events, especially when they have an emotional investment in the conclusion or topic, or if the events occured under stressful circumstances.

I think that is just the skeptics way of dismissing things they don't want to accept.

I think you'll find that we respond very positively to evidence, and very skeptically to anecdotes.

After all we are the sum of our memories arn't we?

Yes, but it doesn't follow that the memories are accurate, although we wish they were.

Then they tell us that it is just what we want to believe, but I don't buy that either

Your incredulity is not an argument.

But it is the sum of my experience that there is more going on.

If that were enough, every religion would be true simultaneously.

 

[dlorde]

...Human memory is notoriously unreliable.

In my case, no it is not.

Then you must be very special.

It may be true that distortion (elaboration, leaving out significant details etc) can happen in order to 'explain' what occurred, but that is selective memory based upon personal perceptions and bias due to belief systems.
Memory of exceptional incidence, while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to happen. It is for the most part, and individual choice to distort.

It would be nice if it was a choice, but that's not how it works. If you want undistorted memory, record the live action. If you can't do that, then writing contemporaneous notes (e.g. a diary) is better than nothing. Unfortunately episodic memory is particularly fragile compared with semantic and procedural memory.

Told you it might be hard to accept

 

[Belz...]

In my case, no it is not.

I submit that in your case, perhaps even more so, if you really believe that.

 

[Navigator]

I've been trying to understand this sentence.

I think it's this:

The distortion of memory -- especially exceptional incidents -- does not have to happen. It is an individual choice.

No.
The memory of any incidence involving exceptional circumstance - while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to have those distortions of interpretation attached to it.

It is for the most part, and an individual choice to distort any incident which happened to suit their particular beliefs/perceptions/bias etc. and apply that distortion to their memory of events.

 

[Belz...]

The memory of any incidence involving exceptional circumstance - while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to have those distortions of interpretation attached to it.

Actually, memories formed under exceptional circumstances tend to become even _more_ distorted because they are recalled more often, and are subject to a lot of confusion at the moment.

It is for the most part, an individual choice to distort any incident which happened to suit their particular beliefs/perceptions/bias etc. and apply that distortion to their memory of events.

Do you have any evidence for this ? Or is it your opinion ?

 

[Navigator]

Then what would it be and how would you go about asking it and getting an answer from it?

If you can get data to your conscious mind, then it is part of your conscious mind. By definition.

The data yes.
And if the data comes from something which identifies itself as an aspect of you which you were previously unaware of, then that is that.

Then you must be very special.

Only in that I decided to find out for myself rather than trust the opinions of others.

It would be nice if it was a choice, but that's not how it works. If you want undistorted memory, record the live action. If you can't do that, then writing contemporaneous notes (e.g. a diary) is better than nothing. Unfortunately episodic memory is particularly fragile compared with semantic and procedural memory.

Write it down. Also, tell others. Work with the data. Objectively subjective memory is not overly useful for evidence (as it is hearsay) but subjective evidence does not have to be distorted.

Told you it might be hard to accept

It is not a matter of accepting that my memories are distorted. Incidence involves a lot of things which can - if allowed - be distorted by the one experiencing and/or those hearing about the experience, but this does not always have to be the case.
So I am not rejecting your argument. From experience I am saying that it is not always necessarily the case.

I submit that in your case, perhaps even more so, if you really believe that.

It is not a matter of belief.

 

[Navigator]

Actually, memories formed under exceptional circumstances tend to become even _more_ distorted because they are recalled more often, and are subject to a lot of confusion at the moment.

At what moment? The moment they were created by the circumstance?
Are you saying that the circumstance (being extraordinary) might contribute to confusion and the necessity to explain the not so easy explainable?

Do you have any evidence for this ? Or is it your opinion ?

I have experienced it, both from internal and external sources.
The evidence is subjective for that, so hearsay.
Thus, opinion. It is my opinion that this can and does happen.

 

[Belz...]

And if the data comes from something which identifies itself as an aspect of you which you were previously unaware of, then that is that.

"Identifies itself" ? What are you talking about ?

It is not a matter of belief.

You're right, it isn't: memory is unreliable.

At what moment? The moment they were created by the circumstance?
Are you saying that the circumstance (being extraordinary) might contribute to confusion and the necessity to explain the not so easy explainable?

Yes and yes.

I have experienced it, both from internal and external sources.
The evidence is subjective for that, so hearsay.
Thus, opinion. It is my opinion that this can and does happen.

So you have no idea whether it is a matter of choice, and since the science indicates that it isn't, I'll go with it, rather than with your opinion. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a more reasonable conclusion.

 

[PixyMisa]

In my case, no it is not.

How do you know? What do you have to compare it with?

 

[dlorde]

... Incidence involves a lot of things which can - if allowed - be distorted by the one experiencing and/or those hearing about the experience, but this does not always have to be the case.

You keep using 'incidence' in apparently inappropriate contexts, so that the sentence doesn't make sense - what do you mean by the word?

Normally it refers to the risk of something, or the number of cases of something in a population over a given period (originally a epidemiological usage, but often used more generally), e.g., the incidence of measles in the UK has risen.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is not a matter of belief.

Well it certainly isn't a matter of evidence or reason.

In my case, no it is not.

How do you know? What do you have to compare it with?

And herein we hit another brick wall with solipsism tinged woo. It is impossible to hold it as a concept without thinking you are special.

We're all shadows on the walls of Plato's cave but Navigator... now he's unhooked from the Matrix.

 

[MuDPhuD]

In my case, no it is not.
It may be true that distortion (elaboration, leaving out significant details etc) can happen in order to 'explain' what occurred, but that is selective memory based upon personal perceptions and bias due to belief systems.
Memory of exceptional incidence, while open to distortion from external and internal interpretation, does not have to happen. It is for the most part, and individual choice to distort.
......
It implies a great deal. More so not because it happened to you, but because it happens to so many individuals.
It infers that at some level of consciousness we are all connected. That in turn implies that we are not as individuate as we might like to believe.
What we think of as 'esp' may be no more or less than at some level we are all connected.

http://www.apcj.org/documents/3_1_confidenceandaccuracy.pdf

Although you seem quite sure your own memories are somehow different (more accurate and not subject to distortion) from the rest of humanity, the science is on my side when I say that your confidence in your memory's accuracy does not indicate that it is in fact accurate.

"...the majority of the research asserts that confidence is a poor indicator of memory accuracy (Berger & Herringer, 1991; Hollin, 1981; Penrod & Cutler, 1995; Smith, Kassin, & Ellsworth, 1989; Sporer et al., 1995; Tomes & Katz, 1997)."

Check the references yourself as you apparently don't believe the science. I suggest you read the links posted up thread as well. You might learn something useful about human memory. I know, I know, YOURS is different!

You believe there is a part of yourself that is separate from the brain, which communicates with you, and serves as a connection between us all. You have contact with this "it" through mental communication, but it's NOT introspection. Everyone else (if they disagree with you) is NOT in contact with this thing, otherwise they would agree with you!

Is there an advantage to be gained by being in contact with this thing? Do you (and everyone else who is in your club) have some attribute I can recognize which distinguishes those who are " in the know" so to speak, from those, like me, who are not?

As I said before, your hypothesis is that you are in contact with the collective unconscious, which is not your brain, while my hypothesis is that you are introspecting, and it is your own subconscious you are in contact with. How can we distinguish between these two competing hypotheses?

 

[Belz...]

As I said before, your hypothesis is that you are in contact with the collective unconscious

Freedom is irrelevant, resistance is futile.

 

[dlorde]

... your hypothesis is that you are in contact with the collective unconscious, which is not your brain, while my hypothesis is that you are introspecting, and it is your own subconscious you are in contact with. How can we distinguish between these two competing hypotheses?

I'd quite like to know what this 'collective unconscious' is supposed to be and what it is supposed to do - where does it come from, what are its capabilities, what selective advantages does it provide, do other animals have it? etc.

Sounds a bit Sheldrakian to me...

 

[Navigator]

So you have no idea whether it is a matter of choice, and since the science indicates that it isn't, I'll go with it, rather than with your opinion. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a more reasonable conclusion.

What would make you sure of that?

What 'science' indicates that one has no choice but to distort the details of an incident that just happened to them.

 

[Navigator]

You keep using 'incidence' in apparently inappropriate contexts, so that the sentence doesn't make sense - what do you mean by the word?

Normally it refers to the risk of something, or the number of cases of something in a population over a given period (originally a epidemiological usage, but often used more generally), e.g., the incidence of measles in the UK has risen.

Well that is language for you.

I mean "the act or an instance of happening; occurrence:"

What do you mean when you say 'coincidence'? Do you mean a group of risky somethings connected?

Which do you think most likely the word is being used for in the context of the conversation?

 

[Navigator]

How do you know? What do you have to compare it with?

Why do I need anything to compare my experiences with? The experiences might be quiet unique or similar to another/others but comparing them does not make them any less the experience, or require they be distorted to better fit whatever reality I or anyone else is most comfortable with.

In relation to being able to communicate with that aspect the self I am speaking about, memory does not have to be an issue.

 

[dlorde]

What 'science' indicates that one has no choice but to distort the details of an incident that just happened to them.

The cognitive sciences. Perception itself is distorted; memory more so. It doesn't work like a video recording, and it tends to decay over time and distort with recall.

Presumably this level of performance was sufficient in evolutionary terms, and even today is only problematic in limited circumstances (eye-witness testimony, etc).

 

[Navigator]

You believe there is a part of yourself that is separate from the brain, which communicates with you, and serves as a connection between us all. You have contact with this "it" through mental communication, but it's NOT introspection. Everyone else (if they disagree with you) is NOT in contact with this thing, otherwise they would agree with you!

I can see clearly that your memory has been distorted and thus you now distort 'me' and what I am supposed to have said and it isn't because I actually said any of these things, but because your bias needs to believe that I said these things and thus you choose to believe that is what I said and your memory processing makes the necessary tweaks to 'make it so.'