Re: JP Barlow, Ph.D, Social Engineering

Jeff Dee (
Thu, 26 Sep 1996 12:24:06 -0500

Crosby_M wrote:
> Date: Wednesday, September 25, 1996 12:22PM
> >>> = Kathryn Aegis
> >> = E. Shaun Russell
> > = Jeff Dee

> >are you suggesting the universe includes 'untrue'
> >or non-existent things?
> The *universe* consists of all things that have existed across
> space-time, some of which once existed but no longer do. What is the
> status of these in the 'monochrome' view?

Good point. I should have phrased my question differently. I would
define things that 'used to be' and 'could be, but aren't yet' as
'facts' - they're just facts we may not be aware of at the moment.
Don't you agree?

> >we cannot see more than facts.
> >At most, we can *imagine* (not 'see') non-existent things [snip]
> >Imagination is a wonderfully useful tool, but [snip]
> >It's nothing more than the ability to construct hypothetical models
> And what else is our seeing or hearing, based as it is upon limited
> spectrums with lots of 'noise' to be filtered and ghosts of past
> patterns to be fitted or dumped?

'Limited spectrums' still employ photons, which exist. 'Noise' may
obscure what we're trying to perceive, but that noise *exists* - it's
not metaphysical or supernatural interference. What we *see* exists.
The fact that what we see may require interpretation does not mean that
we see non-existent things. On the other hand, if I *imagine* a purple
walrus, not a single photon is tracing a path from the sun to the walrus
and into my eyes to be interpreted and registered in my brain. Instead,
I'm taking my memories of walruses and applying my memory of the color
purple to it, to construct a hypothetical model. I'm not 'seeing' a
purple walrus in any sense that makes the purple walrus as much a 'fact'
as things I perceive via the physical process of sight.

> I think Greg Burch's 9/25/96 comments Re: Are Conspiracies Stronger Than
> Truth? are applicable to this thread as well:
> "From my experience (1) perception and memory in such situations is
> extremely unreliable, even in disinterested witnesses, (2) mutliple
> witnesses can influence each other's perceptions and memories subtly but
> very strongly, (3) strongly-held "memories" "mutate" significantly over
> time [snip]"

These are good reasons to place *more* emphasis on drawing distinctions
between fact and imagination, not less. Of course we have to make an
effort to interpret perception properly. Giving up and equating all
perception with pure imagination is not helpful. Not everything that is
uncertain is *equally* uncertain.

> Mark Crosby
> "What has been always will be, and what will be always has been"
> - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., "Sirens of Titan"

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." -Jack Handey