|
Post by trebor on Mar 5, 2010 8:36:14 GMT -4
I watched a lovely film of a witness study done by a professor in the UK ( which has been replicated in loads of countries). Do you remember the name of that experiment?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 5, 2010 17:26:06 GMT -4
In many cases the Apollo space missions were becoming routine and, as such, were starting to fall from the imagination of the general public. It was only when the Apollo 13 incident happened an additional narrative was introduced to what was supposed to be a straight forward mission. It ceased to be a mundane mission by the book and the introduction of a narrative suddenly made it interesting. We have seen exactly the same thing with the Space Shuttle Program, 30 media cameras on Columbia's last launch, over 3,000 on the following one.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Mar 6, 2010 12:33:22 GMT -4
I watched a lovely film of a witness study done by a professor in the UK ( which has been replicated in loads of countries). Do you remember the name of that experiment? There is an official name for the experiment but I don't remember it.. no pun intended There is a news article which does use the same principles of the test to illustrate this. Some colleges do this sort of thing on regular basis to illustrate that eye witness testimony can be flawed. www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6fRH5MLBIUHope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 6, 2010 14:15:40 GMT -4
Straydog is an idiot; moreover he is a deranged idiot. I fully expect to see him go 'postal' in some way.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 6, 2010 23:13:52 GMT -4
Straydog is an idiot; moreover he is a deranged idiot. I fully expect to see him go 'postal' in some way. I don't know if he'll go that far - I certainly hope not - but he sure does have an axe to grind. I've long suspected that many Apollo HBers are driven by a strong resentment of the achievements of others. At some level they recognize (or recognized - even Bart Sibrel says he once thought Apollo was real) that Apollo was an amazing achievement that they can't begin to understand because of their own lack of talent and initiative. But the typical HBer's overwhelming sense of insecurity won't let him give credit where due. Instead, by pretending it never happened, he can elevate himself from a nobody to one of a tiny elite, brilliant enough to see what the hordes of "sheeple" cannot. That includes the rank-and-file Apollo workers, who instead of being hard working and conscientious were far too stupid to realize that their jobs were all part of a huge scam. And of course he has nothing but utter contempt and moral outrage for those at the top who lied to us. I've tested this suspicion by openly expressing my own admiration for the Apollo program. I was a young teen at the time, and it helped inspire me into a rewarding career as an electrical engineer. I've always been most impressed by the navigation, computing and communication aspects of Apollo and of space exploration in general. Even though I've built demodulators for data coming across hundreds of thousands of km of empty space (the ACE and STEREO spacecraft) it still has an element of magic. Such sentiments invariably trigger torrents of derision and abuse from the HBers, thus confirming my hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 8, 2010 6:07:19 GMT -4
Straydog is an idiot; moreover he is a deranged idiot. I fully expect to see him go 'postal' in some way. So ... he's going to stop commenting on YouChoobe videos and perpetueate his hoax theories by writing letters to the newspapers?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 8, 2010 9:45:54 GMT -4
I've learned from personal experience just how unreliable my own eyes can be. I don't think I'm at all unusual either.
A few years ago I was driving south on I-5 in central California. My wife was in the passenger seat. A bus passed us and sideswiped an SUV, which lost control, ran over the median (no guard rail) and hit a northbound pickup.
I was in the perfect position to give an eyewitness report, yet when I heard what other witnesses had to say I was stunned by how many details I had missed. Like the bus that caused the accident! My memory of the event started with the SUV beginning to swerve, probably because I hadn't actually seen the sideswipe.
I think our short term memories are connected to our long term memories by a gate that inhibits ordinary, routine events from passing through. Only unusual things pass the gate and become part of your long term memory.
There's a physiological basis for this. This gate between short and long term memory appears to be in a part of the brain called the amygdala, and it is known to activate when you experience emotion. That's why you're much more likely to remember emotional events than routine events that don't trigger any unusual emotions.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Mar 8, 2010 9:48:11 GMT -4
That would also explain why a journey seems to get quicker when you've done it a number of times.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2010 17:17:23 GMT -4
There's a physiological basis for this. This gate between short and long term memory appears to be in a part of the brain called the amygdala, and it is known to activate when you experience emotion. That's why you're much more likely to remember emotional events than routine events that don't trigger any unusual emotions. Not entirely true. Our brains remember all of the sensory input they receive, but it's a little like a poor filing cabinet with no organisation. The stronger the emotions or input we have, the stronger the key to recalling that memory is, the more mundane the memory the weaker the key. This is then added to the issue that our brains tend to link like events to each other so that they are "more accessible" though it tends to cause us to mix things up. The system of storage isn't really that faulty, it's the retrevial system that has the troubles, like a HDD with a semi-randomised FAT.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 8, 2010 20:46:47 GMT -4
I'm not sure I believe that, PhantomWolf. A lot of our sensory input simply seems to not be recorded in the first place.
I know I regularly forget routine things, like whether I locked the door when leaving. I do it every day, so it's totally routine. If I go back and check, invariably I did lock it even though I may not remember having done so.
Our brains have a finite number of neurons, and they're not even that well organized to serve as memory devices, so we can't afford to remember everything. Our brains are wired to forget the unimportant stuff, with "important" defined largely by whether a strong emotion was associated with it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 8, 2010 22:38:45 GMT -4
I'm not sure I believe that, PhantomWolf. A lot of our sensory input simply seems to not be recorded in the first place. I know I regularly forget routine things, like whether I locked the door when leaving. I do it every day, so it's totally routine. If I go back and check, invariably I did lock it even though I may not remember having done so. Our brains have a finite number of neurons, and they're not even that well organized to serve as memory devices, so we can't afford to remember everything. Our brains are wired to forget the unimportant stuff, with "important" defined largely by whether a strong emotion was associated with it. Except it has been shown that under the right circumstances we can recall that information, no matter how mundane, even if we don't think we could remember it. This one has even been shown by the Mythbusters where they checked whether people under hypnosis had better recall, they do. Whether you locked the door is actually in there, but the reference to it is so weak that it is very hard to locate, which makes us think we can't recall it. If given the right stimuli, you'd remember if you did, but for the most part, because it is like every other night, the pointer to your memory is conflicting with hundreds of others using the same key.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 8, 2010 23:50:37 GMT -4
I'm very good at remembering to take my pill. I'm very bad at remembering I have. I have to actively pull the memory out, including what else I was doing at the time, but it's there.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 9, 2010 1:21:03 GMT -4
Our brains have a finite number of neurons, and they're not even that well organized to serve as memory devices, so we can't afford to remember everything. I should have covered this too. Firstly, everything we experience in a lifetime is a finite set, so having a finite number of neurons isn't a problem. Secondly, our brains aren't like a computer HDD where every neuton is either on or off and belongs to just one memory. Rather memories depend on a "pathway" of connections between the brain's neurons, and one neuton can be involved in the storage of multiple memories and information. Our brain uses pathways already set up to store further similar information, which is why memories are vulnerable to being corrupted by new information and experience, why we can falsely remember things that didn't happen the way we thing they did, simply because our brain has muddled up several memories along with learned information. The brain relies on finding the unique path by having a unique key to it, like Gillanren inserting what she was doing when taking her pill into the memory as a key. This allows the brain to sort out that particular pathway from all the others.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Mar 9, 2010 3:50:29 GMT -4
Not entirely true. Our brains remember all of the sensory input they receive, but it's a little like a poor filing cabinet with no organisation. The stronger the emotions or input we have, the stronger the key to recalling that memory is, the more mundane the memory the weaker the key. This is then added to the issue that our brains tend to link like events to each other so that they are "more accessible" though it tends to cause us to mix things up. The system of storage isn't really that faulty, it's the retrevial system that has the troubles, like a HDD with a semi-randomised FAT. So memory is like a Perl hash?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 9, 2010 4:56:59 GMT -4
Except it has been shown that under the right circumstances we can recall that information, no matter how mundane, even if we don't think we could remember it. You know what the word "confabulation" means? Or the related term "false memory"? People have gone to jail because of false memories of criminal acts that never happened.
|
|