Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Yes. Notice the word "layer."

The word "layer" has nothing to do with it.

You were saying that every time a memory is accessed it gets overwritten and if accessed a lot of times it will become completely muddied.

So this would actually speak in favor of the Luke thing, since like you just pointed out, such a memory would not be accessed often.

So you are wrong somewhere.

The word layer has a lot to do with it. Perhaps you should start by asking me what I meant by that instead of assuming you know.

Sometimes the layering is gradual over time and creates an "aggregate memory." Sometimes the layering is total and completely supplants the old memory. Sometimes a memory that NEVER EVEN EXISTED is manufactured from whole cloth. Sometimes it happens all at once with a single piece of misinformation.

I think perhaps you should actually do some actual research into the hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies that have been conducted on the malleability of human memory.

a reply to: Greggers

You said that the more you acces a memory, the more likely it is that it will get muddied.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

You said that the more you acces a memory, the more likely it is that it will get muddied.

No, I didn't. You could argue it was implied, but that oversimplifies the mechanic greatly.

Plus, you must understand that everytime a piece of misinformation is digested, the old memory us automatically accessed, generally speaking.

The bottom line is that your only grounds for believing in ME is your memory, which you quite simply cannot trust, especially with regard to inconsequential bits of trivia.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: raymundoko

You, seem to have trouble comprehending things again. My point is that his claim doesn't add up. I wasn't talking to you.

First of all, it's not my claim. It is a laymen's summary of a complex cognitive process that has been verified by hundreds of studies.

What I intended for you to take away from my statement was that memories were read-write. They are not "carved in stone." Information gathered later can (and does) effect memories created earlier.

Please read this book: www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1471625010&sr=8-2&keywords=elizabeth+loftus

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: raymundoko

Again, explain how evolution would be so vastly different in your timeline, yet everything else is almost identical!

If there are infinite timelines one is bound to be almost identical but with a different anatomy.

Except that there is no proof that there are infinite timelines.

There is, however, proof that human memory is flawed, and that there are commonly experienced cultural influences which can easily explain the vast majority of ME claims.

a reply to: Greggers

I responded to that specific claim, if it was an oversimplification or whatever then it was on you.

Here's another link to a more mainstream Loftus book. As you can see, this subject matter has been documented for a long time. You can get used copies of the hard cover for 1 cent!

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=0H09AV43HQ613Q894NGP

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

I responded to that specific claim, if it was an oversimplification or whatever then it was on you.

So?

a reply to: Greggers

Except that there is no proof that there are infinite timelines.

There is no proof for other timelines period. The guy was demanding an explanation about an aspect of a speculative theory. Pointing out that there is no proof to back up this explanation is redundant.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Except that there is no proof that there are infinite timelines.

There is no proof for other timelines period. The guy was demanding an explanation about an aspect of a speculative theory. Pointing out that there is no proof to back up this explanation is redundant.

So why do you favor an explanation for which there is no proof over an explanation for which there is abundant proof?

a reply to: Greggers

So don't blame me for pointing out the problem with that specific statement.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

So don't blame me for pointing out the problem with that specific statement.

I didn't.

I clarified what I meant and expect that will be what you take away from my statement henceforth.

I also disagree that there is any particular "problem" with the statement. But it's hardly worth arguing about something that wasn't meant to describe a literal physiological process in detail.

a reply to: Greggers

So why do you favor an explanation for which there is no proof over an explanation for which there is abundant proof?

What other explanation? The guy demanded an explanation about why this timeline is almost identical but has a different anatomy. I gave a possible explanation.

What you are talking about is why I favor the ME over bad memory, which wasn't the subject of this particular exchange.

a reply to: Greggers

I also disagree that there is any particular "problem" with the statement. But it's hardly worth arguing about something that wasn't meant to describe a literal physiological process in detail.

Like I said, it may not have been meant like that, but it is what you said in a discussion about a literal physiological process.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

So why do you favor an explanation for which there is no proof over an explanation for which there is abundant proof?

What other explanation? The guy demanded an explanation about why this timeline is almost identical but has a different anatomy. I gave a possible explanation.

What you are talking about is why I favor the ME over bad memory, which wasn't the subject of this particular exchange.

Since it's pretty clear what I was talking about (you said so yourself), why not just respond to that? You do realize I am not required to continue the thread of that previous exchange, even though I referenced it. Right?

Are you suggesting that you don't favor ME over bad memory?

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

I also disagree that there is any particular "problem" with the statement. But it's hardly worth arguing about something that wasn't meant to describe a literal physiological process in detail.

Like I said, it may not have been meant like that, but it is what you said in a discussion about a literal physiological process.

I keep expecting you have some point to make.... If you do, perhaps you could make it.

a reply to: Greggers

You made a point, I pointed out the problem with it, then you said you "didn't mean it like that". Then don't say it. That's the point.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

You made a point, I pointed out the problem with it, then you said you "didn't mean it like that". Then don't say it. That's the point.

That's your point? Really?

Okay, I won't say it like that. Now what?

a reply to: Greggers

Are you suggesting that you don't favor ME over bad memory?

I am saying that this wasn't the subject of this particular exchange. I just said this.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Are you suggesting that you don't favor ME over bad memory?

I am saying that this wasn't the subject of this particular exchange. I just said this.

I understood you the first time.

DO you favor ME over bad memory?