5 ms·

>actual facts You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? That's how quickly they were to believe their "actual facts" as well. That

by gochi 3y ago

>actual facts You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? That's how quickly they were to believe their "actual facts" as well. That is the story. Not the facts. What we tell ourselves, what we tell others. This is why they brought up memories, an unstable collection of flashes in our mind, and we use these to craft a story. The story has changed, and will continue to change, you're in the process of writing it right now. Unless you don't believe in free will and that your story/stories are already written. That's a very fun thought! This is why "facts" is misleading here. We aren't talking about observed realities (she is going to the park, I am eating an ice cream), we're talking about our feelings, thoughts, memories, perceived consequences, ambitions, projections, assumptions. None of these are objective. Despite our best attempt to come together and make it so.

gtirloni 3y ago
So both of them based their story on flimsy/incomplete evidence and they keep reshaping their stories. If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. /s
- function_seven 3y ago
  Sorry if I'm misinterpreting the /s here, but: > If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong /s This, but sincerely! Problem is there isn't an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. There's only each participants' recollection of the event—both flawed. She thought her inattention was the cause of the wreck, he thought his failing to yield was the cause. Who is right? Both of them? Just her? Just him? 80% him, 20% her? There is no objective way to answer any of this. What happened during that accident only exists today in the minds of the drivers. Sure, you can look at photos of the aftermath and determine that this fender was bent, or that airbag deployed. But you can't get a similar (objective) level of understanding about the actions of the drivers leading up to the wreck. When they met, he learned that she was not paralyzed (and that his understanding of the past was wrong in that aspect), and she learned that he blamed himself rather than blaming her. By comparing notes, they both got a better version of "the past" in their minds, but there's still room for more variances and disagreements on what exactly happened. There may be an objective reality. But there's no way we can completely understand it. We can only know what our limited senses tell us. As time marches on, those senses get recorded in memories, and further distorted. For the tiny slice of events that get recorded in audio, video, contemporaneous notes, etc.; we have even better understanding. But those methods of capturing events still leave a lot out. You can hear the words, but not the thoughts. You can see the actions, but not the motivations. You can read the written diary, but there are no entries there for things considered irrelevant by the author. There are untold numbers of events that occurred millennia ago that we know absolutely nothing about. But they contribute to how the world works today just the same. Long after the cause is lost to time, the effect chain keeps adding links.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. That's not what I was referring to as a change in facts. The change I was referring to is that he thought the woman was permanently disabled, but then found out she wasn't. That's the key fact that enabled both of them to change their stories about what happened. The fact that the woman also believed the accident was her fault was a nice bit of icing on the cake, but it wasn't the key fact.
antisthenes 3y ago
> You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? The actual facts is that a person who is walking is certainly not a person who "has irreversible spine damage and can't walk as a result". The rest is absolutely irrelevant and philosophical bike-shedding.
pdonis 3y ago
> You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying. If you think he's lying, then obviously we're not going to find any common ground here. > We aren't talking about observed realities (she is going to the park, I am eating an ice cream) Um, yes, we are. The woman was not permanently disabled, although he previously thought she was. That's not a "feeling", "thought", "flash in the mind". It's a fact. Unless you think the author was lying.
- dack 3y ago
  > I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying They aren't claiming that the author is lying, but that they might _still_ have the facts incorrect. For example, as you said, the woman was _not_ permanently disabled (since he could see that from meeting up with her in the present). However, what was the exact extent of her injuries? Maybe he assumed she is 100% fine now but she didn't mention that she actually does have persistent back pain ever since the crash. Maybe they didn't talk about that. In that case, he may tell himself a story that she wasn't permanently hurt at all, and think that is a fact, which it actually isn't. I think everyone is agreeing that there is an objective truth to what happened. It's that we never have perfect information to know the objective truth down to infinite detail. Even your eyes and ears can deceive us - all we can know is what we perceive via electrical signals to our brain sitting in our dark skull. Therefore, our fallible minds will very easily get details wrong for many reasons, and then draw conclusions based on that not realizing that there could be other ways of interpreting the information, or that a minor detail we missed (or have forgotten) changes things immensely. I think the lesson is that we should just be aware of this, and not assume our perception was 100% correct.

by gochi 3y ago

gtirloni 3y ago

So both of them based their story on flimsy/incomplete evidence and they keep reshaping their stories. If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. /s

function_seven 3y ago
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting the /s here, but: > If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong /s This, but sincerely! Problem is there isn't an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. There's only each participants' recollection of the event—both flawed. She thought her inattention was the cause of the wreck, he thought his failing to yield was the cause. Who is right? Both of them? Just her? Just him? 80% him, 20% her? There is no objective way to answer any of this. What happened during that accident only exists today in the minds of the drivers. Sure, you can look at photos of the aftermath and determine that this fender was bent, or that airbag deployed. But you can't get a similar (objective) level of understanding about the actions of the drivers leading up to the wreck. When they met, he learned that she was not paralyzed (and that his understanding of the past was wrong in that aspect), and she learned that he blamed himself rather than blaming her. By comparing notes, they both got a better version of "the past" in their minds, but there's still room for more variances and disagreements on what exactly happened. There may be an objective reality. But there's no way we can completely understand it. We can only know what our limited senses tell us. As time marches on, those senses get recorded in memories, and further distorted. For the tiny slice of events that get recorded in audio, video, contemporaneous notes, etc.; we have even better understanding. But those methods of capturing events still leave a lot out. You can hear the words, but not the thoughts. You can see the actions, but not the motivations. You can read the written diary, but there are no entries there for things considered irrelevant by the author. There are untold numbers of events that occurred millennia ago that we know absolutely nothing about. But they contribute to how the world works today just the same. Long after the cause is lost to time, the effect chain keeps adding links.
pdonis 3y ago
> If only there were an objective reality to know which car was in the wrong. That's not what I was referring to as a change in facts. The change I was referring to is that he thought the woman was permanently disabled, but then found out she wasn't. That's the key fact that enabled both of them to change their stories about what happened. The fact that the woman also believed the accident was her fault was a nice bit of icing on the cake, but it wasn't the key fact.

antisthenes 3y ago

> You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? The actual facts is that a person who is walking is certainly not a person who "has irreversible spine damage and can't walk as a result". The rest is absolutely irrelevant and philosophical bike-shedding.

pdonis 3y ago

> You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying. If you think he's lying, then obviously we're not going to find any common ground here. > We aren't talking about observed realities (she is going to the park, I am eating an ice cream) Um, yes, we are. The woman was not permanently disabled, although he previously thought she was. That's not a "feeling", "thought", "flash in the mind". It's a fact. Unless you think the author was lying.

dack 3y ago
> I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying They aren't claiming that the author is lying, but that they might _still_ have the facts incorrect. For example, as you said, the woman was _not_ permanently disabled (since he could see that from meeting up with her in the present). However, what was the exact extent of her injuries? Maybe he assumed she is 100% fine now but she didn't mention that she actually does have persistent back pain ever since the crash. Maybe they didn't talk about that. In that case, he may tell himself a story that she wasn't permanently hurt at all, and think that is a fact, which it actually isn't. I think everyone is agreeing that there is an objective truth to what happened. It's that we never have perfect information to know the objective truth down to infinite detail. Even your eyes and ears can deceive us - all we can know is what we perceive via electrical signals to our brain sitting in our dark skull. Therefore, our fallible minds will very easily get details wrong for many reasons, and then draw conclusions based on that not realizing that there could be other ways of interpreting the information, or that a minor detail we missed (or have forgotten) changes things immensely. I think the lesson is that we should just be aware of this, and not assume our perception was 100% correct.