Perdicting Earthquakes

[Miss Anthrope]

And the evidence that Spektator's experience fits the scientific norm is . . .

Oh, gee, I dunno. Maybe the cites of human memory articles, the mountains and mountains of scientific research on that subject that exist, and the specific case which related to a dream of a dead person...........


And your evidence is an argument from incredulity and your own perceptions based on your dream journals.

 

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, try thinking instead of making sarcastic comments. Your friend dies in a tragic accident. You commisserate with his/her relatives and other friends and attend the funeral with them. Then, and only then, do you have a dream about your departed friend visiting you. Wouldn't that dream be clearly fixed in your mind as occurring after his death? I've had many after-the-fact dreams about departed friends and relatives and never once had the slightest doubt about their occurring after-the-fact.

That wasn't sarcasm. And no, it cetainly wouldn't be fixed in my mind as occuring after their death or at any other time, since I never remember my dreams. Now, since you obviously posses some knowledge that we don't that proves people can't misremember the timing of their dreams, why don't you show us this evidence that contradicts everything in the scientific literature? Or are you just going to continue whining that you don't believe it therefore it didn't happen?

 

[Spektator]

I will point out that in my "earthquake prediction" of more than a week ago, I specified the possibility of 3.0+ quakes in the Baja California region for March 28. There were two, one in the 4.0 magnitude range, one in the 5.0 magnitude range, in the Gulf of California, adjacent to Baja.

And it was still just playing the odds. Though please no one tell "sollog" about this, or he'll start drawing lines again.

 

[Rodney]

. . . why don't you show us this evidence that contradicts everything in the scientific literature?

You seem to think that, because the scientific literature demonstrates that memory can be fallible, therefore it's logical to believe that it's common for people to have major events occur in their lives, dream about those events, and then somehow come to believe that they actually had the dreams prior to those major events. Show me something in the scientific literature that demonstrates the truth of that specific proposition, not the general proposition that memory can play tricks on us.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

You seem to think that, because the scientific literature demonstrates that memory can be fallible, therefore it's logical to believe that it's common for people to have major events occur in their lives, dream about those events, and then somehow come to believe that they actually had the dreams prior to those major events. Show me something in the scientific literature that demonstrates the truth of that specific proposition, not the general proposition that memory can play tricks on us.

And you seem to think that memory regarding dreams is different from the general, basic principles of memory. And you're right, actually. Because dream recall is even more fuzzy and difficult than conscious memory!!



This article is well cited.

Another interesting fact about memory is that studies have shown that there is no significant correlation between the subjective feeling of certainty a person has about a memory and the memory being accurate.

You haven't come right out and said it, but you seem to be implying rather firmly that the dream discussed was actually a paranormal experience that the person has since gone into denial about. Read up on neuroscience, as it will tell you the recall of dreams more often than not requires a mental prompt in order to be recalled at all. It makes absolutely perfect sense, if you have a reality & scientifically based understanding of the human mind, that when the event and dream are recalled, the memories will be connected--incorrectly--by the mind.

Neuroscience does not agree with you. Memory is incredibly inaccurate, recall of dreams is even more innaccurate. Put the two together, and it gets quite jumbled.

Since you are in essence making a paranormal claim via argument from incredulity, the burden is on YOU to show evidence to the contrary.

 

[Spektator]

Rodney wrote:

You seem to think that, because the scientific literature demonstrates that memory can be fallible, therefore it's logical to believe that it's common for people to have major events occur in their lives, dream about those events, and then somehow come to believe that they actually had the dreams prior to those major events.(snip)

Common? Not necessarily. I do not know how many occurrences are required to label these events "common." Maybe they're not; maybe they're only occasional. However such events do happen. They are clearly not impossible. The events are not so rare that there are no accounts of them happening. That, I think, has been demonstrated.

 

[Cuddles]

You seem to think that, because the scientific literature demonstrates that memory can be fallible, therefore it's logical to believe that it's common for people to have major events occur in their lives, dream about those events, and then somehow come to believe that they actually had the dreams prior to those major events. Show me something in the scientific literature that demonstrates the truth of that specific proposition, not the general proposition that memory can play tricks on us.

Wheeee! look at those goalposts fly!

You don't think that witnessing a person being shot right in front of you would be considered at all significant? And yet it is not unsual for people to misremeber. In fact, the majority of people have been clearly demonstrated to misremember very significant details of that kind of event. And this is when they genuinely witness things, rather than have a vague dream about it. Which part do you think is not logical? Memory is extremely fallible. Dreams are even more vague than real memories. How can you possibly think (assuming you actually do) that forgetting the exact details of a dream several years later is not normal? It's not only that it's not rare, it's actually more comon than not.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/h&l1.htm#_ednref9
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...re-stress.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ggestion-.html

I'm sorry, but you're actually even more wrong than usual on this one.

 

[Rodney]

You haven't come right out and said it, but you seem to be implying rather firmly that the dream discussed was actually a paranormal experience that the person has since gone into denial about.

No, I wasn't implying that. However, I have heard of situations where someone was trying to comfort a bereaved person by telling that person of an invented paranormal event. Then, when the story about the alleged event gains currency, the teller of the story feels guilty, and tries to back off. I'm not saying that applies here, but I think that kind of thing is vastly more common than a person genuinely becoming confused about whether a dream preceded or followed a memorable event in his or her life.

 

[Dan O.]

If Spektator was trying to silence the story of his premonition, why would he bring the subject up here? That kind of logic just doesn't make sense.

Memories aren't recorded like a video tape. They are stored as a set of associations. These associations are continually being edited as new memories are laid down and also get edited and reinforced each time the memory is recalled. It is also well known that recall of traumatic events can be partially blocked for some time after the event. So in the months or years after the death of the friend, the separate memories could be brought up of the friend saying goodbye and of the friend having died. Unless the association of the first part being a dream is also recalled, there is only one logical order for these events and the brain would reinforce the logical order. This reprocessing would normally take place during dreaming so one wouldn't necessarily be conscious of it happening. At a later time the rest of the associations are recalled but now the time order has already been "fixed" so the dream is placed before the death.

I can't say that this is exactly what happened in this case but it is a plausible explanation based on what I know of how memory works and I find it more acceptable than to say that Spektator is lying to us.

I'm not an expert but if it's an expert opinion you want I found one that is probably perfect. He is a professor of parapsychology specializing in cognition and an editor of The Skeptic magazine. He was also invited to be a speaker at TAM 3 but backed out because he wasn't getting a free ride.

 

[Spektator]

Good grief, Rodney should have been listening in the day, long after the event, when I talked to my friend's sister and told her that he had not returned to me in a dream the moment he died! It was agony for both of us, and I cried just as hard that day as I had at the funeral. "Make up a story to comfort relatives" indeed!