John Edward - psychic or what?

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, we tend to make ourselves the hero of our stories.

That's actually one of the items on a check list when I'm writing an anecdotal post on here. Almost all my posts are about ME in some way. But I'm an old geezer and have lived a sort of interesting life. If I find that I'm the focal point of the story rather than Zappa or Hendrix or Cass Elliot or whomever I'm writing about having run into or talked to, I stop and think it over. I should come off as an innocent bystander in those stories. I doubt Jimi or Cass would even remember me - were they still alive - and doubt that I even registered with them for more than a second in the original encounters.

I've actually heard myself saying (to said self) - - "that's a bunch of BS-ing" just before I hit the back button and refuse to send the message.

 

[Foolmewunz]

If you do not remember certain things, then those certain things are not part of your memory.
It is the actual memory which can be at fault, the details of the memory.
You say you do, and always will remember. Firstly, the point is that you may not be remembering accurately, no matter how convinced you are.
Secondly, you cannot know that you always will remember. Once you stop remembering, ie forget, you will have no memory of what it is you have stopped remembering.

Robin/Batvette,
That's some important stuff in kerikiwi's post. Would you think about it for a second. How can you tell me what you don't know? You can't, 'cuz you don't know it. Oh, I can tell you that I don't know squat about a field - say Astrophysics, or about the life and times of Lord Chesterfield, but I can't tell you that I don't remember exactly what class I was in when I heard that Kennedy was shot. I remember the desk. I remember Melodie Taylor crying. I remember Steve Murdock giving a guttural scream. I just don't remember what 8th grade class I was in. And therefore I cannot tell you that I don't remember that it was History (if that's what it was) or English (maybe that)... I simply don't know.

I played with mixed media art when I was in my 20s. Early... huge video recorders. When I got back to NYC, I saw some of the old tapes of our versions of clubbing sessions. I'd told the story for a decade of the night that Carl Lee http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0496942/ threatened to break the camera (Jay Brown, a friend, was holding it). Carl had become a little famous because of his part in SuperFly, and it was a cool story to tell. But there on the video, it wasn't Carl Lee - he wasn't in any of the shots and may not have been in the club at all at the time, and the guy who "threatened"? He actually just said, "Man, could you not be all over me when I'm just grooving?" - that was the extent of the threat! And he wasn't black, nor did he look remotely like Carl Lee.

And I believed every word of the Carl Lee version of the story. I don't remember when I started believing it and don't remember if I even originally knew that he wasn't the primary actor in the real version of the memory. I'm certain, though, that I must have changed it over to Carl because he was a name and it gave a little creedence to my brief association with a B-level actor, if he was doing more than what we really knew him for... just hanging out at the club and asking us to put on funkier music and being an annoying jerk about it! (This I got from looking at the old videos and talking about it, in detail, with others who were there.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

If these seem to be derails, I think this is legitimate thread drift; discussions of how tricky human memory is in a thread where the only evidence is anecdotal and unsupported.

Compliments of a Jules Feiffer interview I saw on PBS many years ago.

Pat O'Brien and Ronald Reagan Return to Notre Dame

There was footage from the mid-70s of Pat and Ron visiting the campus at Notre Dame, walking around in appropriate misty-eyed awe, obviously remembering the good old days. O'Brien even made a speech about how much Notre Dame meant to him and how it'll always have a special place in his memory... and he teared up when doing so.

The thing is... O'Brien and Reagan attended the University of Sound Studio 3 on the Warner Brothers lot in Burbank! They never went to Notre Dame. They played characters in a movie - a famous movie - who were Notre Dame football players. And here they were, grown men, walking around a quad they'd never seen in their lives, looking at a statue they'd never seen in their lives, and standing in the middle of a football field they'd never seen in their lives. And breaking down from the emotion of it.

Feiffer's point was not that they were lying frauds, but that they were so steeped in the false memories they created for a living that they actually started believing them.

A film is a much more permanent record than an anecdote but the anecdote, retold often enough, with embellishments added from telling to telling, takes on a life of its own, just like the motion picture. If you've ever been a regular at a pub with a totally boorish patron who's constantly retelling his old Viet Nam (or WWII or Korea) stories, you can actually track the changes. The firefight that he heard about when he told you of it in '76 became the firefight he was involved in by '80 and became a "campaign that nearly ended the war" by '90.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Great Carl Lee anecdote.

What I find significant is the rarity of being able to find anything like filmed evidence to uncover faulty memory.

Most of us will repeat the same stories over and over and go to our graves never doubting their veracity.

I think they were discussing this on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast. I believe Steve or Jay Novella admitted to a false memory of an injury (a broken arm?) that had actually happened to the other.

I don't have any stories like that at hand, but I'm always primed with my aforementioned "I coulda sworn..." if one of my memories is ever shown to be "off".

Just part of being human!

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, remember when I started my own thread and I stated that you need to read my blog AND ALL the comments to get the full picture? I even stated that more than once. So I do get that the details can make all the difference when evaluating the validity of a medium. If you go back and read the comments on my blog you will see that I explained that John knew he was with someone in my group of 4 and then after he gave some info I said I didn't know but maybe could be me. Then John hesitated and asked me if I just bought a new refrigerator. That was directed at me only. As a validation that yes indeed the reading was for me. You are not remembering the comment correctly. You are also not remembering the comment about the tooth guy correctly either. I did not say John directed that at him directly rather I said that John asked if someone on my side of the room had a big tooth in their pocket. And remember that was only validated by chance after the event. You have referenced my comments incorrectly before as well (can't remember exactly) and I am too lazy to go back and look. I really think there is not much else I could say here that would make a difference. So it's kinda a waste of time for both of us. I really am only waiting here now hoping that Remie will give us a current update as to whether she now believes John may be real. Or not. Dying to know! : )

No, Robin. That is not how it happened. You did, of course, irrationally insist that we read all your comments. I resisted but just as irrationally eventually gave in. I read all the comments, Robin. You know this because I said so already. You were wrong about needing to read them all, of course. The vast majority added nothing of substance, as expected.

Without bothering to dissect every detail of your post here, I will reiterate what is factually indisputable: The four posts in your own blog contradict each other. You offered differing versions in your thread here. Now you deny it. No surprise. You claimed to have proof; you presented none; you made statements that admit you have no proof; you deny that.

There is no assault or insult here, Robin. Your memory is not special, and neither is batvette's. You have presented nothing in this thread or in the thread you started to indicate that either telepathy or life-after-death-communication is a more plausible explanation for the anecdotes presented than any of myriad mundane explanations.

 

[Garrette]

Reference false memories: They can be intentionally created, too. Many years ago I conducted a personal test by adopting as my own a minor adventure that my brother had (he knew). I told that story repeatedly over the next few years, including once or twice on line. I have not told the story in its entirety in over ten years, but I have had to stop myself from telling it several times, reminding myself that it isn't really my story. Even now, I feel as if it is mine.

And frankly, I am unsure if the details of how this came about are not incorrect in my telling of it here.

 

[Robin1]

No, Robin. That is not how it happened. You did, of course, irrationally insist that we read all your comments. I resisted but just as irrationally eventually gave in. I read all the comments, Robin. You know this because I said so already. You were wrong about needing to read them all, of course. The vast majority added nothing of substance, as expected.

Without bothering to dissect every detail of your post here, I will reiterate what is factually indisputable: The four posts in your own blog contradict each other. You offered differing versions in your thread here. Now you deny it. No surprise. You claimed to have proof; you presented none; you made statements that admit you have no proof; you deny that.

There is no assault or insult here, Robin. Your memory is not special, and neither is batvette's. You have presented nothing in this thread or in the thread you started to indicate that either telepathy or life-after-death-communication is a more plausible explanation for the anecdotes presented than any of myriad mundane explanations.

Garrette, stalemate. But aren't ya curious to know Remie's current thoughts about John Edward??!!

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, stalemate. But aren't ya curious to know Remie's current thoughts about John Edward??!!

I know what Remie has said, though I am open to being corrected. As for the stalemate comment: Nope, not remotely. You seem to be under the impression that if you string words together it counts as logic equal to the initial comment. That isn't the case.

 

[LashL]

An important event, a traumatic accident, things like that, once it's locked in long term storage it doesn't degrade ever.

This is categorically false. It's a nice little soundbite and one that many people erroneously believe but it is, nonetheless, categorically false. In fact, traumatic events often produce false 'memories' from the outset but, even then, they are malleable over time and other falsities often replace the initial falsities, etc.

 

[xterra]

Garrette wrote, "There is no assault or insult here, Robin. Your memory is not special, and neither is batvette's. You have presented nothing in this thread or in the thread you started to indicate that either telepathy or life-after-death-communication is a more plausible explanation for the anecdotes presented than any of myriad mundane explanations."

Let me rephrase that, since Garrette was concerned about the grammar*:

"Neither in this thread, nor in the thread about telepathy, nor the one about proof of life after death, have you presented a more-plausible paranormal or supernatural explanation than any mundane explanation. Neither have you presented falsifiable/replicable studies, or evidence; just anecdotes, about which you insist there is no doubt that you are recalling them correctly."

I add here my own observations:

You have ignored the abstracts that you have been shown I posted about scientific studies of the malleability of memories, and the ways in which we all refashion them, consciously or subconsciously. You have ignored the evidence that your own account of what happened has changed just over the course of this discussion.

Instead of discussing the topic, you have coninuously tried to turn aside the discussion by asking if someone believes in love, or by declaring that batvette has "won" an argument. To me, the latter remark came across as snide and condescending toward the morons who participate in this thread, and perhaps in this forum. You may say that you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way you wrote it.

(If you argue that we are taking it wrongly, I will respond that you are responsible for writing in a fashion that cannot be misinterpreted.)

In your latest post, you respond to Garrette by proclaiming a stalemate, and then try again to turn aside the discussion by asking if Garrette is curious about RemieV's opinion of John Edward.

There is no need for angry or snide or off-topic remarks. If you wish to return to the topic at hand: whether John Edward is or is not a psychic and whether he does or does not communicate with dead people, let us do that in a civilized, adult manner.



*Lest you think me arrogant and superior for editing this, I will tell you that I have taught college-level composition and writing course (among other subjects) for probably more than half your life.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Garrette, stalemate. But aren't ya curious to know Remie's current thoughts about John Edward??!!

A whole bunch of us have followed young Remie's "career" quite a bit over the years. I think you're mistaking her saying that he was very good (implication:at what he does) and that she couldn't quite figure out how he got some of the coincidental (if that's what they were) hits with her thinking that he's "The One".

I don't pretend to speak for Remie - she does that quite eloquently, herself - but I'm "curious" only insofar as I want to see how you backpedal or spin when she tells you that she is quite sure that Edward is not a psychic nor speaking to the dead.

 

[Resume]

This is categorically false. It's a nice little soundbite and one that many people erroneously believe but it is, nonetheless, categorically false. In fact, traumatic events often produce false 'memories' from the outset but, even then, they are malleable over time and other falsities often replace the initial falsities, etc.

In other words, nonsense.*

*The claim that traumatic memories are stored in a pristine, undegradable state.

 

[Robin1]

A whole bunch of us have followed young Remie's "career" quite a bit over the years. I think you're mistaking her saying that he was very good (implication:at what he does) and that she couldn't quite figure out how he got some of the coincidental (if that's what they were) hits with her thinking that he's "The One".

I don't pretend to speak for Remie - she does that quite eloquently, herself - but I'm "curious" only insofar as I want to see how you backpedal or spin when she tells you that she is quite sure that Edward is not a psychic nor speaking to the dead.

I only want to know Remie's current thoughts on John Edward because I see myself in her...as in a knowledgeable skeptic yet one who recognizes when something unusual is happening. Also, it seems to me that many on here know her and would respect her opinion more than they would a stranger. She may draw a different conclusion than me but I'm still curious. My gut tells me that she will not be able to state that she is certain John Edward is a fraud. Even if I'm wrong, I'd still like to know her answer. And I would trust she is being truthful...so I wouldn't attempt to backpedal. I would simply agree to disagree.

 

[Resume]

I only want to know Remie's current thoughts on John Edward because I see myself in her...as in a knowledgeable skeptic yet one who recognizes when something unusual is happening. Also, it seems to me that many on here know her and would respect her opinion more than they would a stranger. She may draw a different conclusion than me but I'm still curious. My gut tells me that she will not be able to state that she is certain John Edward is a fraud. Even if I'm wrong, I'd still like to know her answer. And I would trust she is being truthful...so I wouldn't attempt to backpedal. I would simply agree to disagree.

No.

 

[Robin1]

Garrette wrote, "There is no assault or insult here, Robin. Your memory is not special, and neither is batvette's. You have presented nothing in this thread or in the thread you started to indicate that either telepathy or life-after-death-communication is a more plausible explanation for the anecdotes presented than any of myriad mundane explanations."

Let me rephrase that, since Garrette was concerned about the grammar*:

"Neither in this thread, nor in the thread about telepathy, nor the one about proof of life after death, have you presented a more-plausible paranormal or supernatural explanation than any mundane explanation. Neither have you presented falsifiable/replicable studies, or evidence; just anecdotes, about which you insist there is no doubt that you are recalling them correctly."

I add here my own observations:

You have ignored the abstracts that you have been shown I posted about scientific studies of the malleability of memories, and the ways in which we all refashion them, consciously or subconsciously. You have ignored the evidence that your own account of what happened has changed just over the course of this discussion.

Instead of discussing the topic, you have coninuously tried to turn aside the discussion by asking if someone believes in love, or by declaring that batvette has "won" an argument. To me, the latter remark came across as snide and condescending toward the morons who participate in this thread, and perhaps in this forum. You may say that you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way you wrote it.

(If you argue that we are taking it wrongly, I will respond that you are responsible for writing in a fashion that cannot be misinterpreted.)

In your latest post, you respond to Garrette by proclaiming a stalemate, and then try again to turn aside the discussion by asking if Garrette is curious about RemieV's opinion of John Edward.

There is no need for angry or snide or off-topic remarks. If you wish to return to the topic at hand: whether John Edward is or is not a psychic and whether he does or does not communicate with dead people, let us do that in a civilized, adult manner.



*Lest you think me arrogant and superior for editing this, I will tell you that I have taught college-level composition and writing course (among other subjects) for probably more than half your life.

xterra, I am truly sorry for writing in a snide way. I honestly didn't mean to. Bottom line...I just do not think any more discussion would change anyone's opinions. The whole "you won" statement was me trying to be funny but I also did think Batvette proved his point better than anyone else. But on reflection I should not have worded it that way. Also with Garrette, I also just didn't think any more discussion would change anyone's opinion. That is what I meant by declaring a stalemate. I then asked about Remie cause I was truly curious about Garrette's (and others) opinion. And I was only curious because after spending so much time on my thread and this one I kinda grew to like a lot of you and respect you even if we don't agree. : )

 

[xterra]

xterra, I am truly sorry for writing in a snide way. I honestly didn't mean to. Bottom line...I just do not think any more discussion would change anyone's opinions. The whole "you won" statement was me trying to be funny but I also did think Batvette proved his point better than anyone else. But on reflection I should not have worded it that way. Also with Garrette, I also just didn't think any more discussion would change anyone's opinion. That is what I meant by declaring a stalemate. I then asked about Remie cause I was truly curious about Garrette's (and others) opinion. And I was only curious because after spending so much time on my thread and this one I kinda grew to like a lot of you and respect you even if we don't agree. : )

Understood. Apology accepted.

If you don't mind a little advice, you might try writing your response in a word-processing program rather than in the reply box. That gives you time to think about it. The post to which you just responded was rewritten about seven times before I posted it.

 

[LashL]

In other words, nonsense.*

*The claim that traumatic memories are stored in a pristine, undegradable state.

Yes, it is, indeed, nonsense, much like everything else posted in this thread by batvette and robin whatsits thusfar.

It strikes me as quite sad, really. I would like to see either of them address the point but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

 

[pakeha]

^
Nor shall I.
To be fair, batvette HAS agreed that JE is a fraud.

I only want to know Remie's current thoughts on John Edward because I see myself in her...as in a knowledgeable skeptic yet one who recognizes when something unusual is happening. Also, it seems to me that many on here know her and would respect her opinion more than they would a stranger. She may draw a different conclusion than me but I'm still curious. My gut tells me that she will not be able to state that she is certain John Edward is a fraud. Even if I'm wrong, I'd still like to know her answer. And I would trust she is being truthful...so I wouldn't attempt to backpedal. I would simply agree to disagree.

While we're waiting, Robin, could you answer one or even all of the several questions I've asked you here?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Reference false memories: They can be intentionally created, too.

I have not read all the posted links in this thread, so forgive me if this had been mentioned...

I recall a study where participants watched a car accident on video. One group was asked something like, "Do you think the red car was at fault?"

A certain time later, they were asked to relate the accident. A significant number of those being asked about a red car had incorporated a red car into their memory of the accident, when in fact no red car had been involved. There was a control group which was not asked about a red car that had no similar effect.

I've tried to recall this experiment through my obviously imperfect memory. If anyone can correct me or provide add'l details, I won't be offended.

Police arriving on a scene must be careful not to "lead" witnesses in any way. A simple "Which way did HE go" can be suggestive.

 

[batvette]

I. Don't. Care.

You have no evidence whatsoever my recollection of this event was faulty.

You think I don't get some "point" you think is all important.

Whoopee!

You've not even provided any examples of people who could not remember how they heard about 9/11. The point is destroyed simply because I recall exactly how I heard.

Just forget about it, okay? You don't have to be convinced of anything.