Yes. How does that help?Do the empirical studies say anything at all with regard to estimates on the percentage of facts that humans actually do get correct, even with cognitive biases and faulty memory?
Cheers,
Bill
Linda
Yes. How does that help?Do the empirical studies say anything at all with regard to estimates on the percentage of facts that humans actually do get correct, even with cognitive biases and faulty memory?
Cheers,
Bill
You stated, "the trait of the troll is a unique and insatiable desire to annoy people, really to be a nuisance." Then, "a fascinating case study exists right here on this very forum", within the same paragraph.
Linda
It would quantify the "not so much about some sort of psi-like characteristic to the universe" part.Yes. How does that help?
Linda
The way it works is like this--our accuracy is 100 percent unreliable whenever it pertains to psi. We simply can't get anything right. Yet, when we are completely unconscious or in a coma (like Pam Reynolds, the denture guy, the guy noticing the yellow sticky notes on the monitor.....) our barely functioning senses give us many accurate details about our surroundings and environment.On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that undocumented stories are too unreliable to tell us much about psi, yet on the other hand you seem to be suggesting that we are ok to depend upon unreliable stories as a source of information about cognitive bias and memory. Interesting.
How?It would quantify the "not so much about some sort of psi-like characteristic to the universe" part.
Cheers,
Bill
What percent accurate?
Cheers,
Bill
The way it works is like this--our accuracy is 100 percent unreliable whenever it pertains to psi. We simply can't get anything right. Yet, when we are completely unconscious or in a coma (like Pam Reynolds, the denture guy, the guy noticing the yellow sticky notes on the monitor.....) our barely functioning senses give us many accurate details about our surroundings and environment.
Cheers,
Bill
When you consider the source of the claim, it's not really odd, but expected :-)t's not a definitive counterargument against materialistic explanation but it is odd to see the distance between the two assertions laid side by side.
I was thinking about this as well in the context of NDEs. People have used the argument of speed/quality/degree of processing to explain consciousness in computational terms, and as such it seems odd to then have people say a tiny flicker of electricity can produce incredibly subjective experience.
It's not a definitive counterargument against materialistic explanation but it is odd to see the distance between the two assertions laid side by side.
No, how would knowing that feedback alters recall in 80% of the trials in a study help you when evaluating the effects of feedback on a set of undocumented stories (which also would be a highly selected, rather than representative, sample)?What percent accurate?
Cheers,
Bill
So the accuracy is 20 percent?No, how would knowing that feedback alters recall in 80% of the trials in a study help you when evaluating the effects of feedback on a set of undocumented stories (which also would be a highly selected, rather than representative, sample)?
Linda
Hmmm.... One might almost wonder when exactly that "memory" was formed?The way it works is like this--our accuracy is 100 percent unreliable whenever it pertains to psi. We simply can't get anything right. Yet, when we are completely unconscious or in a coma (like Pam Reynolds, the denture guy, the guy noticing the yellow sticky notes on the monitor.....) our barely functioning senses give us many accurate details about our surroundings and environment.
Cheers,
Bill
Hmmm.... One might almost wonder when exactly that "memory" was formed?
Erm. I've no idea.What the hell are you talking about?
Erm. I've no idea.
I'm a little uncomfortable over how things have panned out too...Now you're making me feel bad.
Particularly so when the impoverished or non-functioning brain during the NDE is able to bring about not only the fullest, richest experience, but also on occasions give access to all knowledge and understanding. At the very least it might seem to suggest that the relationship of mind and brain in some ways is an inverse one, where the less the brain function, the better the mind works.I was thinking about this as well in the context of NDEs. People have used the argument of speed/quality/degree of processing to explain consciousness in computational terms, and as such it seems odd to then have people say a tiny flicker of electricity can produce incredibly subjective experience.
It's not a definitive counterargument against materialistic explanation but it is odd to see the distance between the two assertions laid side by side.
Particularly so when the impoverished or non-functioning brain during the NDE is able to bring about not only the fullest, richest experience, but also on occasions give access to all knowledge and understanding. At the very least it might seem to suggest that the relationship of mind and brain in some ways is an inverse one, where the less the brain function, the better the mind works.
Perhaps the idea of using powerful computers to generate consciousness is heading in the wrong direction. Rather than adding circuits, perhaps they should be taken away.
I'm a little uncomfortable over how things have panned out too...