You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Our Past Been Edited? - Explaining The Mandela Effect
My question to both of you would be; do you still own the original books with the different spelling? Otherwise I would suggest that you are experiencing confabulation.
Cg
No I don't, and like with any other example (Interview with the (a) Vampire, Sex and (in) the City) I would fully expect it to not be what I remembered. I don't believe the past or reality is altering around us, I believe there exists Berenstein Bears, Berenstain Bears, Berenstain Badgers, ... and the list goes on forever.
Steemit was actually the first place I heard of the Mandela effect so it's been less than a year that I've been aware of it. But when I first read on the subject it just fit with the overall conception I've had of "reality" for the last 15 or so years ever since I first discovered the Many Worlds Theory and that clicked with me.
I feel that the Mandela Effect has always happened. I think of it as an artifact of our consciousness navigating a path through infinite realities and probabilities. Before this modern time where we have a convergence of standardized images and logos, internationally famous people, names and media properties, and the internet as a means of communicating and finding others with like experiences... any "Mandela effects" would have been largely imperceptible to earlier societies.
I know it's bizarre, I certainly don't get into any fist fights with "Mandela Effect deniers!" Some examples I myself chalk up as more likely to be due to confabulation. I see C3POs silver leg (which I don't remember) but when I watch the movies it is actually very subtle and hard to detect, and most of the toys produced didn't bother to include that different paint as a detail and represented him as all gold. So that one doesn't strike me as a great example personally, but many do. But the Mandela Effect concept itself actually fit neatly into my already established "worldview" if you will, so I had no trouble accepting it. I may have to do an expanded post sometime and see who thinks I'm crazy and who may have similar views.
Haha, great reply!
I should hope not; though that is a great headline right there!
Or as it is otherwise known, confirmation bias. :-)
Cg
A good and fair point. But I do believe that at this point human psychology is as non-exact a science as quantum mechanics, so it's difficult to assume there is no bias in the opposing viewpoint.
Definitely there will always be bias in the opposing viewpoint; though I would argue the non-exactness of psychology, there are definitely some very exact areas...
I can tell; we will have many more great debates, I am really enjoying this one; hence the follow! :-D
Cg
Thanks! I'm thinking I may start on that "Reality" post tonight. It's definitely a lot more "art" than science though. You seem a very logical and rational sort, it'd be interesting to hear your views!
I'm definitely a fan of logic; Spock is my spirit guide! Lolz :-) Yeah, can't wait to read it, coming from an artistic point of view is good, and can still through up many logic conclusions.
Cg
There are plenty of folks with original books that have changed.
Show me one of them, by that I mean, show me the story, where they reveal the book (not a memory of the book) and then how it has changed.
Or better yet, because covers can easily be faked; a film, with all the original actors, but with the so-called unchanged dialogue.
Cg
As soon as I go to my parents, I will. There are plenty of vids of people doing just this already BTW.. it manifests in reality. Another one is the monopoly man.. no monacle.. but even the depections of him by jim carrey have a monacle.
OK, I await conclusive proof, and leave my mind open.
That is not proof of anything, other than the makers of whatever film you're talking about. Also mistakenly, gave him a monocle. These mistakes are often down to an interpretation, that becomes popular, then everyone takes that explanation, as the original.
Cg
Just replied to @bryan-imhoff, want to let you know -- yes, I still have the original books and the spelling is no longer what my mother and I recall. She remembers me asking her "is it 'steen' or 'stine'?" -- now, it's "stain". Upvoted and followed, thanks!
Oh, no; what I meant is, have you got the book with the -stine spelling? However you are saying the book you have has the -stain spelling, however you and your mother both remember asking if it was steen or stine?
Interesting; although what I would ask is, could it be possible, that the spelling Bernstain, could also be pronounced; Bernsteen or -stine?
Cg
From what I understand, when something changes, no traces of the previous version exist, only memories (and in some cases, "derivatives" i.e., there are references to "Berenstein" and "Sex In The City" in articles).
Like @brian-imhoff I don't see any benefit from attacking people who might deny it -- I have experienced it, I know that it is real for me for some of the items, and there aren't any items that I mis-remember in a way that others don't.
In other words, I don't recall it being spelled "Berenstone", and neither does anybody else who mis-remembers it. I think this point is salient. Cheers!
The reason I know it has always been Sex And The City; is I remember a conversation years ago with a friend, who said; "...everybody thinks it Sex In The City, but it's not, it's Sex And The City."
I was like; "oh really? I thought it was in, as well..."
Cg