subject:"Re\\\: Anna Stubblefield"

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-22 Thread Brent Meeker

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.

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 22 Oct 2015, at 08:06, Brent Meeker wrote:

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.

I have some doubt too.

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,

Well, her mother seems to hve been able too, and someone else, but
they all are "facilited communication professional", knowing Anna,
making them suspicious too. It is rather obvious more evidences are
needed. She should have made video, so we might judge better the
amount of help.

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.

Quite probable.

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?

Not really.

so there are no simple way to resolve the case, and it will be the
judge's personal conviction which should prevail, I guess.

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.

In the series DEADLY woman I mad myself the reflection that there are
many obvious case (to me at least) that the person should be handled
by a psychiatric institute instead of prison and/or death row.

That might be a problem with the US.
(Now, some Asylum can be worst than some prison, so ...).

Bruno

Brent

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/

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 21 Oct 2015, at 18:17, Jesse Mazer wrote:

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).

Good point, and that is why I said IF the account is correct. It
seemed that D.J was able to communicate with Anna's Mother, and
someone else, but they were "ableing" activist.

It reamins hard to judge. From outside, more evidences are needed.

It remains interesting, as if Anna made this up, it is a rather
extraordinary account of self-projection, or of dissociated
personality. She wanted to quit her husband to marry with herself,
somehow.

In case you don't know it, the series "DEADLY WOMAN" is also very
interesting to learn about the humans, almost as much as the "(plane)
Crash Investigation series".

I hope there is some truth in Anna's account, though, if not I am not
sure who needs more help between Anna and D.J.

Bruno

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

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/

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-21 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 21 Oct 2015, at 00:59, Brent Meeker wrote:

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.

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.

Bruno

Brent Meeker

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/

Re: Anna Stubblefield

2015-10-21 Thread Jesse Mazer

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

Re: Anna Stubblefield

Re: Anna Stubblefield

Re: Anna Stubblefield

Re: Anna Stubblefield

5 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information