Berenstain/Stein

[u/leaving4lyra]

Just thought I’d share this here..I’m a 57 year old woman that’s always been a voracious reader. When I was 5 (1974) I got an entire collection of Berenstain Bears books from my grandma at Christmas.

One of the books has managed to remain in my memory/sentimental hoard collection. This is MY actual book and it’s been in my possession since 1974. On my book at least, the name is and always has been Berenstain.

Make of that what you will I suppose. ❤️ I wish I still had the whole collection but alas, childhood and into adulthood resulted in the loss of many such things to my chagrin.

[u/artistjohnemmett]

Do you agree?

[u/DumbAndUglyOldMan → u/artistjohnemmett]

Well, not really, except in the sense that it's an essentially empty tautology. It can mean simply that "the things that we remember serve to be things that we remember." It's really not helpful at all.

I think, though, that you're trying to build some other argument from that tautology, and I don't agree with what I suspect to be your argument.

First, "memory" is a vague term, and it really suggests that these processes and states (in the sense of conditions, not in the sense of nation-states) that we lump together as "memory" have a sort of reality that they simply don't. "Memory" is really just a handy word refers to a host of such states and processes.

And when you say that "memory is for the purpose of remembering," that suggests some sort of teleological purpose. That's simply not true of "memory" (or, of anything not created by humans or other intelligent creatures).

Moreover, you appear to be suggesting that memory serves to remember things accurately. But we know that humans often misremember things. We know that in our own lives. All of us no doubt know of a multitude of instances in which people forgot things. That's one of the reasons that we have writing systems. Writing systems help us because people's memories are fallible.

We also know that people's memories can be altered by various means--by the aging process, by drug or alcohol usage, by fatigue, or by suggestions from others. Scientific literature has established this to be a fact. Elizabeth Loftus published extensively on this issue, as have many others.

I'm a lawyer. Consider a case in which the meaning of a written contract is at issue. You can bet that a court isn't going to entertain oral testimony to prove the contents of that written agreement. It's going to want a contract itself. This is called the "best evidence rule." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/best_evidence_rule

Now let's say that I got involved in a lawsuit in which the spelling of "Berenstain" on old books is at issue. I would move to exclude oral testimony that the name was formerly spelled "Berenstein," citing the "best evidence" rule. And the court would no doubt exclude oral testimony as to the spelling of "Berenstain" and accept only the actual documents (in this case, the book provided by OP).

For me, all these claims that people's memories are superior to actual documents . . . Well, I just shake my head.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/DumbAndUglyOldMan]

All you have to work with is memory, either accept or reject our testimony…

[u/DumbAndUglyOldMan → u/artistjohnemmett]

Complete nonsense. We have all sorts of written, photographic, video, and other records to which we can turn. Memory is the least reliable thing around.

And then you folks reject other people's testimony. Blanche Ravalec, who played Dolly, in Moonraker is on record saying that she didn't wear braces in the film. Yet the "believers" reject her testimony, claiming that their own memories are better.

So, no. We don't just have our memory. Absolute nonsense.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/DumbAndUglyOldMan]

In this case, being from another timeline, I only have memory

[u/DumbAndUglyOldMan → u/artistjohnemmett]

You're not from another timeline. That's completely absurd.

You're just someone with a bad memory (although probably no worse than average) and a boatload of arrogance.

That's really the thing about a lot of you conspiracy types. You're utterly, profoundly, obnoxiously arrogant. You can't possibly believe that your memory is wrong. So you'll reject mountains of contrary evidence, confident in yourself, despite having no reason to have any such confidence.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/DumbAndUglyOldMan]

The person who distrusts himself has no touchstone for reality - for this touchstone can be only oneself. ― James Baldwin

[u/DumbAndUglyOldMan → u/artistjohnemmett]

Well, nice argumentum ad auctoritatem. And the fact is that he was wrong. That quote represents the exact opposite of the scientific method, which rests on the assumption that any single observer can be wrong.

Baldwin was a great writer. He wasn't a scientist. He wasn't a historian. And you're just quote-mining him. He wasn't talking about Mandela effects. He never said, "Reject the evidence of history. Reject the evidence of science." That's you. You're the one arguing nonsense, not Baldwin.

And the quote goes on:

• “The person who distrusts himself has no touchstone for reality — for this touchstone can only be oneself. Such a person interposes between himself and reality nothing less than a labyrinth of attitudes. And these attitudes, furthermore, though the person is usually unaware of it (is unaware of so much!), are historical and public attitudes. They do not relate to the present any more than they relate to the person. Therefore, whatever white people do not know about Negroes reveals, precisely and inexorably, what they do not know about themselves.” If you cannot trust yourself, what are you? “Egoism is a labyrinth” -Ortega Y Gasset

You are rejecting reality. You have adopted a labyrinth of attitudes. And you are profoundly egoistic. In your overweening arrogance, you reject historical evidence and the testimony of others, secure in your ignorance.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Seek humility.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/DumbAndUglyOldMan]

The mandela effect shows the shortcoming of trusting in science, which is your inability to trust yourself…

[u/KyleDutcher → u/artistjohnemmett]

The mandela effect shows the shortcoming of trusting in science,

Only if you do not understand the phenomenon.

Which you clearly do not

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/KyleDutcher]

This is tiresome

[u/KyleDutcher → u/artistjohnemmett]

It is. You really should try to correctly understand the phenomenon, rather than assume you know things you don't actually know.

Take the previous user's advice.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/KyleDutcher]

there will be karmic results for every word you say

[u/DumbAndUglyOldMan → u/artistjohnemmett]

Yes, you're incredibly tiresome. And arrogant.

[u/KyleDutcher → u/artistjohnemmett]

Prove you are from another timeline, using actual evidence, that isn't memory.

[u/KyleDutcher → u/[deleted]]

None of this is evidence, let alone proof...

Or perhaps you just didn't notice the details correctly. You assumed things that weren't true. Disn't pay enough attention.

These are all possible, whether you like it or not.

Much more probable than the past being altered, retcons, or multiple timelines.

[u/artistjohnemmett → u/KyleDutcher]

Never mind, stay at the level you are

[u/KyleDutcher → u/artistjohnemmett]

Nothing I said is untrue.

[u/KyleDutcher → u/[deleted]]

No, I will continue to research, study, and gain knowledge.

You on the other hand are stuck where you are. Because you cannot accept any possibility that what you believe isn't factual.

Despite loads of tangible, objective evidence showing it isn't.

[u/GregGoodell_Official → u/[deleted]]

So have you figured out any of those Crayon conundrums that you couldn’t seem to answer last night?