111–120 of 156 posts
More than 30+ years of psychology research proved that the brain reconstruct any memories as it needed to. One sample amongs thhousands : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1390
There are 83,000 more researches on the subject https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=memories+creation+photos... So prepare to be scare if you think you need it, as there is nothing more volatile than human memmories (including yours ;)
This seems less like an artificial memory and more like a real memory of an artificial experience.
The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…
And do you know what she says? “We’ve only ever had three.”
It’s been many months now, maybe a year, and there’s still only three, but hand to god, I’m going to find that fourth bowl.
I still can’t get a straight answer out of her why she’s so certain there were only ever three when she was just as certain there were only ever two until confronted with the physical reality of three bowls.
Now she thinks this is about being right, but I insist it isn’t. It’s the unsettling idea that my memory isn’t correct.
I may just have to let this one go... :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that we can believe our own memories. Memory is much like eyesight. There is a very complex process going on to give you the illusion of a clear and consistent picture that is at odds with what the messy and biological process we rely on can actually achieve. The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess the…
This is what rationalization looks like. "Oh, well, memories are kinda inaccurate, so, it really doesn't matter if we modify them wholesale." Fairly dangerous rationalization.
Now the memory being inaccurate to start with does not make manipulating that already inaccurate memory "ok". There's no question about that. Though having said that, it's important to note that because memories are so malleable and inaccurate, we've actually been manipulating them for a long time. It's actually a pretty well researched area.
I mean, this is not really new.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that we can believe our own memories. Memory is much like eyesight. There is a very complex process going on to give you the illusion of a clear and consistent picture that is at odds with what the messy and biological process we rely on can actually achieve. The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess the…
This is what rationalization looks like. "Oh, well, memories are kinda inaccurate, so, it really doesn't matter if we modify them wholesale." Fairly dangerous rationalization.
It is also bad to ignore the evidence that memories are unreliable with or without memory manipulation.
We can acknowledge the weakness without using it as justification.
The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…
We’ve got these small pottery bowls I really like. One day, I noticed there only seemed to be two of them. I asked my spouse what happened to the other two. She replied that we only ever owned two. I said, no that can’t be right, I’m certain we had four. She insisted only two. A while later I found a third. I went to her and said, ah ha, see, three bowls! Where did the fourth go? And do you know what she says? “We’ve…
Sorry guys this is absolutly not new!!!! More than 30+ years of psychology research proved that the brain reconstruct any memories as it needed to. One sample amongs thhousands : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1390 There are 83,000 more researches on the subject https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=memories+creation+photos... So prepare to be scare if you think you need it, as there is nothing mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’ve got these small pottery bowls I really like. One day, I noticed there only seemed to be two of them. I asked my spouse what happened to the other two. She replied that we only ever owned two. I said, no that can’t be right, I’m certain we had four. She insisted only two. A while later I found a third. I went to her and said, ah ha, see, three bowls! Where did the fourth go? And do you know what she says? “We’ve…
3 is an awkward number of bowls so there definitely used to be 4. Dishware usually comes in multiples of 2
The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…
The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…
> Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that we can believe our own memories. Memory is much like eyesight. There is a very complex process going on to give you the illusion of a clear and consistent picture that is at odds with what the messy and biological process we rely on can actually achieve. The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess the…
But wouldn't any practice of assessing one's own memories intermediately depend on memory faculties? I can quickly think of two dependencies:
1. Working memory (maybe this is tangential and not really on topic for long-term memory) 2. Semantic memories required to assess the legitimacy of a memory. E.g. if we were to shoot for "scientific assessments" like you said, then said assessment would rely on memories that allow for scientific assessment. I'm no scientist and don't know quite what such "scientific assessment" would look like in practice, but if you have an assessment framework you're deliberately working within, it seems like you'd have to at least have semantic memory/existing knowledge of that same framework.
Perhaps manipulation of episodic memory doesn't clearly pose such problems, but I expect that's neither here nor there.