- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Feb 15
Expanding upon the point made in my OP, and the discussions that followed
[at least the ones on topic 😉 ] I have just come across a great example and
explanation of why it is that you cannot just trust that an experience you
have is necessarily real.
The relevant part starts 15:15 into this recording of The Atheist Experience TV show.
It's about 8 minutes long, and well worth watching.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/58869531/theater
The topic is about Sleep Paralysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis
which is a condition in which you partially wake and are unable to move and
in which you may have hallucinations, sometimes extremely vivid and occasionally
terrifying. They are a likely explanation for people claiming to have been abducted
by aliens [these hallucinations can have a sexual element] or, in latter centuries by
angels or demons.
For those claiming personal experiences as evidence or proof of god, and who claim
that they know that god exists because of a personal experience. I ask how it is that
you can possibly know that the experience was real given that we know how our brains
can deceive us?
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI believe it is highly unlikely that two or more people would experience the same hallucination.
Expanding upon the point made in my OP, and the discussions that followed
[at least the ones on topic 😉 ] I have just come across a great example and
explanation of why it is that you cannot just trust that an experience you
have is necessarily real.
The relevant part starts 15:15 into this recording of The Atheist Experience TV show.
It's abo ...[text shortened]... n possibly know that the experience was real given that we know how our brains
can deceive us?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd?
I believe it is highly unlikely that two or more people would experience the same hallucination.
Ok, first off... Define 'the same'...
Two people watching the same film we see and experience it differently,
if you are saying that you don't believe that two people will have precisely
the same experience in every conceivable detail then you are probably right.
So what? That doesn't mean anything.
What we have are peoples descriptions of their experiences, which are often
not very detailed. Which means that whole set of similar experiences will have
essentially the exact same description.
And hallucinations are not random, they are created by our brains using the
mental furniture to hand.
Many people have similar experiences and fears, and they share them with one
another, in person or through various forms of media.
So two [or more] people are in fact likely to have similar experiences.
People who claim to have been abducted by aliens often describe very similar
experiences which are completely compatible with the known effects of sleep
paralysis. [being paralysed, scary hallucination of alien, which may or may not
have sex with you] And these alien abduction stories started AFTER movies
and comics with pictures and stories of aliens appeared, and the aliens described
looked like the aliens in the movies.
So here we have a shared common culture informing peoples hallucinations which
causes them to hallucinate similar things.
18 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeVery few people that witness a crime report exactly the same experience because they are different people with different outlooks and emotions. It does not mean they were hallucinating something imaginary. It simply means they were seeing and remembering it from different viewpoints.
And?
Ok, first off... Define 'the same'...
Two people watching the same film we see and experience it differently,
if you are saying that you don't believe that two people will have precisely
the same experience in every conceivable detail then you are probably right.
So what? That doesn't mean anything.
What we have are peoples descripti ...[text shortened]... mmon culture informing peoples hallucinations which
causes them to hallucinate similar things.
What I meant by "the same" was that it was the same event within the same time frame and the people were there together at that time.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWell done.
Very few people that witness a crime report exactly the same experience because they are different people with different outlooks and emotions. It does not mean they were hallucinating something imaginary. It simply means they were seeing and remembering it from different viewpoints.
You managed to miss the entire point of the post.
I did not claim that people experiencing the same thing differently meant they were hallucinating.
Did you actually read my whole post, or just pick a random paragraph and respond to that?
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeMaybe you should just admit you were wrong and retract your whole post because it is nonsense. 😏
Well done.
You managed to miss the entire point of the post.
I did not claim that people experiencing the same thing differently meant they were hallucinating.
Did you actually read my whole post, or just pick a random paragraph and respond to that?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not going to do that for a couple of reasons.
Maybe you should just admit you were wrong and retract your whole post because it is nonsense. 😏
First, I'm not [in this instance] wrong.
Second, My post was not nonsense, and the fact that you apparently can't
comprehend it is almost meaningless because you struggle with "see spot run"
and "Jack and Jill" stories.
That fact not withstanding, I am prepared to attempt to clarify my meaning for you
if you can coherently tell me what it is that you don't understand.
Possibly you could, in your own words, explain what you think my argument/point is
and I can see how close it is to the argument/point I am actually making.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAll this is is a variation of dreaming. That is not the same as being an eyewitness to an event. Of course, the eyewitness testimony is not reliable if the person is lying. But that is called perjury. If two or more people testify of the same event and they all pass a lie detector test, I believe one could rely on their testimony.
Expanding upon the point made in my OP, and the discussions that followed
[at least the ones on topic 😉 ] I have just come across a great example and
explanation of why it is that you cannot just trust that an experience you
have is necessarily real.
The relevant part starts 15:15 into this recording of The Atheist Experience TV show.
It's abo ...[text shortened]... n possibly know that the experience was real given that we know how our brains
can deceive us?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou might.
All this is is a variation of dreaming. That is not the same as being an eyewitness to an event. Of course, the eyewitness testimony is not reliable if the person is lying. But that is called perjury. If two or more people testify of the same event and they all pass a lie detector test, I believe one could rely on their testimony.
However science says otherwise.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsResponding to the edit addition.
Very few people that witness a crime report exactly the same experience because they are different people with different outlooks and emotions. It does not mean they were hallucinating something imaginary. It simply means they were seeing and remembering it from different viewpoints.
What I meant by "the same" was that it was the same event within the same time frame and the people were there together at that time.
What I meant by "the same" was that it was the same event within
the same time frame and the people were there together at that time.
Well to answer that I can point you to someone who has had a shared hallucination
with multiple other people who all agree what they say happen and all of whom agree
now that it was a hallucination and never happened.
That guy is Aron Ra, who went through just about every far out New Age, Wiccan,
Hallucinogenic, Crystal belief system before alighting upon reason and atheism.
And thus knows that of which he is talking about.
[In his words, he used to believe in everything required to be a ghostbuster]
Oklahoma Freethought Convention 2011 (speech 4 of 5) - AronRa
The whole speech is pretty good, but the relevant bit starts here: ~16:38 mins in.
&feature=player_detailpage#t=998
And the discussion of hallucination starts 33:00 minutes in.
He's a good speaker, so it's worth the time.
Shared, and even mass hallucinations are a known phenomena, albeit a relatively
rare one.
So simply that multiple people were there does not mean that an event actually happened.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am not referring to drug addicts. I am referring to normal people giving eyewitness testimony in a trial.
Responding to the edit addition.
What I meant by "the same" was that it was the same event within
the same time frame and the people were there together at that time.
Well to answer that I can point you to someone who has had a shared hallucination
with multiple other people who all agree what they say happen and all of whom agree ...[text shortened]... one.
So simply that multiple people were there does not mean that an event actually happened.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsHe isn't a drug addict, you don't have to be on drugs to hallucinate.
I am not referring to drug addicts. I am referring to normal people giving eyewitness
testimony in a trial.
Although they can help.
And again the "testimony in trial" argument is really bad.
First, 'eyewitness testimony' is one of the WORST form of evidence at trial. [in terms of reliability]
Second, claims in a criminal trial are [generally] ordinary claims, and not extraordinary ones.
And we STILL strongly question those claims.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYES. it does. Science absolutely says that eyewitnesses are unreliable.
No it doesn't.
Not by any means absolutely unreliable, but it's much less reliable than most
people believe and it's far to unreliable to be evidence for extraordinary claims of
the supernatural or gods.
The Dangerous Unreliability of Eyewitnesses
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-eyewitnesses-in-the-z/
http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
http://theweek.com/articles/480511/eyewitness-testimony-unreliable-trust
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm
19 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe judicial system must depend and rely on eyewitness testimony all the time. So what you present is nothing more than rambling psychobabble. 😏
YES. it does. Science absolutely says that eyewitnesses are unreliable.
Not by any means absolutely unreliable, but it's much less reliable than most
people believe and it's far to unreliable to be evidence for extraordinary claims of
the supernatural or gods.
The Dangerous Unreliability of Eyewitnesses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Yvvv_tZ ...[text shortened]... ://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/eyewitness.htm