In keeping with the spirit of the thread, the solution to the waterski problem seems obvious. De-materialization. It avoids the need for messy mathematics or Gibralter sized revolving ddors.

Amos,

The body of evidence dealing with how memory works is extensive. Intersting stat is that 70% of the general public and over 50% of practionioners believe just that.

It is very true that you can remember detailed minutae. I remember distinctly the wallpaper in my bedroom when I was 4.(verified by my mother) What I don't remember is more interesting. Was there a rug? What did anything else in the house look like?

Current theory of how the brain works (sorry, its very mundane and based on the principal that brain and mind are the same thing). And it is a theory. Gets back to the preponderance of the evidence. The book "Making Monsters" covers this concisely. (sorry, don't remember the author). Ot would appear (and there are some pretty good experiments, that what we remember has less to do with what happened and more with what we want to believe happened. Tee "A" , "A Pime" arguement brings to mind the old dictum that extraordinary ideas should require extraordinary prrof. Hope I ma not misinterpreting what you're saying, but it sounds like the brain/mind arguement. (or spirit if you prefer). To move it from the realm of pure belief would require extraordinary proof. And that seems lacking. Though I'd be interested in citations demonstrating such.

Ebbie,

My point was that, if you accept the current models of how the brain and memory work, what you "remember" from 5 minutes ago in in serious doubt, let alone 15 years. Because you "know" it happened doesn't mean a lot to anyone other than you. And consider the implications of remote sensing. (somehow "remote smelling" sounded a little to silly). Soem form of undetectable energy, that seems to go against some of the basic "laws of nature" that (so far) work from the quantum to the marcocosmic level. And posit that the human brain can sense such an energy. And that it isn't detectable by any other means at our disposal. That inverse square, conservation of energy and so on are special cases, and (apparently) universal.

As to your specific experience, the back door question is, Okay, 2 calls out of how many over 15 years. Did either of you make soem casual comment that would have lead you to guess something was cooking? What time of day? How do you get chocolate chip cookies out of waffles? (Please understand my culinary ability is limited to heating up things in the microwave. Or Pizza Hut delivery)

And finally a skeptic who refuses to look at the unknown, discuss and consider the possibilites, isn't worthy of the name. You need to associate with a better class of skeptics.

Regards

John