Individual,
(Alas! A2K used to be a relatively pollution free zone but now, as you can see, we have a few poblems with the inarticulate !)
This is potentially a very interesting thread touching on major epistemological issues such as the origin and status of working hypotheses, including that of "group memory" itself. (Allow me to recommend the Sheldrake Link to you above with particular reference to "morhic resonance and the hypothesis of causative formation" - if you are not yet familiar with those ideas).
Irrespective of theoretical "scientific" positions (Jung, Sheldrake etc) on collective memory you ask if it is "real". My own definition of "reality" is about "social consensus" and "that which affects your life relationships" (NOT "physical" or "mental" etc.) So, in as much as such experiences "enhance relationhips" in some way the answer for me is "yes". However despite my own ideosyncratic stance there is sufficient "anecdotal evidence" to warrant a re-think on the "mechanisms of memory" from a "scientific" point of view.
I'm sorry, fresco, but I have to disagree with this for the same reason I disagreed with the other things. There's no logical way to make this idea work, let alone an empirical one.
it is important for us all to remember that flying is impossible, and that that edict was issued by very highly educated people who were fully familiar with the existence of birds!
in that line, decrying any mass of evidence for an 'unlikely', or scientifically unprovable field of enquiry, is foolish, at best.
reserving judgment (is Frank listening?) is the least we can do.
and on this subject, i would recommend a book by Eugene Marais, a french naturalist working in Africa in the first part of the last century, on describing the fascinating world of the 'termite' - "The Soul of the White Ant"
He develops a very convincing case for the common mental influence of the entire colony, and suggests that the 'animal' is the whole, not the individual.
He was, by the way, a morphine addict from medication used to treat his locally created bodily invasions. That, perhaps added to his ability to disconnect himself from standard scientific 'dogma'.
Good points Bo.
Similar skepticism surrounded the work of Tesla and the guy who proposed tectonic plate theory. (Thomas Khun's classic on paradigm shifts comes to mind here). Your reference on ants is not surprising and triggers many images from the animal world such as flocks of birds in formation and shoals of fish turning instantaneously "as one" etc.
Just to get back to ants a moment, perhaps we Europeans had better watch out! (See below)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1932509.stm
Just because something goes against popular "dogma" is not a valid reason for its existence either, though.
And yet you continue to argue when you have no real facts
What am I arguing here? I'm criticising others for believing in this mysiticism when there are no facts. I think that's fair.
Point taken.
I always wondered why scientists rarely took qualitative observations as fact.
It it just because it's not as specific?
Because, we have facts, just unmeasurable ones.
Qualitative observations? You mean like, superstitions? Popular myths? Flippant judgements? That sort of thing? That can't be replicated in a controlled experiment, obviously. That's a major point of scientific study there.
Individual
1. All so called "facts" are never neutral. They are gathered in the light of some guiding hypothesis. We would still be lookng at "the humours of the body" had not our paradigm shifted.
2. There is no difference between "qualitatiative" and "quantitative" except in the level of measurement. (Nominal, ordinal,interval or ratio).
All "facts" are by defintion at least nominal.
This highlights the epistemological point that "facts" are observer dependent and this gives particular problems in the so-called "social sciences" because there is less consensus (on which science is based) on the nature of "the data". (Classically, Jungian patients have Jungian dreams, Freudian patients have Freudian dreams ...etc)
One "solution" has been for social science to rely on probabalistic models which ironically (or inevitably) have now come to the fore even in physics.
But there are other epistemological problems particular to "memory" itself,
including "identity theory", "time", and "self". These all tend to contribute to the general melee.
I am curious about something concerning "collective memory." Since we all have the same knowledge, how do we have different ideas?
jaco213
Welcome to the thread.
I think you are going to have to differentiate between "knowledge" and "ideas". Note also that "same" and "different" are not objective but are dependent on the one doing the comparing.
I have had several experiences that seem to be telepathic or collective memory related.
When I was with a group of three friends, we were talking about something. One of them was about to say something, but changed his mind. I immediately knew exactly what he was going to say--later, with just him, I asked him, and he said that it was. Coincidence?
Have you ever wondered why you have deja vu, when you have a dream about some absolutely uninteresting experience and for some reason that experience ends up occurring a few days later?
Are we simply dreaming every possible combination of events that our mind can invent in two hours and then remembering just one as if it were the only one? Or are we tapping into some vast potential memory that transcends time?
That does happen, ask any number of people and a suprising amount will tell you that they have had such an experience. But how does it happen? And why do we have dreams of such boring events to come?
And don't dare tell me that it's from a change in the matrix...
