Mandela Effect

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, Chronus said:

I guess so...

I apologize I keep rereading the last paragraph and I don't understand it.

It's nearly 12 AM so thats probably why...

One of the questions asked in neuroscience is how does memory work? How does the brain store  information to be recalled in the future?

To me the mandela effect is like an optical illusion. Optical illusions tell us something about how the brain and eye process visual information. Crating false memories also give researchers insights into how memory works.

Suppose it were possible to determine the difference between a false memory and the mandela effect.  Then it would no longer be a false memory. But as far as anyone in this thread has shown they cannot be distinguished. The mandela effect simply appears to be a case of false memory. What is different is not the evidence, but the interpretation of that false memory. Some people are suggesting that it is just a mistaken memory. Others are saying that it appears to be a false memory but it actually represents some lingering remnant of an alternate reality.

Let's check out that last sentence. It appears on the face of it to be a false memory because nothing matches that memory in our reality. There are no photos, drawing, actual boxes, or anything at all that shows the monopoly box as some people say they remember it. The memory does not match reality. That makes it a false memory. On the other hand if the memory is not  false memory it must be a memory of something that is not our reality. The memory is a remnant of an alternate reality.

If that were the case, then why would our recollection of some alternate reality only show us trivial and rather boring instances of differences? And not only is it the trivial that is different, i is in marketed items such as author's names on books, and games sold by the millions.

There is this concept called Occam's razor. It is often misunderstood as the simplest explanation being the most likely. It is actually the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the more likely. Applying Occam's razor here we see that if this is just a case of false  memories then no assumptions are required. Science has shown how easy it is to create false memories. We know they exist even from our daily lives. The mandela effect requires the assumption of an alternate reality. That's a huge assumption. It assumes people being able to transfer information between realities. No assumptions to huge assumptions makes the false memory version a more likely situation.

This is all dependent on the fact that no one seems to know how to differentiate the two: false memories from the mandela effect. Choosing between the two choices would not be done if it were possible to identify some means of differentiating between the two.

[Chronus]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

One of the questions asked in neuroscience is how does memory work? How does the brain store  information to be recalled in the future?

To me the mandela effect is like an optical illusion. Optical illusions tell us something about how the brain and eye process visual information. Crating false memories also give researchers insights into how memory works.

Suppose it were possible to determine the difference between a false memory and the mandela effect.  Then it would no longer be a false memory. But as far as anyone in this thread has shown they cannot be distinguished. The mandela effect simply appears to be a case of false memory. What is different is not the evidence, but the interpretation of that false memory. Some people are suggesting that it is just a mistaken memory. Others are saying that it appears to be a false memory but it actually represents some lingering remnant of an alternate reality.

Let's check out that last sentence. It appears on the face of it to be a false memory because nothing matches that memory in our reality. There are no photos, drawing, actual boxes, or anything at all that shows the monopoly box as some people say they remember it. The memory does not match reality. That makes it a false memory. On the other hand if the memory is not  false memory it must be a memory of something that is not our reality. The memory is a remnant of an alternate reality.

If that were the case, then why would our recollection of some alternate reality only show us trivial and rather boring instances of differences? And not only is it the trivial that is different, i is in marketed items such as author's names on books, and games sold by the millions.

There is this concept called Occam's razor. It is often misunderstood as the simplest explanation being the most likely. It is actually the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the more likely. Applying Occam's razor here we see that if this is just a case of false  memories then no assumptions are required. Science has shown how easy it is to create false memories. We know they exist even from our daily lives. The mandela effect requires the assumption of an alternate reality. That's a huge assumption. It assumes people being able to transfer information between realities. No assumptions to huge assumptions makes the false memory version a more likely situation.

This is all dependent on the fact that no one seems to know how to differentiate the two: false memories from the mandela effect. Choosing between the two choices would not be done if it were possible to identify some means of differentiating between the two.

Good job, you've managed to convince me the Mandela Effect isn't reality stuff, good job.

 

 

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Chronus said:

Good job, you've managed to convince me the Mandela Effect isn't reality stuff, good job.

 

 

That's a decision each of has to make.

What might turn up at some time would be a means of telling the difference between the mandela effect and misremembering something.

That's the important point here. Don't forget to examine the process of a decision and look back to see what things were used int he decision process. Maybe you will be the person that finds out how to tell the two apart and then you'll be extremely famous and have made an important contribution to the understanding of our world.

The ability to separate or distinguish the two ideas may or may not exist. We just don't know today.

[Chronus]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

That's a decision each of has to make.

What might turn up at some time would be a means of telling the difference between the mandela effect and misremembering something.

That's the important point here. Don't forget to examine the process of a decision and look back to see what things were used int he decision process. Maybe you will be the person that finds out how to tell the two apart and then you'll be extremely famous and have made an important contribution to the understanding of our world.

The ability to separate or distinguish the two ideas may or may not exist. We just don't know today.

If I could tell the difference between the two, that wouldn't make me famous.

[Scholar4Truth]

I'm surprised people have fallen for the Mandela Effect. I admit when it first came out I was stumped but after research and using common sense I found it was due to my faulty memory. The changing of product labels, brands happen all the time, its how companies sell their products. When it comes to movie lines/films people forget some of them have been remastered and the audio quality has improved. So it should be no surprised lines are often misheard especially if the audio was poor when the films first came out which were later corrected. Also it could be that at times people use websites and search engines just to mess with people's heads to make them think they are seeing things that are not there because it gets hits and clicks to generate views and conversation. 

[+Desertrat56]

On 8/28/2020 at 5:41 PM, XenoFish said:

Mostly wanting confirmation. Basically OP's mind was made up before creating the thread and everything is has been rejected unless it confirms the OP's beliefs.

Yeah, like my thread about this.  I did have my mind made up but wanted to see if there were any out there who had an actual instance that made sense.  None of the examples I have ever heard ever made sense.  Always obvious inattention and accepting someone else's "memories" as their own.  I could make one up and post it on facebook and people would say "Yeah!  That's how I remember it too!"

[XenoFish]

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yeah, like my thread about this.  I did have my mind made up but wanted to see if there were any out there who had an actual instance that made sense.  None of the examples I have ever heard ever made sense.  Always obvious inattention and accepting someone else's "memories" as their own.  I could make one up and post it on facebook and people would say "Yeah!  That's how I remember it too!"

Exactly. 

[kidagakash]

I love reading about this. I don't know why more people aren't willing to consider BOTH popular theories are true to an extent. I've had this 'mandella effect' happen to me before I even knew it had a name. They pop up all the time, some are memories getting patched up, some I know are NOT. I believe that ilke others have suggested that our minds are powerful enough that if we are decided one way or the other, we will go to GREAT length to confirm this, even to the point of subconsiously blocking out anything that invalidates our beliefs. Everybody on this planet does this to an extent. Think for yourselves, Don't have a closed mind. Everything we know will look like a joke 10000 years from now. Oh and I discovered a new Mandella this week. One of the lines in The Brave Little Toaster has been changed. I have watched that movie over a thousand times, literally, and I know every line by heart. That makes this one particularly interesting for me. I'm sure there is a reasonable chance I might remember it wrong, but I feel VERY strongly that it has changed.

Edited September 30, 2020 by kidagakash
typos

[stereologist]

17 minutes ago, kidagakash said:

I love reading about this. I don't know why more people aren't willing to consider BOTH popular theories are true to an extent. I've had this 'mandella effect' happen to me before I even knew it had a name. They pop up all the time, some are memories getting patched up, some I know are NOT. I believe that ilke others have suggested that our minds are powerful enough that if we are decided one way or the other, we will go to GREAT length to confirm this, even to the point of subconsiously blocking out anything that invalidates our beliefs. Everybody on this planet does this to an extent. Think for yourselves, Don't have a closed mind. Everything we know will look like a joke 10000 years from now. Oh and I discovered a new Mandella this week. One of the lines in The Brave Little Toaster has been changed. I have watched that movie over a thousand times, literally, and I know every line by heart. That makes this one particularly interesting for me. I'm sure there is a reasonable chance I might remember it wrong, but I feel VERY strongly that it has changed.

This is very unlikely to be correct: "Everything we know will look like a joke 10000 years from now."

We can go back to the beginnings of writing and see things that make sense such as the making of calendars, tracking the planets, and recording the names of kings. People still make calendars. People still track the planets. We still make lists of rulers.

You mention "BOTH popular theories". There is the idea that people's memories are plastic, i.e. they can change over time. That's actually a scientific theory. There is plenty of data from experiments that show that happens. How and why it happens are explained by the theory of memory. There is this Mandela effect which is called a theory, but it'n bot a scientific theory. It is a theory as in an unsupported wild eyed crazy guess with no supporting evidence. There is no evidence to support that idea. 

It's not sensible to equate a scientific theory with a wild eyed crazy made up story.

[kidagakash]

35 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This is very unlikely to be correct: "Everything we know will look like a joke 10000 years from now."

We can go back to the beginnings of writing and see things that make sense such as the making of calendars, tracking the planets, and recording the names of kings. People still make calendars. People still track the planets. We still make lists of rulers.

You mention "BOTH popular theories". There is the idea that people's memories are plastic, i.e. they can change over time. That's actually a scientific theory. There is plenty of data from experiments that show that happens. How and why it happens are explained by the theory of memory. There is this Mandela effect which is called a theory, but it'n bot a scientific theory. It is a theory as in an unsupported wild eyed crazy guess with no supporting evidence. There is no evidence to support that idea. 

It's not sensible to equate a scientific theory with a wild eyed crazy made up story.

Firstly, I was speaking figuratively. It is well known that many things we took as facts in history have been disproven or otherwise built upon in many areas. Also many things that were seen as nonsense, witchcraft, magic "junk" have since been proven to be scientific facts. Just as there are many theories that were established as fact that are today disproven. You are being biased towards one end of this subject, and that's fine we're free to believe what we want, but science is not this rigid institution that proves that everything that isn't already proven or experimented on to be impossible. That is the basis of scientific method, observe, theorize, experiment, compare results, refine theories, make plausible conclusions, leave open for further advancement. That is science, so saying a theory that is rooted in scientific philosophy is a "wild eyed crazy story" is ignorant and counterproductive to discovery. Thinking like this inhibits our ability to learn anything new. Think of where science would be if we shut down every THEORY about the world, physics, biology, history? What we call science today was in the past called, how did you put it "It is a theory as in an unsupported wild eyed crazy guess with no supporting evidence." All of our modern sciencce started out as theory until it was shown systematically that it can be proven by means we have. That was the point I was trying to make. thousands of years from now we will appear to people like ignorant primitive people who barely began to understand the world around them.I'm sorry if thats a bitter pill to swallow, you can chose to see the world as you see fit, but I will defend my stance when it is challenged. So I am on the side that understands that this is often the effect of memories being filled in the best the brain can do, BUT, I am willing to suppose that there is more to it than that because my intuiition tells me not to close my mind to it. If people would consider ALL possible theories in science and not close the door just because it hasn't been proven we would make a lot more progress. There is always room for eliminating less likely theories, and the most likely explanation usually *is* the right one, but not always, that has been proven throughout history. So yeah. Thanks for the reply. Later.

Edited September 30, 2020 by kidagakash
typos

[XenoFish]

7 minutes ago, kidagakash said:

Also many things that were seen as nonsense, witchcraft, magic "junk" have since been proven to be scientific facts.

It's all psychological. 

[XenoFish]

In the case of the mandela effect. It's largely due to false memories, neuroplasticity, and memes. Meaning that by someone misremembering and sharing that misremembrance, other people we also misremember. 

[kidagakash]

42 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

In the case of the mandela effect. It's largely due to false memories, neuroplasticity, and memes. Meaning that by someone misremembering and sharing that misremembrance, other people we also misremember. 

You are correct, hence the name. Perhaps what I (and others) are talking about is an entirely different idea, with similararity to Mandella effect.

[XenoFish]

41 minutes ago, kidagakash said:

You are correct, hence the name. Perhaps what I (and others) are talking about is an entirely different idea, with similararity to Mandella effect.

Doubtful, but okay. 

[kidagakash]

To be more clear what I am suggesting is that the Mandella *effect* can have more than one cause. The theories you suggest such as

Neuroplasticity, incomplete memory supplementation, andoutside influences.

are all logical contingencies which are supported by our current knowledge.

The other theories which suggest alternate realities, quantum entanglement, time travel, etc are all answers that rely on theoretical physics or unproven scientific theories and lack any empirical evidence. According to most accepted models of scientific investigation, until a theory is disproven it remains a possibility as long as it produces all the same results.

The former obviously wins out the latter for our best answer to the question.

That does not make it the ONLY possible answer, but it does make it our best answer so far.

 

[Rlyeh]

On 10/1/2020 at 4:53 AM, kidagakash said:

I love reading about this. I don't know why more people aren't willing to consider BOTH popular theories are true to an extent.

The woo theories that make no sense?

 

[Rlyeh]

On 10/1/2020 at 4:41 PM, kidagakash said:

The other theories which suggest alternate realities, quantum entanglement, time travel, etc are all answers that rely on theoretical physics or unproven scientific theories and lack any empirical evidence.

Since your brain does not exist in a different reality, these "theories" are BS.

 

On 10/1/2020 at 4:41 PM, kidagakash said:

According to most accepted models of scientific investigation, until a theory is disproven it remains a possibility as long as it produces all the same results.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.  A scientific theory is worlds apart from the baseless assumptions put forth here, at best you've got a hypothesis.

 

[kidagakash]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Since your brain does not exist in a different reality, these "theories" are BS.

 

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.  A scientific theory is worlds apart from the baseless assumptions put forth here, at best you've got a hypothesis.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

What kind of point are you trying to make? You are stating the obvious with the attitude of a kid trying to kick dowwn someones sandcastle. I I don't need your permission or approval to explore the possibilities that you don't approve of. Multiverse theory, along with many of it's counterparts are extremely well thought ideas to try to describe our reality and all of our theoretical physics comes from a degree of imagination and intuition.  Without it we would never learn anything.

[Rlyeh]

45 minutes ago, kidagakash said:

What kind of point are you trying to make? You are stating the obvious with the attitude of a kid trying to kick dowwn someones sandcastle. I I don't need your permission or approval to explore the possibilities that you don't approve of. Multiverse theory, along with many of it's counterparts are extremely well thought ideas to try to describe our reality and all of our theoretical physics comes from a degree of imagination and intuition.  Without it we would never learn anything.

Yet it still wasn't obvious enough for you.  

The multiverse theory isn't a scientific theory.  All you're doing is listing science sounding words thinking they support the stupidity known as the Mandela Effect.

[papageorge1]

On 10/1/2020 at 3:11 AM, kidagakash said:

To be more clear what I am suggesting is that the Mandella *effect* can have more than one cause. The theories you suggest such as

Neuroplasticity, incomplete memory supplementation, andoutside influences.

are all logical contingencies which are supported by our current knowledge.

The other theories which suggest alternate realities, quantum entanglement, time travel, etc are all answers that rely on theoretical physics or unproven scientific theories and lack any empirical evidence. According to most accepted models of scientific investigation, until a theory is disproven it remains a possibility as long as it produces all the same results.

The former obviously wins out the latter for our best answer to the question.

That does not make it the ONLY possible answer, but it does make it our best answer so far.

 

kidagakash, I am a believer that the Mandela Effect is likely something that defies our straightforward understanding of how reality works. 

QUESTION #1 is if we think this can all be explained within our accepted understanding of reality or do new concepts need to be added to explain these claims. I am heavily leaning to the latter that new concepts to reality will need to be added to explain these claims.

So do you have a position on Question #1. Undecided or 50/50 are acceptable answers. I am now 95/5 towards new concepts of reality will be needed to explain these claims like the Berenstein Bears, Fruit of the Loom logo, Chic-fil-a, Flintstones/Flinstones, etcetera.

What these new concepts entail would be Question #2. Undecided is an acceptable answer to this too. My leading theory is that higher benevolent beings are pushing those ready to see reality is not the hard-fixed thing we assume it to be. And that it is being held to trivial things to allow those not ready to stay in denial without forcing a tip of the apple-cart of society.

Edited October 2, 2020 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 9/30/2020 at 4:41 PM, XenoFish said:

In the case of the mandela effect. It's largely due to false memories, neuroplasticity, and memes. Meaning that by someone misremembering and sharing that misremembrance, other people we also misremember. 

The idea of common false memories is definitely interesting, I think for some of them though the misremembering makes sense all on its own.  The one that is most prominent to me is the 'Berenstain Bears', I also had always thought it was 'Berenstein', and kinda had a glimpse of 'something is wrong with reality' when I found out decades later it was Berenstain.  But it makes sense:  Berenstain Bears books are for very young readers who are least likely to remember exact spellings, kids have probably had the books read to them by adults who pronounced it 'Berenstein', and most importantly I can't think of any other time in the decades after these books where I've encountered 'stain' at the end of a proper name, whereas encountering 'stein' is very common.  Kinda eliminates any mystery for me, although it may be too materialist an explanation for some.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Liquid Gardens

[+Liquid Gardens]

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

kidagakash, I am a believer that the Mandela Effect is likely something that defies our straightforward understanding of how reality works. 

QUESTION #1 is if we think this can all be explained within our accepted understanding of reality or do new concepts need to be added to explain these claims. I am heavily leaning to the latter that new concepts to reality will need to be added to explain these claims.

So do you have a position on Question #1. Undecided or 50/50 are acceptable answers. I am now 95/5 towards new concepts of reality will be needed to explain these claims like the Berenstein Bears, Fruit of the Loom logo, Chic-fil-a, Flintstones/Flinstones, etcetera.

What these new concepts entail would be Question #2. Undecided is an acceptable answer to this too. My leading theory is that higher benevolent beings are pushing those ready to see reality is not the hard-fixed thing we assume it to be. And that it is being held to trivial things to allow those not ready to stay in denial without forcing a tip of the apple-cart of society.

Does what is already known about psychology really merit no mention or weight in your analysis?  Your hypotheses here would be much more reasonable if we had any reason to think that memory is perfect, when all the actual scientific evidence is actually against that idea.  

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Does what is already known about psychology really merit no mention or weight in your analysis?  Your hypotheses here would be much more reasonable if we had any reason to think that memory is perfect, when all the actual scientific evidence is actually against that idea.  

OK, I believe of course in all kinds of memory error and I acknowledge making them like everyone else all the time.

Mandela Effects are in a different class for me where the normal explanations don’t seem reasonable.

I realize how challenging this belief must seem but I have been considering this for years and had my own personal experience that I’ve shared here before leaving me personally beyond reasonable doubt. It happened.
 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I realize how challenging this belief must seem but I have been considering this for years and had my own personal experience that I’ve shared here before leaving me personally beyond reasonable doubt. It happened.

There's nothing challenging about it, as I just explained I've had my own personal experience with it and somehow came to the opposite conclusion.  Personal experience is besides the point regardless, because there's only one position I'm aware of that has the benefit of a scientific explanation for it.  It'd be irrational for me to ignore that objective fact, right?

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There's nothing challenging about it, as I just explained I've had my own personal experience with it and somehow came to the opposite conclusion.  Personal experience is besides the point regardless, because there's only one position I'm aware of that has the benefit of a scientific explanation for it.  It'd be irrational for me to ignore that objective fact, right?

With George the key terminology is Belief. That's all it is and will every be, just a belief.