Re: Anna Stubblefield
On 21 Oct 2015, at 00:59, Brent Meeker wrote: A strange, and sad, case. But Facilitated Communication would seem to be a corollary of Bruno's idea that conscious persons are "out there" in platonia and just need the proper physics in order to interact with us. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/the-strange-case-of-anna-stubblefield.html?_r=0 It vindicates also the idea that nobody is stupid. Some have just have communication problem, when it is not the listener who is the one with the reception problem. That's a very beautiful paper Brent. I like how it illustrates many difficulties, notably the principle of less dangerous consequence (to bet that something/someone is conscious is less dangerous than to bet it is not, as their falsities leads to different harms. But in the case of someone disabled, it can be dangerous for the one applying it. It can make you suspect of felony and send you in jail. Very sad story, but it is hard to condemn the judge, as such abuse exists, and the "facilitated communication", even if genuine in some cases, might not be in every case, so there are no simple way to resolve the case, and it will be the judge's personal conviction which should prevail, I guess. In this case, if the account is correct, I would side with Anna and D.J, though. She is sent to jail, which is sad enough, but D.J. is sent back into being considered as a vegetable, which is sad and a bit frightening. Bruno Brent Meeker -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Anna Stubblefield
Isn't there a pretty strong consensus among the experts that "facilitated communication" is actually a Ouija board like phenomenon where the facilitator is actually determining all the letters through small muscle movements (the 'ideomotor effect'), whether consciously or subconsciously? >From what I understand, whenever they do tests where the disabled person is exposed to some sensory information that the facilitator doesn't have access to, they always appear to be ignorant of this information in the facilitated communication. Here's an article with more info on the case against it: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-05-25/ This is also discussed in the article Brent linked to, and although it mentions that Anna believed some studies showed it work, no mention is made of any studies with this type of protocol where the facilitator has no way of knowing the answer but the disabled person should. The explanation that the facilitators don't want to put the disabled subjects on display like "show ponies" is unconvincing--surely it should be up to the disabled subjects to decide for themselves, and it would be a rather amazing uniformity of opinion among a large and diverse group if they *all* refused to participate in such tests (especially given that solid evidence of facilitated communication being genuine would probably result in considerable mainstreaming, meaning a lot more disabled people would get the opportunity to use it in the future). Jesse On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > A strange, and sad, case. But Facilitated Communication would seem to be > a corollary of Bruno's idea that conscious persons are "out there" in > platonia and just need the proper physics in order to interact with us. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/the-strange-case-of-anna-stubblefield.html?_r=0 > > Brent Meeker > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Anna Stubblefield
On 10/21/2015 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2015, at 00:59, Brent Meeker wrote: A strange, and sad, case. But Facilitated Communication would seem to be a corollary of Bruno's idea that conscious persons are "out there" in platonia and just need the proper physics in order to interact with us. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/the-strange-case-of-anna-stubblefield.html?_r=0 It vindicates also the idea that nobody is stupid. Some have just have communication problem, when it is not the listener who is the one with the reception problem. That's a very beautiful paper Brent. I like how it illustrates many difficulties, notably the principle of less dangerous consequence (to bet that something/someone is conscious is less dangerous than to bet it is not, as their falsities leads to different harms. But in the case of someone disabled, it can be dangerous for the one applying it. It can make you suspect of felony and send you in jail. Very sad story, but it is hard to condemn the judge, as such abuse exists, and the "facilitated communication", even if genuine in some cases, might not be in every case, And I'd say not in this case. Romantic love always involves some projection of a lover's ideals onto the loved one. This just seems to be an extreme case. That only Anna was able to facilitate DJ's communication, that DJ wrote very literate, even erudite, love letters to Anna, that he did not seem to recognize or acknowledge her in court all indicates to me the that the "communication" was Anna's invention. She was obviously an emotionally unstable person. Even if DJ had been fully functional, handsome, and smart would it be sensible for Anna to offer to sign in blood that she would leave her husband and children and marry DJ? so there are no simple way to resolve the case, and it will be the judge's personal conviction which should prevail, I guess. In this case, if the account is correct, I would side with Anna and D.J, though. She is sent to jail, which is sad enough, but D.J. is sent back into being considered as a vegetable, which is sad and a bit frightening. I think it is a ridiculous injustice that Anna was sent to prison for more that a few months. So far as I can tell she didn't harm anyone but herself. DJ did have the intellectual capacity to appreciate sex nor to be psychologically harmed by it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
