It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Mandolia Effect

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Fair paly. I'm iffy with ME as it is, though it interest me.

What reason would people have to correct stein to stain though?


There is no reason. This is a politically correct way of still saying they or we are all just incorrect and have bad memories.




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve
I actually gave a reason, and a way to prove it however that was ignored.
I'll repeat it and see if you can give it a go...

Just off the top of your head think of some names ending in stain.
Now think of some names that end in stein.

Which was easier?



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

So how is what you are proposing any different? Or how is it not a polite way to still blame the entire phenomenon on what results to nothing more than faulty memory in the end? Regardless of how you got there, it's still the same conclusion.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve
Firstly, how many names ending in stain could you think of?

To answer your question it is because there is no explanatory power for why everyone experiences the same thing by saying faulty memory.

I agree they come to essentially the same conclusion. However saying the earth is round because planets are gods marbles is still different to the theory of gravity even though you reach the same result.

I'm happy to be proven wrong however. What of my theory do you believe is incorrect?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I think that this has a place in the ME debate, but it doesn't definitively answer it. I can buy this idea regarding for example Froot Loops, and the mind correcting it. Same with Looney Toons/Tunes. Tunes would make more sense to the brain.

For some of these examples, it may be a stretch. And it would require real and serious psychology research, which without a doubt could be conducted regarding mental correction of perceived false names/places/facts, whatever. But each type would require a different type of schema, psychological theory. For example, linguistic corrections are different and take place in a different place in the brain than let's say changing three seat-row cars to two seat-row cars. Furthermore, as a former psychology researcher I can suggest that the presumptive psychological phenomena for three seat to two seat car correction is much less probable. A linguistic/grammatical change is more likely.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: sputniksteve
Firstly, how many names ending in stain could you think of?

To answer your question it is because there is no explanatory power for why everyone experiences the same thing by saying faulty memory.

I agree they come to essentially the same conclusion. However saying the earth is round because planets are gods marbles is still different to the theory of gravity even though you reach the same result.

I'm happy to be proven wrong however. What of my theory do you believe is incorrect?



None because I didn't try and play that game with myself. Now I don't even know what it is you are trying to say. If you are arguing all ME are some kind of memory problem of me fabricating information subconsciously I just flat out disagree.

The only ME I am absolutely 100% certain of is Berenstein. Any of the logos or corporate names I can't comment on, so I dont. There is no amount of telling me I am wrong that will change my mind. Period. I am open to what has caused it, but I am no longer willing to entertain that it was never that way.

No amount of name game BS will change what I know, because it is knowing in a way that I can't possibly make you underatand. I have more chance convincing you your name is different than what it is, than you do to argue me into believing the opposite of what I believe. On the other hand I couldn't care less about whether or not you believe or what you believe, nor do I care about trying to disprove whatever it is you believe.

Now with that in mind if your question is still relevant ask away, don't ask open ended multiple choice please, just be up front.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry to do this to you but it actually is Tunes. Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes.

Excellent, I've been waiting for someone to actually have something constructive.

Just using the box of fruit loops as an example, when I picture the box with Froot Loops wouldn't visual and linguistic be used? Whilst I'm seeing words they are highly stylised and the box is there too.

I'll have to check out the parts of the brain, gaining a weak understanding of neurons was hard enough. I assumed that all recall was done by the same part and didn't give it too much thought.

I'm a little disappointed I haven't been proven wrong yet however you've put me on the right path.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14
Sorry to do this to you but it actually is Tunes. Merrie Melodies and Looney Tunes.

Excellent, I've been waiting for someone to actually have something constructive.

Just using the box of fruit loops as an example, when I picture the box with Froot Loops wouldn't visual and linguistic be used? Whilst I'm seeing words they are highly stylised and the box is there too.

I'll have to check out the parts of the brain, gaining a weak understanding of neurons was hard enough. I assumed that all recall was done by the same part and didn't give it too much thought.

I'm a little disappointed I haven't been proven wrong yet however you've put me on the right path.

Cheers


Yes, as far as I know from biological psychology, linguistic processing takes place in a different way/place than other types, such as numbers. However, what I am having trouble recalling is whether different sources get STORED in or recalled from a similar place, which is what you are suggesting. However, they would still be processed differently prior to memory.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
None because I didn't try and play that game with myself.


I wasn't trying to be deceptive by asking that question. I just thought it was a better way to illustrate how few names there are ending in stain. A few weeks ago I had 0, now I've got 1.

I'm also 100% sure it was Berenstein. I also couldn't believe it any stronger.

Since you are so kind in allowing me a question I better put some thought into it. But how to ask a relevant question whilst ignoring my beliefs. There's so many interesting things to go with but I think I've got the perfect question.

Can people who use the word "hip" actually be "hip"?

I anxiously await your response.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
However, they would still be processed differently prior to memory.


I think it's the actual recall where the bulk of it happens. I sort of picture it like a computer program that tries it's best to reuse as much code as possible. Certain neuron pathways are reused and strengthened over and over. If you smell lavender you think of your grandma because you've used the lavender pathway that is conditioned to expect grandma there as well. I think that shows that we don't record a new lavender every time.

So when we recreate an image in our head we pull certain "files" or pathways so we can set up the simulation in our minds.

Because of this highly efficient memory process some things slip through. None of them relevant however as if it was relevant to you the neuron pathway would be stronger.

The cool thing is that the pathways are different for everyone so whilst mind reading machines may come about eventually, you would have to train the machine to understand your brain.

That's my highly butchered version of brain science anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
However, they would still be processed differently prior to memory.


I think it's the actual recall where the bulk of it happens. I sort of picture it like a computer program that tries it's best to reuse as much code as possible. Certain neuron pathways are reused and strengthened over and over. If you smell lavender you think of your grandma because you've used the lavender pathway that is conditioned to expect grandma there as well. I think that shows that we don't record a new lavender every time.

So when we recreate an image in our head we pull certain "files" or pathways so we can set up the simulation in our minds.

Because of this highly efficient memory process some things slip through. None of them relevant however as if it was relevant to you the neuron pathway would be stronger.

The cool thing is that the pathways are different for everyone so whilst mind reading machines may come about eventually, you would have to train the machine to understand your brain.

That's my highly butchered version of brain science anyway.



I understand somewhat where you are coming from. But, for your "mandolia effect" to be proven, again, we'd have to be conducting studies across a number of different psychological processes, as these different stimuli or ME examples are processed in different areas of the brain. Even with recall, you would have to be able to demonstrate that during memory recall specifically, not just visual but also numeric and linguistic information is being auto-re-coded according to certain criteria.

Such a claim, while possible, is both less likely and harder to prove than asserting that one of those is re-coding in a certain manner, for sake of argument linguistic/grammatical issues.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That would definitely be a good way to prove it.
However I don't have the access or the knowhow to start pokin around brains. And whilst I'm no scientist I tried to look honestly at the situation and make sure it's consistent.

I just looked up all the ME's I could find, only used the ones that worked on me and tried to find what was linking them all. Had they all not shared the same qualities I couldn't make any conclusions but they're all very similar.
I could then apply this to ME's other people experienced and the same pattern appeared.

I then tried to discover a new one and was able to find "Dominoes Pizza" (actually Domino's) I haven't seen others mention this one so I might just be an idiot, but it still worked on me.

I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong, however there's enough of a pattern to suggest I'm on the right track.

But while the workings of the brain that cause it are really interesting, the workings of the brain that defend it interest me far more. Look at sputniksteve's response to me, a lot of anger there just for offering a possible solution. Even the refusal to answer a simple question, or to admit the answer I should say. I probably won't get my last question answered either


There's gonna be a church of Mandela in no time, once they figure out how to monetise that religious fervor.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: sputniksteve
None because I didn't try and play that game with myself.


I wasn't trying to be deceptive by asking that question. I just thought it was a better way to illustrate how few names there are ending in stain. A few weeks ago I had 0, now I've got 1.

I'm also 100% sure it was Berenstein. I also couldn't believe it any stronger.

Since you are so kind in allowing me a question I better put some thought into it. But how to ask a relevant question whilst ignoring my beliefs. There's so many interesting things to go with but I think I've got the perfect question.

Can people who use the word "hip" actually be "hip"?

I anxiously await your response.


Then in that case I believe I have totally misunderstood your perspective from the get go. I believed you were arguing the opposite of what you are apparently arguing. Please forgive me self righteous tone and quickness to vilify. I am pretty embarrassed but that's OK it won't be the last time.

Not to excuse my poor attitude but it was a bit confusing. During my second reply I started to wonder if maybe we weren't arguing the same point then convinced myself we couldn't be. In any case I humbly apologize and will reread the OP yet again and see if I can actually contribute instead of muddy the waters.

Please forgive. I am not an asshole I just play one online sometimes.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve
It's all good, you did get me right.

I'm 100% sure it's Berenstein.

I'm wrong though.
edit on 18-9-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

OK so you are arguing that even though you are 100% sure your memory is correct you cede that in fact you have been convinced that you now believe you memory is incorrect and don't trust it the same time?

I don't envy that position, and I think you are selling yourself short. Forget what people are trying to tell you and just do what makes you happy. You will not be able to find evidence or proof either way, and if you are going to lie to yourself just so you can rationalize your own experience in order to fit the current or others reality you are better off just not lying to yourself. It's not like you won't be let into heaven because you had more conviction in your own experience than what others have convinced you it should have been.

If you are just coming to terms with all of this, and trying to rationalize your experience for you alone but in an open forum and discussion then I understand and I congratulate you. You don't need to come up with the answer over night or even next week. Nothing else will change during your sabbatical from reason other than your attitude, and it's usually for the better once you understand some of the possible implications if this is in fact real.

I have a feeling you are scared. Scared of being crazy, scared of being in the crazy club, scared to admit it in public. Probably scared that your entire belief structure and perspective is being challenged and what that might result in. Don't worry, I was scared too. Sometimes I still am. Lots of us are and have been scared. Guess what, some other people on here are having the exact same feelings and are reading this thread right now and wondering if they have the strength and conviction to admit that they are scared and lost and want help.

I was scared, I was lost, and I wanted help. Our Lord Jesus Christ.......just kidding. Seriously though maybe you don't feel any of these things and you think I am a new age douche bag, but I guarantee you someone reading this does. Frankly I don't care what anyone thinks about my experience, but I'll be god damned if I am going to let them dictate it to me. I would rather stand up and say what I believe and be wrong than bow my head and tow the line and be right.

But that is just me.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

I'm 100% sure what my memory is.
That's different to saying I'm 100% sure my memory is correct.

ME's are weird and didn't make sense to me. All the answers I saw either raised more questions or denied the obvious pattern of the same "differences" across the world. So I tried to study enough to figure out my own theory.

Once I had a theory I put it out there.
Mandela Effect Explained This was a bad explanation poorly executed.

I then tried to clarify a few things further with Has anyone not experience the Mandela Effect and was able to understand more flaws in my logic.

Which leads me to my current explanation of Mandolia which may also need to be thrown out. However at this stage it is falsifiable and testable and more importantly has actual explanatory power.

I'm not trying to avoid anything, I am pointing out my theory as often and annoyingly to everyone so that if it's wrong I am told. But all of a sudden people on ATS don't like being right.

I was initially shocked by the Berenstein thing and what motivated my research was the pretense that it may be true. However the more I learned the more I was able to make sense of it even though my current understanding is not at the level to convincingly teach others. If anything it was my equal distrust of both sides that allowed me to make progress I think. I have no "fear" either way. I am an absolute coward in general but I don't see anything regarding this situation to be scared of.

As an Atheist I suppose you may be able to put forward the argument that new dimensions or realities etc. would shatter my worldview. However as an atheist anything that shatters my worldview increases my life expectancy infinitely so there is even less to be afraid of.

Bit of a rant here, but I want to make it clear that I'm not shaking out of fear or questioning my reality. Difficult questions interest me and I want to find answers if they exist, even if they are difficult answers. If it was time travel causing ME's I would just have to incorporate that into my existing view of reality.

Very few people including me understand how the brain works with neural pathways etc, it's really difficult stuff to read and I misunderstand most of what I do read. However to simplify a part to the level I can understand.

My brain thinks a red ball is RLUDDRLULRDU (Up,Down,Left,Right)
Your brain thinks a red ball is DURRLUDLURRL
There may be more/less directions or more/less movements however that's the gist of it and both of the red ball's are completely equal.

If I could replace my "hip" question with one a little more productive I would ask...

At what point in your own investigation into the Mandela Effect did our brains representations of Red Balls come into play? And at what point were you able to dismiss them?

It doesn't speak anything to the validity of my claims, however it may be able to move me towards your side of the camp as I haven't been able to move past that and I haven't seen the need.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Krahzeef I am glad to understand your perspective now. I feel like my last reply will probably seem patronizing then, again I was just confused as to where the discussion was going. I will go and read your two linked threads after this but wanted to comment first on the post. Actually I am going to go grab my laptop so stay online for another 10 minutes please so I can type a better response.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

No probs, there's probably little value in those other threads however.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

All right this probably won't be in any kind of order asked but I will try and just go over some of the things I can. As to your very first question I am not really sure. I didn't have anything profound to say and didn't want to look dumb so I didn't say anything. I guess if one is "hip" to the underworld and they ask another fellow if they are "hip" they I suppose it shouldn't disqualify the first fellow. If one is a professed "hipster" and claiming another is a "hipster" I honestly don't know if that disqualifies them or not.

As unsatisfactory as this answer is, I think the most important (and really only) thing we can take away from the Mandela Effect as one who has experienced it is how it influences your future. Not your real future but your future actions, how you interact with others, how you interpret your experiences, what things you value and what things you stop giving value. As I said earlier there is nothing that exists or that can be created that can represent proof or evidence for the existence or non existence of Mandela Effect as something "non local".

With that in mind I am not an Atheist at all. I was Agnostic boarder line aggrevated atheist for most of my life until about 4 years ago. I slowly started broadening my horizons until around 18 months ago when I, for a lack of a better term adopted a new perspective. I don't know if the shift in spirituality for me is applicable to others. I am happy to discuss it but I probably wouldn't share anything new that you hadn't heard in some form or another at some point in time.

I cannot explain the Mandela Effect any better than you can at this point in time. I don't know what has caused it, I don't know if it is benign, malignant, or neutral. I have no idea if it is active or passive, a one time event or ongoing. I don't know if has been happening through out all of time or only recently.

The only thing I do know is that the books I read growing up were called The Berenstein Bears. I don't purport to be from a different dimension, reality, time line or any variation. I don't claim time travel or time manipulation. I don't claim to be 100% sane or insane. I have no idea if there are more or less people in Kennedys car, Fruit loops, Forrest Gump, anything else that I can claim I 100% know for sure. I can go into the specific reasons why I remember it that way but they will be similar to 100s of other peoples reasons and won't be any more profound to you, than they are to anyone but me.

I am definitely open to the possibility that the entire purpose of what ever this is, could be for more people to start thinking critically and be aware of their environment and surroundings. For me personally I don't care if I ever find out the truth if there even is a truth. I don't mean that I intend to bury my head in the sand, or stop searching, dreaming, thinking, or looking. More so this entire experience for me has been a part of a profound "awakening" as corny as it sounds, and the result of that awakening is much more important for me spiritually, physically, and mentally than the name of a book.

Now to your last question. However you view the ball doesn't matter to me in this instance. I cannot make any claims about your perception of the ball. I can only make claims based on my perception of the ball. If that ball changes for me but not for you then it doesn't change anything for me. I can't know if your claim was accurate and honest before the change or after the change. Neither of us can be sure we are agreeing that the ball is the exact same color or that we are even looking at the same ball. Either way I can't rationally then convince myself that my perception of the ball was incorrect to how I viewed it based on your unverifiable claims on your perception of the ball. It seems illogical for me to let your claims invalidate my own.

I think.
edit on 9/20/2016 by sputniksteve because: grahma

edit on 9/20/2016 by sputniksteve because: mor grahma



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
Now to your last question. However you view the ball doesn't matter to me in this instance. I cannot make any claims about your perception of the ball. I can only make claims based on my perception of the ball.


But this point is actually incorrect. We CAN make definitive claims on the perception of the ball.
Strap us both with brain sensors and show us the both the same ball at the same time.

The neuron pathway that is created for that ball is RLUDDRLULRDU.

Only for me however because new pathways are created constantly and there's almost infinite sets you can use.
RLUDDRLULRDU has no meaning except the value you give it when you create it.

It's a crucial part of how we think whilst not really effecting what we think.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join