Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

The brown stone, in the vault of the First Presidency in SLC, has been seen and described more than once. This is the stone that was used to “translate” the Book of Mormon. We also know he had a white stone, mentioned in the 1826 trial record, which evidently is lost.

Another stone allegedly belonging to Joseph Smith, a photograph of which can be found in Quinn’s book, is a green with a hole only partway through. It was later owned by Philo Dibble, who said it was once owned by Joseph Smith. Quinn suggested that might be the stone claimed to have been given to Joseph Smith in Pennsylvania in 1820s by Jack Belcher. This claim, however, is highly questionable

[_mikwut]

Marg,

You stated, you are reading,

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/schacter.html

Good. I can't think of anything in Schacter's book that would help you defend the case that the conn. witnesses wouldn't be best understood for distortions and false memories. I could have just as easily used it as a source. The Science of False Memory is probably the most concise regarding just false memories. But, Chapter 4 of Schacter's book is very good and the mention of Bartlett's study that I last posted about is confirmed in Schacter's book as well.

my regards, mikwut

[_marg]

Why not wait until I reply before saying what he says doesn't support conneaut witness memories. I'm on my iPad right now so I'll be brief. I finished the book yesterday but today I'm rereading a few chapters that are more pertinent than the others. What his book helps one to understand is that working memory uses diifferent parts of the brain than elaborately encoded long term. And he explains factors which contribute to deep encoded long term memory. And those factors are a present in what the witnesses claim of of their experience. The study which you used as well as the YouTube you linked to both address working memory which is not going to likely become deeply encoded unless factors which are attributable to long term encoding come into play.

Now I haven't organized a response to you yet. Since time isn't of the essence here and I'm going out in a few hours and won't get home until late...I think it best to lay out an organized response tomorrow. And then perhaps you could read a it first before an automatic rejection.


Rg
Becom

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan when he used the word "illusion" he was not talking about magic. What he studies are anomalies of people who have brain dysfunction and by understanding where in the brain those anomalies are located he compares to the normal brain and can get a better understanding of it.

His comment had to do with how science works. Loftus is a psychologist, she doesn't study the mechanical workings of the brain. And it very much matters who he is and what he does to appreciate his point from his perspective as an experimental scientist. The audience in that video would have appreciated his comment because they were mainly scientists and fully aware of what he does.

HIs whole point was not to compare by analogy the mechanical working of perception versus memory. In Loftus's talk her focus is memory fallibility. But in her talk what she failed to clarify and which he did in his comment because it wasn't a question to her..was to point out her studies only reveal something about memory within the framework and limitations of the testing. There's obviously a limitation on the sort of conclusion which that can be derived via any memory study. If one is only interested for example on memory fallibility with respect to how easy it is to implant a memory and one sets up a test for that..then that test doesn't address short term working memory. Memory is a complex issue and any one particular study only addresses a particular aspects. That was what his comment was about.

This is what Ramachandran said:

You study memory; I study perception and vision. What strikes me about human memory--in addition to what you said about fallibility—is how extraordinarily reliable it is. And if it had not been otherwise we would not have survived. I’m [just focusing?] on how good memory is. I can say the same thing about perception. I can produce illusions which violate common sense. And then you find out what causes the illusion, but this doesn’t prove vision is highly fallible. It proves under ordinary circumstances it is extremely good. But using contrived stimulus I can produce an illusion which illuminates the mechanisms of perception. Would you agree with that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSKVyQDl%20...%20re=related

How is that not an argument from analogy?

I did some checking, and it seems Ramachandran produces simple optical illusions with mirrors and lines designed to fool depth perception, etc., which is not unlike what illusionists sometimes do. Regardless of how he produces the “illusion”, he was drawing an analogy between illusion/sight and memory/suggestion. I don’t find this analogy particularly helpful. I don’t think sight and memory are analogous.

However, I don’t think he was trying to minimize Loftus’s study any more than he was minimizing his own research. The part above where you assert that he was saying test results only have application “within the framework and limitations of the testing” is all your interpretation. On the contrary, he admitted that an illusion “illuminates the mechanisms of perception” generally. Likewise, Loftus’s study reveals the mechanisms of memory generally.

How Ramachandran’s comments relate to this discussion I’m not sure. I rather think he would smile at your use of his statement. He was only emphasizing how well memory and sight work “under ordinary circumstances”—or else we (as a species) wouldn’t have survived. Sure, we remember what a tiger looks like … and to run like hell. But there are limitations to human vision, even under ordinary circumstances. That’s why the microscope and telescope were invented. Memory also has limitations. If it were so extraordinarily reliable, we wouldn't need to take notes. Given the lapse of twenty years, general similarity between Spalding’s romance and the Book of Mormon, probable memory contamination between some of the witness with each other and/or Hurlbut, Loftus’s comments about memory pertain to the Conneaut witnesses more than Ramachandran’s.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

What his book helps one to understand is that working memory uses diifferent parts of the brain than elaborately encoded long term. And he explains factors which contribute to deep encoded long term memory. And those factors are a present in what the witnesses claim of of their experience.

If the Conneaut witnesses were experiencing false memory syndrome or something like it, they would've course claim it was a long-term memory. You can’t tell the difference either way. To use this argument is begging the question. Face it, it’s not impossible for it to have happened. You will never be able to prove that it didn’t. There’s only one way to prove the Conneaut witnesses’ memories were accurate, find the missing MS. In support that the witnesses’ were likely mistaken, I point you to the MS that was discovered and the testimony of eyewitnesses who say no MS was used in the production of the Book of Mormon. I also point you to the content of the Book of Mormon being nothing like what the Rev. Spalding would have written. His known MS gives a plausible history of what was known about Native Americans in the Great Lakes Region, the Book of Mormon does not. The Book of Mormon is hemispheric and exhibits no knowledge of Native American history in the Great Lakes Region. Even if Spalding changed the origin to Israel, it’s doubtful that he would have discarded his knowledge of North American Indian history for one that has no semblance of real history. All this things point to the possibility/probability that the Conneaut witnesses’ memories were contaminated through suggestion and similar mechanisms to what Loftus has explained.

[_wenglund]

A good test of the fallability of the long-term memories of the Conneutt witnesses is to compare and contrast them. I have done so here:

http://www.scn.org/~bp760/conneautb.htm#7

Feel free to also explore Issues 3 - 10 for their relevance to the memory discussion here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

Wade, I'll take a look at your link, I'm just printing it out now. I also downloaded yesterday a more recent book by Daniel Schacter called Seven Sins of Memory, which I'm currently reading. It's got a little bit more recent research information that was not available when he published his 1996 book but as well I like the way he's organized this one into different types of memory problems.

Mikwut, I can easily write a post why the study you cited which was supposed to be the best you had as far as correlating to the conneaut witnesses situation..does not correlate at all. It's pretty obvious, but at this point I'm more interested in understanding memory and figuring out for myself how results of research correlate to the experiences the conneaut witnesses describe. I'll continue to read this book before getting into a discussion with any of you on this. I should have this book read by today.

Mikwut I could write up a post explaining what was wrong with the study you cited, but it really should be obvious to you why having a group of people read a short story for about 10 minutes, something that doesn't relate to them personally in any way, is not going to stay well remembered in long term memory. That's the type of study you cited, and it's not applicable to the Conneaut witnesses experience of listening to an author read a story to them personally, of that author discussing that story, of the listeners being aware the story was an explanation of the earth mounds locally and fictional story of history of ancestors to Indians such that theycould put that story into context and relate personally to it and then to top it off the conneaut witnesses were offered cues to the story. Cues can effectively serve the purpose of aiding recall. Essentially when anyone tries to remember they often search for cues in their own memory. If you lose keys you try to remember the last time you used them, the last room you were in etc. If the story was MSCC that they had heard read and read themselves many times...names such Nephi and Lehi would not have served as a cue for recall. There is no reason to mix up the names in MSCC to Nephi & Lehi. However if those names were the same as in the story they were recalling it would serve as a memory cue. I believe some have suggested that the Book of Mormon served to implant a false memory. Generally that occurs when there is no memory at all of an event...such as with the Loftus study "lost in a mall"..and the memory being implanted is mundane ..along with there being some influence which causes doubt on the subject's recall of the event. In such situations it's understandable that eventually one doubts their memory and thinks the suggestion could have happened. Other cases of implanting occur when the memory was not effectively encoded in the first placel..such as witnesses to a crime scene. Without effective encoding details are not there in the memory and it is then susceptible to suggestion.

But based on what I've been reading, the conneaut witnesses describe an experience in which they would likely have encoded well ...parts of the story. And 20 years is not all that long a period of time. If memory disappeared after 20 years, there'd be no highschool reunions going on.

Anyhow this is not an organized post...I'm just responding quickly with thoughts because I'd said I'd respond today. But with the other book, it's again taking me more time.

[_MCB]

The Book of Mormon is hemispheric and exhibits no knowledge of Native American history in the Great Lakes Region. Even if Spalding changed the origin to Israel, it’s doubtful that he would have discarded his knowledge of North American Indian history for one that has no semblance of real history.

Dan, Dan, Dan, what am I going to do with you? <shakes head> Or are you just trying to get me to post, when I am busy reviewing Clavigero.

[_Uncle Dale]

...busy reviewing Clavigero.

Who was aware of the various possible explanations for the
peopling of the "New World," having read Acosta and other
previous writers on that very subject.

In his Roman story Solomon Spalding exhibits a knowledge of the
(then) theory of the Americas having been populated by migrations
from Siberia. Although he never states that explanation succinctly,
it is obvious that he meant his "Delawans" and other tribal people
to have represented one wave of east Asian migration, and his
"Ohans" to have been another wave of population across the
Behring Straits. Lastly, he introduces the family of Lobaska, who
appear to be members of the most recent (and smallest?) migration.

Supposing that Solomon Spalding wrote significant portions of the
Book of Mormon, to what extent would he have preserved/displayed
his knowledge of actual (real) American tribes? After all, Solomon's
land on the Ohio border straddled the "Moravian Tract," and he must
have gained at least a passing knowledge of Moravian views regarding
multiple waves of preColumbian Amerind migrations and warfare.

Where in the Book of Mormon do we find any of the actual American
tribes? Are they represented by the "Lamanites?" And, if so, in what
ways do those Lamanites correspond to known preColumbian tribes?

Yes -- it might be argued that Spalding presented a better knowledge
of actual preColumbian Americans in his fanciful "Delawans," but does
his descriptions of those sorts of semi-realistic inhabitants preclude
his having also written an even more fanciful pseudo-history, in which
realistic American Indians are absent?

This is perhaps a topic deserving of a little discussion accompanied by
selected quotations from Spalding and the Nephite record.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

the conneaut witnesses were offered cues to the story. Cues can effectively serve the purpose of aiding recall. Essentially when anyone tries to remember they often search for cues in their own memory. If you lose keys you try to remember the last time you used them, the last room you were in etc. If the story was MSCC that they had heard read and read themselves many times...names such Nephi and Lehi would not have served as a cue for recall. There is no reason to mix up the names in MSCC to Nephi & Lehi. However if those names were the same as in the story they were recalling it would serve as a memory cue. I believe some have suggested that the Book of Mormon served to implant a false memory. Generally that occurs when there is no memory at all of an event...such as with the Loftus study "lost in a mall"..and the memory being implanted is mundane ..along with there being some influence which causes doubt on the subject's recall of the event. In such situations it's understandable that eventually one doubts their memory and thinks the suggestion could have happened. Other cases of implanting occur when the memory was not effectively encoded in the first placel..such as witnesses to a crime scene. Without effective encoding details are not there in the memory and it is then susceptible to suggestion.

But based on what I've been reading, the conneaut witnesses describe an experience in which they would likely have encoded well ...parts of the story. And 20 years is not all that long a period of time. If memory disappeared after 20 years, there'd be no highschool reunions going on.

Anyhow this is not an organized post...I'm just responding quickly with thoughts because I'd said I'd respond today. But with the other book, it's again taking me more time.

Based upon reading the information provided by the Conneaut witnesses, there does not seem to be much evidence for deep encoding for most of the witnesses.

John and Martha Spalding were exposed to the manuscript on a visit to Solomon shortly before he moved to Pittsburgh in 1812. John Spalding only noted that Solomon read to him "many passages." Martha did not note any repeated reading at all. She would most likely have heard the same "many passages" that her husband reported.

Aron Wright said ""When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations."

This acknowledges only seeing the manuscript once, but having many discussions about the lost tribes as the first settlers of America and being the ancestors of the American Indians.

Artemas Cunningham notes actually reading and discussing the contents one night, an a drawn out affair.

Oliver Smith acknowledges that "I read and heard read one hundred pages or more."

John Miller stated that he perused Solomon's writings "as often as I had the leisure" which could indicate many or few times. But John is the one who introduces the "straits of Darien" into the mix and was living in an area of Pennsylvania where "mormonite" missionaries had been preaching about that very thing in 1832. None of the other witnesses noted anything about the straits of Darien.

Nahum Howard stated that Solomon "frequently showed me his writings, which I read" but gives no names or details. He only states "I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote, except the religious part."

The only other witness that explicitly notes many different exposures to the writings is Henry Lake. Lake stated that ""I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with its contents." He also said, "This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes"


The lost tribes is problematic for the deep encoding theory because it does not appear in the Book of Mormon. Four of the witness put the lost tribes in Spalding's story and it should have shown up in the Book of Mormon. Especially with "deep encoded" Henry Lake.

Instead of false memories, which hasn't been posited, there is the very real possibility of memory confabulation, mixing sources from ongoing discussions of the mound builders, the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians, and the Book of Mormon.

Cues are necessary to evoke long unused memories, but can retrieve modified memories just as easily as pristine memories. If the one doing the remembering had already been conditioned to expect to see similarities, the very similar results are predictable.

Glenn