Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
the13bats

Mandela effect discussion

202 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Robotic Jew
14 hours ago, moonman said:

If reality was actually changing around us, either everyone would notice or nobody would notice.The "new normal" will be what always was.

Just like if you went back and changed history, the history you changed is what people will have always known.

You're forgetting that some people are more "special" than others and superior. As with most fringe ideas and conspiracies this is what it all boils down to. The idea that they know the truth while everyone else is blissfully ignorant is what really gets them going. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
9 hours ago, Scholar4Truth said:

Here's one Mandela effect that I can easily debunk. Some will claim that Jif peanut butter used to be called Jiffy peanut butter. But they're confusing Jif peanut butter with jiffy corn muffin mix. In fact here is photographic evidence to prove that.   I had some of it laying around. Not to mention there's another product by that name that is Jiffy Pop which is  a popcorn brand.

I don't follow your logic. How does this disprove there was never also a Jiffy Peanut Butter in some people's experience? That is not a debunking.

The Jiffy Peanut Butter one is not one I personally claim to have experienced. Jiffy Peanut Butter sounds right too but I distinctly remember the commercial where the mother says 'Choosy mothers choose Jif'. Perhaps I experienced both? I'm not sure on this one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
3 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

You're forgetting that some people are more "special" than others and superior. As with most fringe ideas and conspiracies this is what it all boils down to. The idea that they know the truth while everyone else is blissfully ignorant is what really gets them going. 

I didn't forget, I knew the "special snowflake" bit would come up - I just try not to pander to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Don't give me a video.

Got a paper?  Article from a scholarly source that knows one end of an equation from another?

Videos are the simplest form of mind control -- you eyes will believe (magic) even when your brain tells you something else (sleight of hand.)  You can't check references on the fly on a video.  You can if it's written.

Videos are the laziest form of interaction.

So give me some meat in a discussion and not air and hand-wavium.  I like a good magic trick as well as the next person but if I'm discussing something philosophical or scientific I want something more substantial.

I feel the comments of a physicist and popular thinker to be worth a couple minutes if one is truly interested in immersion in this subject. 

I also think some use science snobbery to hand wave away things that they have a prejudice against.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel the comments of a physicist and popular thinker to be worth a couple minutes if one is truly interested in immersion in this subject. 

I also think some use science snobbery to hand wave away things that they have a prejudice against.

I think you're dismissing a simple request. Why not do what's been asked of you? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, Xeno-Fish said:

I think you're dismissing a simple request. Why not do what's been asked of you? 

Please? So, I should have everything at hand that a skeptic requests with a nice link? Impossible. I can only share what I have come across. Nothing wrong with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel the comments of a physicist and popular thinker to be worth a couple minutes if one is truly interested in immersion in this subject. 

Why?  What has physics discovered that is relevant to the Mandela effect?  I wasted my time going to the timestamp in your video and heard them use the phrase 'mandela effect' once but they then returned to their babbling about this reality being a simulation for at least a couple minutes.  Why can't you just state what they said that is supposed to be evidence or an argument for the Mandela effect?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Why can't you just state what they said that is supposed to be evidence or an argument for the Mandela effect?

I can start by saying in a simulation anything that the simulator wants to happen can happen. That argues the Mandela Effect can be a benign even beneficial wake-up call to those of us ready to move past the materialist view of reality (as in my Flintstones experience).

One view of reality is that Consciousness/Source/God/Brahman alone is real and the universe is a thought-form (simulation?) of Consciousness.

P.S. This is providing a theoretical framework for possibly explaining the Mandela Effect. 

 

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
37 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Please? So, I should have everything at hand that a skeptic requests with a nice link? 

Yes, it was request by a mod that I do such a thing. What not everyone? It shows more of a willingness to support an argument. 

I'll ask you directly this, what is so wrong with the mandela effect being only faulty memory? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
21 minutes ago, Xeno-Fish said:

Yes, it was request by a mod that I do such a thing. What not everyone? It shows more of a willingness to support an argument. 

 

I must suspect that you are paraphrasing the mod's action unfairly.

22 minutes ago, Xeno-Fish said:

 

I'll ask you directly this, what is so wrong with the mandela effect being only faulty memory? 

There is nothing wrong with the faulty memory explanation but I don't think it is the correct explanation for things like the Fruit of the Loom logo and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I must suspect that you are paraphrasing the mod's action unfairly.

There is nothing wrong with the faulty memory explanation but I don't think it is the correct explanation for things like the Fruit of the Loom logo and others.

That's just it. There is a lot more of a realistic explanation than a mystical one. Both of which include false and faulty memory. 

I was asked to provide support for my opinion. Why not support yourself better. The problem is that you always want to impose your belief/s as being fact. You claim critical thinking, but default to confirmation bias. When things don't line up to your way of thinking, it is the "materialist/skeptics" fault. I've told you before, look in the other direction of what you believe. You might find out that your sacred beliefs are not so mystical or magical as you'd hoped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I can start by saying in a simulation anything that the simulator wants to happen can happen. That argues the Mandela Effect can be a benign even beneficial wake-up call to those of us ready to move past the materialist view of reality (as in my Flintstones experience).

Your Flintstones experience was very materialist, you were looking at a physical screen I thought.  You were mentioning for some reason that we should listen to what 'a physicist' and supposed 'thinker' say about the Mandela effect to immerse ourselves in the subject; do they actually discuss it in your video or just mention it in passing? Simulation theory and the Mandela effect are two separate topics, neither depends on the other.

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

One view of reality is that Consciousness/Source/God/Brahman alone is real and the universe is a thought-form (simulation?) of Consciousness.

P.S. This is providing a theoretical framework for possibly explaining the Mandela Effect. 

And another view is that it is Satan.  Matter of fact there are an infinite number of theoretical frameworks explaining the Mandela effect, that's what happens when we don't have to worry about pesky evidence.  Sorry, there's just as much evidence for Satan as there is for Brahman, or Zeus for that matter.

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

but I don't think it is the correct explanation for things like the Fruit of the Loom logo and others.

Because you think that how 'sure' someone is about the accuracy of their old memories is indicative of their reliability.  Is that the consensus of scientists who study memory?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
7 minutes ago, Xeno-Fish said:

That's just it. There is a lot more of a realistic explanation than a mystical one. Both of which include false and faulty memory. 

I was asked to provide support for my opinion. Why not support yourself better. The problem is that you always want to impose your belief/s as being fact. You claim critical thinking, but default to confirmation bias. When things don't line up to your way of thinking, it is the "materialist/skeptics" fault. I've told you before, look in the other direction of what you believe. You might find out that your sacred beliefs are not so mystical or magical as you'd hoped. 

Sounds like your same old...

But anyway what I do is consider everything and form my best open minded appraisal. I then enjoy debating it politely with those who may disagree. 
 

Nothing wrong with that although certain skeptics seem excessively bothered by views that oppose a materialist framework for reality. Oh, well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
Just now, papageorge1 said:

Sounds like your same old...

But anyway what I do is consider everything and form my best open minded appraisal. I then enjoy debating it politely with those who may disagree. 
 

Nothing wrong with that although certain skeptics seem excessively bothered by views that oppose a materialist framework for reality. Oh, well.

And you are equally upset with anything that's against your paranormal views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Xeno-Fish said:

And you are equally upset with anything that's against your paranormal views. 

I debate politely and professionally. If a skeptic gets abusive and insulting first I will smack back and then ignore.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I debate politely and professionally. If a skeptic gets abusive and insulting first I will smack back and then ignore.

Okay PG if that's what you want to believe. 

Personally I know where this is all going. Nowhere. You're dug in like always. Good luck. Maybe one day you'll reassess things. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I feel the comments of a physicist and popular thinker to be worth a couple minutes if one is truly interested in immersion in this subject. 

I also think some use science snobbery to hand wave away things that they have a prejudice against.

I would like to know what the person's qualifications are as a physicist.  Is this at the same level as Michio Kaku (who gets a bit far out sometimes with his ideas) or with John Droz, who studied physics in college in 1960 but is actually a real estate agent (he also claims to be a physicist.)

And why videos?  Surely this person also wrote things.  Why not point to some of their writings or blogs?

Popular thinkers... I'm not impressed with  Kayne West is supposed to be a popular thinker but I wouldn't trust the man's comments on anything scientific or historical.  I'm far more impressed with good research than I am with what passes for "popular thinking."

Anyway... it's kind of a waste of time to try and convince me to watch a video when I particularly do not like videos.  It'd be a lot less effort to point to an article in (say) Rolling Stone or something like that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Your Flintstones experience was very materialist, you were looking at a physical screen I thought.  You were mentioning for some reason that we should listen to what 'a physicist' and supposed 'thinker' say about the Mandela effect to immerse ourselves in the subject; do they actually discuss it in your video or just mention it in passing? Simulation theory and the Mandela effect are two separate topics, neither depends on the other.

 

I understand. Simulation theory presents a framework that allows for thing like the Mandela Effect to occur. Materialist philosophers must deny the Mandela Effects existence. Because my Flintstone experience happened on a physical screen doesn't mean materialism can explain it (your point didn't make much sense there). 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

And another view is that it is Satan.  Matter of fact there are an infinite number of theoretical frameworks explaining the Mandela effect, that's what happens when we don't have to worry about pesky evidence.  Sorry, there's just as much evidence for Satan as there is for Brahman, or Zeus for that matter.

 

 Advaita Vedanta (Consciousness is primary) philosophy preceded any so-called Mandela Effect recognition. The Mandela Effect is just compatible with Advaita as opposed to the Mandela Effect's incompatibility with materialist philosophy. My belief in Advaita Vedanta preceded the Mandela Effect's recognition. 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Because you think that how 'sure' someone is about the accuracy of their old memories is indicative of their reliability.  Is that the consensus of scientists who study memory?

Are those scientists you speak of that study memory followers of the materialist model of brain science? If so, I would expect their non-belief in the Mandela Effect to then be a forgone conclusion. But does the Mandela Effect really exist?? I believe so from my experience and the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Simulation theory presents a framework that allows for thing like the Mandela Effect to occur. Materialist philosophers must deny the Mandela Effects existence. Because my Flintstone experience happened on a physical screen doesn't mean materialism can explain it (your point didn't make much sense there). 

I don't think you understand what 'materialism' means, you seem to think it means 'current scientific understanding' where in this case it just means that consciousness is entirely a result of 'physical' processes.  When I ask you specific questions you tell me that you have no clue how the Mandela effect works, or even what is going on.  But now you do seem to have some idea of how it works since you are erroneously disqualifying a whole set of possible answers.  Outside of the enormously obvious normal memory errors, there are a whole host of 'materialist' 'models' that 'explain' the Mandela effect:  maybe time runs backwards or jumps around sometimes, maybe people are shifting between parallel universes, maybe there's a multiverse and unknown linkages and mergers between them, maybe some specific substance that Mandela effect believers are ingesting is altering their memory/affecting their confidence about it.  These kinds of materialistic explanations are just as endless as the supernatural ones.  When you can only 'explain' things at the level of 'maybe Brahman did it' then you don't have much ground for disregarding other 'maybes'.  The fact that you apparently didn't even think of and evaluate these non-supernatural possibilities indicates that your conclusions are not that well-informed.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Advaita Vedanta (Consciousness is primary) philosophy preceded any so-called Mandela Effect recognition.

As did Satan.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Are those scientists you speak of that study memory followers of the materialist model of brain science? 

There is no other model of brain science.  There are other 'models' of the brain/mind, but they are not science, here's one:

Capture.JPG.9f542f08815e7f149486f8bb210ff05d.JPG

Maybe when there's an immaterial model of brain science this mention of yours would make more sense, right now you may as well be saying 'but do those scientists believe in Santa?' as far as relevance.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

But does the Mandela Effect really exist??  I believe so from my experience and the evidence.

The Mandela effect exists, just like optical illusions exist, it's just that it has a totally obvious explanation.  

I have trouble reconciling your oft-repeated second sentence with your indication that there's something you'd like to debate here.  You seem to carefully avoid answering questions that might provide some details on why you don't think these are just memory errors, and the best I've been able to pull out of you has to do with 'surety' or confidence in the memory.  It's fine if you don't have any info on how your theory works but then I don't know what debate you are looking to have; great, you've got a religious belief, good for you.  When you say that based on your experience and evidence that you believe in the ME, and then when challenged on it with specifics, noting again that you just believe based on your experience and evidence isn't debating.  You also reassure that you've looked at all the arguments including the skeptical ones, but I've never seen you discuss the 'materialist' explanations I provided above so I assume you haven't even evaluated them.  

I'm satisfied that I gave it a try, I asked you tons of specific questions in decent-sized posts and you decline to address them and just say again that you just believe based on your experience.  I guess all I can say is that I'm entirely confident that I've provided far more numerous rational reasons and justifications why I don't believe in any abnormal explanation for the ME than you have for why you believe in it.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I've gotten bored with this thread so I'm leaving a video. Watch if you like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't follow your logic. How does this disprove there was never also a Jiffy Peanut Butter in some people's experience? That is not a debunking.

The Jiffy Peanut Butter one is not one I personally claim to have experienced. Jiffy Peanut Butter sounds right too but I distinctly remember the commercial where the mother says 'Choosy mothers choose Jif'. Perhaps I experienced both? I'm not sure on this one.

 

There never was a Jiffy peanut butter. I grew up eating Jif Peanut Butter in fact its the only kind that I eat. And yes the commercial slogan has been 'Choosy mothers choose Jif'. Here is a commercial from 1977 Also here are two more one from 1984 and another from 2001. In addition as noted in my last posts Jiffy is also a brand of Cornmeal along with Popcorn.  https://www.jiffypoppopcorn.com/ https://site.jiffymix.com/products/ Here are also commercials on those products as well. So it does debunk your claims. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Scholar4Truth said:

There never was a Jiffy peanut butter. I grew up eating Jif Peanut Butter in fact its the only kind that I eat. And yes the commercial slogan has been 'Choosy mothers choose Jif'. Here is a commercial from 1977 Also here are two more one from 1984 and another from 2001. In addition as noted in my last posts Jiffy is also a brand of Cornmeal along with Popcorn.  https://www.jiffypoppopcorn.com/ https://site.jiffymix.com/products/ Here are also commercials on those products as well. So it does debunk your claims. 

I am not a proponent of the Jiffy Mandela Effect but all I was saying is that it is not possible to debunk any Mandela effect in the way you are doing. Proponents know that NOW all things from the past say 'Jif', but what did these people see back in the day? The normally impossible possibility of things changing is out there with the Mandela Effect. You can debunk every Mandela Effect with the method you are using here.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I don't think you understand what 'materialism' means, you seem to think it means 'current scientific understanding' where in this case it just means that consciousness is entirely a result of 'physical' processes.  When I ask you specific questions you tell me that you have no clue how the Mandela effect works, or even what is going on.  But now you do seem to have some idea of how it works since you are erroneously disqualifying a whole set of possible answers.  Outside of the enormously obvious normal memory errors, there are a whole host of 'materialist' 'models' that 'explain' the Mandela effect:  maybe time runs backwards or jumps around sometimes, maybe people are shifting between parallel universes, maybe there's a multiverse and unknown linkages and mergers between them, maybe some specific substance that Mandela effect believers are ingesting is altering their memory/affecting their confidence about it.  These kinds of materialistic explanations are just as endless as the supernatural ones.  When you can only 'explain' things at the level of 'maybe Brahman did it' then you don't have much ground for disregarding other 'maybes'.  The fact that you apparently didn't even think of and evaluate these non-supernatural possibilities indicates that your conclusions are not that well-informed.

As did Satan.

There is no other model of brain science.  There are other 'models' of the brain/mind, but they are not science, here's one:

Maybe when there's an immaterial model of brain science this mention of yours would make more sense, right now you may as well be saying 'but do those scientists believe in Santa?' as far as relevance.

The Mandela effect exists, just like optical illusions exist, it's just that it has a totally obvious explanation.  

I have trouble reconciling your oft-repeated second sentence with your indication that there's something you'd like to debate here.  You seem to carefully avoid answering questions that might provide some details on why you don't think these are just memory errors, and the best I've been able to pull out of you has to do with 'surety' or confidence in the memory.  It's fine if you don't have any info on how your theory works but then I don't know what debate you are looking to have; great, you've got a religious belief, good for you.  When you say you believe based on your experience and evidence that you believe in the ME, and then when challenged on it with specifics, noting again that you just believe based on your experience and evidence isn't debating.  You also reassure that you've looked at all the arguments including the skeptical ones, but I've never seen you discuss the 'materialist' explanations I provided above so I assume you haven't even evaluated them.  

I'm satisfied that I gave it a try, I asked you tons of specific questions in decent-sized posts and you decline to address them and just say again that you just believe based on your experience.  I guess all I can say is that I'm entirely confident that I've provided far more numerous rational reasons and justifications why I don't believe in any abnormal explanation for the ME than you have for why you believe in it.

Well I come back to square 1. Do you believe the Mandela Effect examples are all best explained as normal memory errors or do you believe they sometimes involve elements that do not make sense in our straightforward understanding of reality?  It is a judgment call. I presented the Mickey Mouse example and asked what would be a threshold level suggesting an exotic explanation. I got no clear answer as a level can't be clearly defined. It's a judgment call and we can end on different sides.

Now as to the exotic cause, all I have done is cite my leading theory at this time that is compatible with things I believe for reasons unrelated to the Mandela Effect. I understand there are many theories even if the 'exotic explanation' theory is true. I can't prove any of them right or wrong.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth
18 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not a proponent of the Jiffy Mandela Effect but all I was saying is that it is not possible to debunk any Mandela effect in the way you are doing. Proponents know that NOW all things from the past say 'Jif', but what did these people see back in the day? The normally impossible possibility of things changing is out there with the Mandela Effect. You can debunk every Mandela Effect with the method you are using here.

According to your standard it does not debunk it because you presuppose the Mandela Effect and interpret the evidence through that lens.  Anything that refutes you is dismissed and I have shown evidence. There are people of the past today who still remember it as Jif. My mom has a good memory and told me she remembers it as Jif Peanut Butter. Unless you think she is a liar or wrong you will have to prove otherwise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 minutes ago, Scholar4Truth said:

According to your standard it does not debunk it because you presuppose the Mandela Effect and interpret the evidence through that lens.  Anything that refutes you is dismissed and I have shown evidence. There are people of the past today who still remember it as Jif. My mom has a good memory and told me she remembers it as Jif Peanut Butter. Unless you think she is a liar or wrong you will have to prove otherwise.

You are not understanding me. Slow down and understand where I am coming from. Did you not read: I am not a proponent of the Jiffy Mandela Effect 

The point I was making (that you missed) has nothing to do with Jif Peanut Butter but about the impossibility of proving or disproving any Mandela Effect.

Let's let it go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.