Very weird theory that I found on the Internet

a reply to: raymundoko

Well, it could have been a typo or oversight of course.

What evidence do you have of this, or similar/related anomalies being hoaxes? I made it abundantly clear in my initial post (which I don't know that you've read) that ZERO doubt exists in my mind about my personal experience regarding the spelling of these books. I am not willing to disclose too much personal information here but to generalize, I have a physiological atypicality. One of the symptoms of it (having waned in recent years, but of extraordinary focus as a child) was intense focus on phoneticisms. I would obsess over languages and sounds to find those that pleased me ( regarding sensory input) and would ignore or alter those that felt uncomfortable. One of those just so happened to be BerenstEin .

That is not to say you are mistaken, wrong, or otherwise. You have your experience , I have mine and in it resides ZERO DOUBT .

a reply to: michaeldeschain

Are you seriously asking for evidence? Read the article in the OP. The guy who wrote the article said it was a joke...He even did a follow up article to explain that he doesn't really think universes are doing anything strange and that he feels he had simply been mistaken.

I understand that you have zero doubt you were right, I simply have physical evidence to show that you are mistaken. That is the conundrum here. The people who don't want to admit they could have been mistaken are people who place too much trust in their memories as they feel they are some type of savant.

And just to quote you:

and would ignore or alter those that felt uncomfortable

I don't think I really have to say much more to you.

As far as being a typo, the A is nowhere near the U on the keyboard, in any language.

a reply to: Hattish1

So you didn't actually read the entire article in the OP, or the author of that articles follow up article? Really? Or did you just come here for confirmation bias and ignore what did not fit into confirmation bias?

a reply to: thisguy27

OMFG I just realized you are talking about Pathfinder...are you serious? What in the world??? You are monumentally mistaken on what the Cat's Cradle Network is...

It is not a "model of the original universe" at all. It is a modification to the Pathfinder Network but simply adding a time stamp to everything. It is used for

Pathfinder networks are used in the study of expertise, knowledge acquisition, knowledge engineering, citation patterns, information retrieval, and data visualization.

You can request the Cat's Cradle Network PDF Here

Or you can go to the Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, mainly used for business and marketing.

You will see the paper described in abstract:

Diarmuid Pigott
School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
John Gammack
Present address: School of Management, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.
School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
Valerie Hobbs
School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
In this paper we will argue that the representation of context in knowledge management is appropriately served by the representation of the knowledge networks in an historicised form. Characterising context as essentially extra to any particular knowledge representation, we argue that another dimension to these be modelled, rather than simply elaborating a form in its own terms. We present the formalism of the cat's cradle network, and show how it can be represented by an extension of the Pathfinder associative network that includes this temporal dimension, and allows evolutions of understandings to be traced. Grounding its semantics in communities of practice ensures utility and cohesiveness, which is lost when mere externalities of a representation are communicated in fully fledged forms. The scheme is general and subsumes other formalisms for knowledge representation. The cat's cradle network enables us to model such community-based social constructs as pattern languages, shared memory and patterns of trust and reliance, by placing their establishment in a structure that shows their essential temporality.

I know that abstract throws around the word dimension and temporal, but those are in modelling terms for visual data, not for universes and time travel...

It looks like you found a website that badly interpreted the Pathfinder Network (Modified as Cat's Cradle Network) and mixed it with a bad version of eastern religion...

Edit; Also, the Cat's Cradle Network never even got out of paper form. It was too program intensive at the time it was considered. It was born and died in 2003.

a reply to: raymundoko

We're talking about the wood between world's posts, correct? I've read them both numerous times. And what evidence are you referring to, the books that noone denies saying Bernstein now? Again noone denies what they currently say, it's what a large percentage of unrelated persons believe they remember Them saying.

Yes, had you read my initial post the part I altered in berenstEin was the second syllable the "en". I chose to willfully omit it, as it was uncomfortable for me to say To be clear I pronounced it as Burn-Steen, with great great emphasis on both syllables.

I don't know what you're getting at with your statement, perhaps you thought I was admitting a mistake? Clearly now that isn't what I was saying .

Sometimes things are auto corrected incorrectly . My mobile device does it constantly.

I'm also going to chime in and testify to the Walken death being something that surprised me. I recall hearing a voice actor on an internet cartoon series (Doraleous & Associates) imitating him and missing his unique voice... only finding out a year later he wasn't dead at all.

I think this purported 'Mandela Effect' can lead to some serious changes in our perception of time and how reality is perceived. If we have indeed experienced some kind of timeline merger or 'shift,' this implies that the human mind supersedes changes in time... like it's own self contained reality or static time machine. This theory doesn't match up with why the Berenstain family doesn't remember it ever being spelled Berenstein however, unless these shifts are selective and decisive.

It's quite a terrifying thought... what if the current reality we live in has been shifting every single day without us realizing it? What if a tree we observe did not look like that the day before? What if our current reality is only what we know it to be at the time? Would we even notice if everything changed?

originally posted by: Septimus
I'm also going to chime in and testify to the Walken death being something that surprised me. I recall hearing a voice actor on an internet cartoon series (Doraleous & Associates) imitating him and missing his unique voice... only finding out a year later he wasn't dead at all.

I think this purported 'Mandela Effect' can lead to some serious changes in our perception of time and how reality is perceived. If we have indeed experienced some kind of timeline merger or 'shift,' this implies that the human mind supersedes changes in time... like it's own self contained reality or static time machine. This theory doesn't match up with why the Berenstain family doesn't remember it ever being spelled Berenstein however, unless these shifts are selective and decisive.

It's quite a terrifying thought... what if the current reality we live in has been shifting every single day without us realizing it? What if a tree we observe did not look like that the day before? What if our current reality is only what we know it to be at the time? Would we even notice if everything changed?

Can you remember roughly when you remember Christopher Walken died please?

As I said as far as I know he has died twice now and would be interested to see if we are in the same time frame and if there could be a rational explanation for us remembering an event that never happened.

a reply to: nonspecific

I would suggest you also search for "Christopher Walken Dead" hoaxes throughout the years and see if they line up with your time frames...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nonspecific

I would suggest you also search for "Christopher Walken Dead" hoaxes throughout the years and see if they line up with your time frames...

I have done a few times and find nothing. There is a spoof website that will generate a page for his death but will do so for any celebrety you choose, a yahoo answers question with someone claiming they thought he was dead and a reply that it was a hoax but no links and numerous links to a hoax presidential run in 2006.

a reply to: nonspecific

I don't remember specifically when, either in 2013, possibly early 2014. I seem to remember something from even longer back still that triggered the assumption, maybe something I heard in the news. Back then I wasn't big on keeping up on world events, especially celebrities so it wasn't that important to me at the time. I just know it shocked me when I saw he was alive and for some reason I could have sworn he was dead. I think my girlfriend and I even debated it when it came up.

I remember BB King passing about a month or two ago, not last week.

a reply to: Cricketine

Stuff like that is always bouncing around with older celebrities /famous people, not to say you didn't hear that, just that it is far more likely (even in this day and age) for an honest mistake to have occurred on the part of whomever you heard it from.

For example, did you hear Charles Manson died last week? Well he didnt. Contrary to a few reports across the internet, it is either a ruse or an honest mistake as he still thrives as we speak.

My point is as far as celebrity deaths go, we hear things like that all the time, always have. They don't really hold the same amount of water as the whole berenstEin enigma imo. Exceptions being Mandel, Billy Graham, and the like where many people recall the date, watching services, seeing announcements. Not just "oh, I thought he was already dead..hmph".

originally posted by: michaeldeschain
a reply to: Cricketine

Stuff like that is always bouncing around with older celebrities /famous people, not to say you didn't hear that, just that it is far more likely (even in this day and age) for an honest mistake to have occurred on the part of whomever you heard it from.

For example, did you hear Charles Manson died last week? Well he didnt. Contrary to a few reports across the internet, it is either a ruse or an honest mistake as he still thrives as we speak.

My point is as far as celebrity deaths go, we hear things like that all the time, always have. They don't really hold the same amount of water as the whole berenstEin enigma imo. Exceptions being Mandel, Billy Graham, and the like where many people recall the date, watching services, seeing announcements. Not just "oh, I thought he was already dead..hmph".

A blues guitarist with a similar name did die recently while BB was in hospital. Another well known activist died in the prison with mandela. There are simple explanations for SOME of these phenomena.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Absolutely. More often than not, that is the case. It's the few exceptions that keep things really interesting.

a reply to: michaeldeschain

Your consciousness is more than just electrical signals bouncing back and forth between a gelatinous mass known as the brain.

It is your soul.

Not too many things talk about THE Cat's Cradle. There is a popular book by the same name, but it is not the same.
The Cat's Cradle is just one term for it. The Chinese believed we exist in the dream of a sleeping panda.
The Norse believed we exist on a giant tree with different realms as branches.

Nothing supernatural will gain anything from knowledge about the Cradle nor paranormal entities.
All that you see has already happened in another Universe.
Money, gold, none of that exist because we don't technically exist.
We exist through the power of attraction and memory.

Sounds far fetched right?
There is literally no other better explanation. For anyone to disprove that we live in the Cradle, they must first prove that we live somewhere else.
Which would be impossible because all the data available to prove that is biased and manipulated by those with agendas.
Do you honestly think TPTB would leave information lying around that would show that we live in a memory?

As to raymund, I mispelled the word, whooptie doo.
It still applies to us.
You think we are on the real planet Earth and I can't fault you for that, but in reality, the real Earth is covered in a sheet of ice.
It goes through an ice age every 144,000 years and we're at the tail end of it. The only place not covered is a thin strip around the equator.
Dying here only recycles you into another Cradle or sends you into the real world as an animal or insect.
Your DNA is programmed to survive through any means possible, so it will search out different Universes where it still lives.

Those NDEs you think you had?
You really did die, but in this Universe, you didn't.
Commit suicide here, you'll wake up tomorrow wondering about that weird dream you had and why you have a new scar.
It won't be your original vessel, but your soul will keep going.

But please, do try and prove that we don't live in an artificial construct of memories.
You can't and you won't without dying and coming back to life, remembering your past life, which is extremely difficult.

originally posted by: Speculation

A newer change many people are not aware of is the spelling of Steven “Segal’s” name is now Seagal. A post on reddit where the OP and the replies seem to be unaware the change has been made until someone pointed out the change. This change is fairly new, many examples of it both ways can be found if you search.

www.reddit.com...

I was not aware Segal had been changed until you pointed it out. You're absolutely right though. I took mixed martial arts for about 10 years spanning the 90's and early 2000's and watched as many martial arts related movies as I could, still do. The other students and I often discussed Segal because of the negative reputation he had on set with the stuntmen, in his personal life and among serious martial arts instructors.

We definitely would have made jokes about his name with that spelling (the new one) by calling him a seagull or saying, "See? He runs like a gal." I'm surprised no one in this thread has chimed in on your side since there are still so many sites and pages where no one seems to have noticed the change.

I joined ATS specifically for the BerenstEin topic. I've read all 86 pages. I too am completely bewildered by this change. As a toddler I was diagnosed with a condition and placed on medication that had insomnia as a side effect.

My mother initially stayed up with me and we'd sing songs, say the alphabet (frontwards, backwards, starting in the middle and looping around), play memory games, etc. She eventually taught me to read by the age of 3 so that I could read at night and put myself to sleep. Everything I read from then on I read to myself. By second grade I was reading Agatha Christie novels.

I have a distinct memory of reading a BerenstEin Bears book one night trying to decide how to pronounce their name. I stared at the cover and questioned: Was it -steen because the E came first? Was it -stine like Frankenstein? Or like the reins on a bridle was it -stane?

I even questioned and played with the pronounciation of Beren-- Was it bear-en, burr-en, burn? I played with it by putting emphasis on different syllables... With only 20 or so books I'd read dozens of times I 'played' all sorts of ways with the words in all my books, even learned to read upside down (which I can still do).

I was never able to settle on a pronounciation and have alternated between -steen and -stine randomly ever since. I would never have struggled over the pronounciation if it had been spelled -stAin.

To those who will say that my mind filled in the rest and it's been proven that people are lazy readers, etc. I would say that children must go step by step if they wish to learn to read. Guessing the rest of the word based on the first couple of letters will not get you to the next grade. Children pay more attention to spelling than adults do.

In answer to the question about why adults holding the physical book (that now says BerenstAin) will still spell and pronounce it 'wrong'-- Heuristics. Neural shortcuts.

We struggled to learn the correct spelling and pronounciation, which are both associated with the images of the bears and the fonts. Each time we encountered those bears the neural pattern linking it all together fired faster until a shortcut was created. (An example of a neural shortcut is the speed at which you thoughtlessly tie your shoes, something we all struggled to learn step by step until the firing pattern was established.)

When you present the currently existing book to a person whose neural firing pattern is established for BerenstEIn then he will 'see' BerenstEin until his attention is drawn to that discordant A in BerenstAin.

Lazy readers? Just using the shortcuts we worked so hard to create. Same way everyone does when walking, standing, getting dressed, tying shoes, or doing any other activity we've learned well enough to do 'without thinking.'

Jacy-- it feels wrong because only one little subset of the firing pattern is different. The pictures are the same, the book covers, the font, the stories and titles, the character's names (Mama, Papa, Brother, Sister) are all the same. The majority of that neural shortcut is still the same. Only one or two neurons relating to that A and one or two relating to the missing E are different. Its like having one hair pulled.

I've asked 17 people in the last week how to spell the Bears' name. I presented them with a color printout with the A whited-out, asked them if they remember the Bears, and then asked how to pronounce and spell the name.

13 said BerenstEin, 2 didn't remember (of those two one person was dyslexic and said he only remembered that it was an unusual spelling) and 2 said BerenstAin.

Of the two who remembered -Ain: One was my co-worker, 65, of Jewish ancestry who said it was always pronounced -een because the authors were Jewish. The other person, 40-ish, a friend of a co-worker, has been working for Scholastic (a children's book publisher) for nearly 20 years. She said it has always been -Ain.

Oh yeah--my son, 18 years old, and my daughter, 12 years old (a straight A student reading on a 12th grade level) also said -Ein as did her 13 year old friend.

If you want to see if everyone naturally 'misreads' -stAin and fills in -stEin then ask first graders who don't have neural shortcuts established for the Bears yet, or perhaps the deaf, who have only ever read the word and never heard it 'mispronounced.'

I can't seem to let this go. I know it was BerenstEin.

And now I'm wondering how to pronounce Seagal... It used to be 'suh gall' rhyming with Nepal, accent on the second syllable. Is it now like Siegel with the emphasis on the first syllable, like eagle?

a reply to: JKrista

Seagal was changed? You are basing this off reddit users inability to spell? It has always been Seagal.

The song by Gotye - Sombody I used to know. I was dead sure this was a song from the 80's and remember I was thinking "Hey, I havent heard that song since my childhood. Until my sister pointed out it came out recently at that time.

a question for the " stien" er proponents :

a - how many berenstein baers books were there ?

b -did the plot / content of ` berenstein bears ` books differ ?

the questions are specific because i had an idea in another thread about this issue

a reply to: ignorant_ape
Not here, the content of the books I read were the same, just the spelling of their namesake is different as far as I can tell. Interesting enough, how come most of my childhood books survived, but not those? We had a small flood when I was a kid, most of the books I lost were the bears books, a few of the dr's books were gone as well. It's still Green Eggs and Ham right? That is the only other book I remember that was gone during the flood.