h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

> "I am an avid reader of these mags but I can find no references to anything of the sort... hmmmm"

*searches the web for a handful of minutes*

New Scientist Feature, "Crowded Minds", Dec. 18, 1999

Perhaps you aren't looking hard enough?

> "It would be foolish to dismiss all 'recovered memories' but it would also be foolish to believe that they are all accurate. Each individual case would have to be investigated."

I agree completely.

> "When someone makes claims that they are a victim of horrendous child hood sexual abuse and all they have to back them up are 'recovered memories' they cannot be taken seriously until the claims have been investigated and confirmed by the proper authorities."

Here's where I disagree. I think you should always take such claims seriously. To be sure, there's a chance that they are false, but even if they are false they are no doubt causing a good deal of distress and heartache to the person afflicted with false memories. Laughing at them would be at best insensitive, and at worst sadistic.

The reality of recovered memories is a seperate issue, of course - *anyone* can recover false memories (and true ones), no matter who they are. It is true that some psychiatrists treat DID by recovering memories, (as part of GTB's first stage...), but this reflects only on the psychiatrists, not on those with DID.

Clay_Toy

Your cheap sarcastic tone notwithstanding, it's heartwarming to know if my insight's ever clouded from The Light by tetrahydrocannabinol I at least have the capacity to give you a laugh. I still have some worth in this age of reason! Sorry, i'm just a little bit neurotic sometimes, and my judgement really shouldn't be trusted any further than you could comfortably spit out a rat. Oh, the guilt...

But like you said, lots of people are deluded about lots of things, so to hell with the truth, anything goes.

So you suspect "recovered memories" are mistakes in internal perception on a par with ESP, ghosts etc. It's good to know that at least if I ever doubt my own abuse history, I can get the police records of several incidents and call my foster parents. Phew! For a minute there I thought I was fine!

I guess if I've got "unrecovered memories" they're not real either, yeah? I mean, just because I can't remember them doesn't mean they happened or anything. Hey, didn't you come to my 11th birthday party?
Sure you did! weren't you the guy with the carpet beater and the drink problem? Oh no, that was someone else.

Sorry if I seem a little cranky, but I've got a cold at the moment. My ears ache, my throat's sore, my nose is running and I'm coughing all the time. I *know* underneath the fact that a contaminant has entered my system, my biological functions are rushing around producing measures to compensate, and my brain is telling me I'm going to die, I could quite easily cope with a run around the park. But I'm not going to, because I *feel* ill. I also feel f*****g annoyed, but that's just me.

If you have such high regard for reason might it be worth taking a moment from picking so hard at the chemical processes seen to govern emotion, thought and behaviour to

a) appreciate that they were discovered by the same science that told you red was red, and
b) allow reason to suggest to you based on your own "recovered memories" that you are not *completely* who you *think* you are;
c) appreciate the same is true of every homo sapiens (and quite a few chimps) since time immemorial, in fact anything that's had the misfortune to discover life is s***;
d) this is in itself the most scientifically well-documented truth (see evidence from cosmology, evolution, paleontology, medicine, seismology, vulcanology, economics, politics, philosophy, psychology and daytime TV);
e) generate some space in your mind (maybe a "sympathy alter"?) to cope with the concept that there will always be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies, something that will remain true for billions of years;
f) take a leap of faith, and show someone you don't know some basic human respect, if that means anything to you.

Does life really have to be such a naked lunch for us? what about art, comedy, music, literature? serendipity, inspiration? What about faith? delirium? lust? desire? ambition? dreams? hope? I love being deluded - to be honest if I didn't have some sense of fantasy I'd be dead. It's only because I delude myself into thinking I' m capable of coming up with something worthier of public scrutiny than So Solid Crew, that I make any efort as a musician at all. That's a good thing, isn't it? How productive... it gives life that little *fizz*, you know.

I'm starting to suspect you wouldn't think (or... feel?) "I love you" of someone, but "there are swarms of hormones racing through my mind and body, telling me I have to ply you with drink, bang you a few hundred times and spend the next 40 years wishing I knew why the hell I married you!" - sounds like fun. Is it going to get to the point where you're slapping your kids for wanting their father's attention while you're busy ferreting away trying to disprove the notion of DID? Cynicism keep you warm at night?
Good luck!

Peace

Chris M - aka "Deadhard" from The Immovable Force (new album out Monday)

> "It's entirely appropriate that Barton mentioned religion, because the more I read, the more belief in 'multiple personalities' and 'recovered memories' seems similiar to belief in ESP, Ghosts, Atlantis, and Cults. In fact, Carl Sagan (in 'Demon Haunted World') actually puts them in the same category."

So cults are a hoax. And the Heaven's Gate tragedy was just a figment of your poor deluded imagination. Right.

-Xanthia

Clap's back. Would that be a back-clap?

Lucinda: I think the basic of our mental existence (that is: our personality) is wired in the hardware of our brains. But I cannot prove it. Well, some twin research might have been done.

I'm not sure about your distinction between state and tool. I'd call both of them ability, where the tool is the ability on "off" position, and state is the ability on "on" position.

Panic is a state most people don't miss recognising. But a good example for subjectivity is by what they are trigged into a state of panic - and, what surprises me most, how long they can stay in that state, some even most of their life.

"If such misperception is common, there ought to be clear evidence for it, and I'm not sure that's been presented yet."

Well, my words are failing here. When I look around I rarely see someone who has a clear view of reality including her/himself. If I started writing about that, I wouldn't stop rambling for hours about democracy, misuse of science, media, religion, sexuality, women. Women... Don't talk to me about women.

> "When I look around I rarely see someone who has a clear view of reality including her/himself."

I agree! People have a very foggy view of reality, in general - but my claim is that one thing that everyone has a clear view of is their mental states. The exception, perhaps, that proves the rule...

> "I'm not sure about your distinction between state and tool. I'd call both of them ability, where the tool is the ability on "off" position, and state is the ability on "on" position."

I think that's just semantics. In your terminology, I'd say that people can often be confused as to how good their tool is, but are never confused about whether their ability is "on" or "off". So people can often be confused as to how easily they panic, but are never confused about whether they are actually panicking or not.

Seems like we have some limited agreement here, Wonko! Or am I overstating the case?

You're right, Lucinda. I often face the situation where people (including myself) acknowledge that they shift into a state of panic, anger or rage without actually intending to get there. Well, so far it's trivial. They reject the notion they wanted to be in that state, implying to be forced to be there.

And here comes the interesting point: But when asked why they are in that state, they give you lots of *logical* reasons for it. So I think it doesn't happen by chance, but their logical network of thoughts (and some bad habits) necessarily lead to this behaviour.

There's a name for that individual logic of life: Master Plan. You have your own, and I have one of these big transformation engines of reality inside my brain. Each and every input is transformed according to the view of the Master Plan, in the huge reality vector into personal view processing MATRIX.

But sometimes the input just doesn't match to the input slot and sits there like a too big a rock in the mouth of a stone crushing machine. The Master Plan is in danger, as is the whole cyberspace of that person, calling to arms special forces like panic, rage or jealousy to ensure the smoothness of future operations of the Master Plan.

Sadly it's so very hard to change the Master Plan of someone, even if the person wants it, too. Quite often the Master Plan sits in a tight feedback loop of misperceptions and misactions. Small (negative) misperceptions lead to a wrong view of reality, which leads to wrong actions leading to negative results, verifying and strengthening the initial assumption. The cycle of misperceptions and the basis for the Master Plan is often taken over from the parents.

How does that fit in the Self-Deception gene hypothesis? Well, it might be that the gene starts or speeds the feedback loop, constantly feeding negative energy into the cycle and slowly but ultimately building a wrong Master Plan.

To stop the cylce, in my experience it is necessary to change all at once: the Master Plan, the habits and the misperception. Not an easy task.