For example, sometimes when I'm re-reading a book I first read as a child, I find that the scenes which pop up in my brain upon reading descriptions of places in the unfolding story are exactly the same as when I first read the book. Surely my mind can't be re-creating a previous memory of something I read 50-odd years ago? Isn't it more realistic to conclude that the 'picture' was embedded - established - all that time ago, and that I'm retrieving it from my memory banks where it's lain previously undisturbed and unremembered for decades?
What's your take on this, fellow Crivites? Are memories fixed and established, or do they have to be re-created each time we decide to remember something? (Maybe both scenarios are true in the case of different memories. For instance, some things I have absolutely no difficulty at all in recalling, other things I have to work at.) Let your thoughts be known.
17 comments:
Nobody understands how the brain creates consciousness or even what consciousness actually IS, and the same goes for memory.
Memories are not like video tape. Here is proof. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/557424726
Apologies, CJ, I was going to respond to your comment, but I forgot what you said (hee hee).
******
Haven't looked at the link yet, PS, but maybe some memories ARE like video tape and others aren't?
Looked at the link, PS, but just because a memory can be manipulated - or even planted - doesn't necessarily mean that some memories in their original form aren't like video tape. In fact, just like a video tape, they can be 'edited', but it perhaps depends on whether it's a memory we have to struggle to recall, or one that seems embedded so firmly that when it pops to the surface of its own accord (unbidden) over the years, is exactly the same each time. So I suppose what I'm saying is that it may depend entirely on the circumstances.
It’s a fascinating subject and one I don’t think (scientifically at least) leaves us in any doubt that our memories are not like playing a video from the past in our mind. Basically that’s not the way memory is constructed, it’s not all in one place various bits of memory are stored in different parts of the brain and when you recall something they don’t all match up immediately (rarely all match up at all) in one video like memory so bits will be missing or something added to fill that space in. In addition and of more importance, memory has a function it is not just there to enable us to share stories from the past it is required for creating a sense of who we are and in learning important lessons (ie don’t stick you hands in fire remember it burns) . Even when we correctly rely on our memories, they can be highly inaccurate or even totally false, you may think you purchased that issue of The Hulk in 1972 in Strathaven but the reality is probably slightly different and you bought it in 1973 in East Kilbride (not a massive change you may say, but it’s a totally different scenario and could be expanded on ) .That ability to make these changes is a scientific fact that memory has a higher function to enable humans to learn by changing things in our memory banks (for whatever reason ) it means we are not stuck with just staid old memories, this ability to change things enables us to develop our thinking by making associations between things that didn’t actually happen as we thought in real life which that allows us in turn to solve puzzles by thinking about other possible solutions (so memory is an aid to intelligence development/evolution ).
An example of how memory is not n in anyway reliable is the game “Chinese whispers” where one person quietly whispers a message to the person beside them, who then passes it on to the next person in line, and so on. In every case the final message is lost/ different (drastically different in most cases) to the original message passed on just a few minutes before. .This doesn’t mean that all your memories of (for example) buying your first issue of Mighty World of Marvel are not mostly correct, but I doubt that your entire memory of that event is 100% (even 50%) of what actually happened.
I'm inclined to agree with a lot of what you say, McS, as I know that my memory has been faulty in the past. For example, I remembered two songs by the same singer from the '60s that used to be in my family's record collection. I recalled them as being two sides of the same single, but when I decided to track them down years later, I found that they were two separate singles. So I know that some memories are 'subject to change'. However, I'm also inclined to believe that some events imprint themselves so strongly in our minds at the time of occurrence that they become 'fixed' in the main, and are less likely to stray. That's why I can look at some comics or toys and associate them with the time and place I bought them. A lot has to do with how strongly an event impressed itself upon us at the time, and how often we've exercised the memory of it, etc. So while a lot of memories are merely impressions, others have been mentally 'photographed' you could say. Some memories are therefore just as you describe and others are far more accurate than some people might give them credit for. It just depends on the memory, is my rather lame summation.
Incidentally, I'm not totally convinced that the Chinese whispers analogy is an apt one, because in that instance, the first person to tell the story will still remember the version of it he told. The second person will still recall the story he thinks he was told, etc. So the version he was told created an impression in his mind (even if it's an inaccurate one because he wasn't really listening), and he may remember that mistaken impression forever after. I suppose it's neither as simple or as complicated (in every instance) as it at first might seem.
Of course no one can really disprove a memory that a person may have if they are insistent it is correct, as only that person is recalling that particular experience as they remember it. However true recall depends on the complexity of the memory and something like recalling buying a comic doesn’t for the most part, have a lot of strands to it i.e. You bought Fantastic Four issue 42 in Johnny’s in Rutherglen in August 1974 and it was a sunny day – yep probably all or mostly a true memory (but it MAY have been raining, or you actually bought that issue in a shop near Johnny’s etc). But add things to that memory like what you were wearing, a conversation you had with a pal , where you went for a bite to eat afterwards and what you ate etc then for me (and according to scientific research) there is no way a person can recall fully those additional types of minor details after a length of time as noted below in an example I recently experienced ..
I had until very recently a memory of my dad that I thought was mostly true. He had dropped me off at school early as he had an appointment in Glasgow. As we were so early he took me for a glass of coke and a bacon roll in a café near my school and bought me 2 comics (JLA 94 and Weird War 14) from a newsagents next to the café. In my mind this happened exactly like this just before the summer holidays in 1971 as my memory was that I took the comics to school and my teacher asked to see the comics (the teacher was Ms Green who was my English teacher in my first year of secondary school in 1971). At the start of 2020 I had reason to be in the area where my school was and stopped off in the street where the shop and café was. I spoke to the owner who said his family had owned the newsagents (the shop) for over 50 years and there was never a café there (or near it) and that they owned the small shop next door until 5 years ago (and up until then it was part of the original shop). So I looked at the two comics my dad bought me and it turned out that I couldn’t have had both of these in 1971 as Weird War 14 was published in 1973. So the reality was that we didn’t go to a café as there wasn’t one in that street (or near it) , my dad must have bought me a can of coke and a bacon roll and we ate it in the car, I wasn’t bought JLA 94 and WW 14 I was probably bought JLA 106 and WW 14 and Ms Green my teacher was not involved as I know she moved to another school when I was in my 2nd year at secondary in 1972. More shocking to me was that this event did not take place in the summer of 1971 it was more likely based on when the comics were published, either winter 1973 or summer 1974. It’s a similar but totally different reality to my memory of what is (still) a cherished memory to me of my dad.
Regarding the Chinese whisper analogy. The first person tells the second person a message but the second (or more likely the fourth or fifth) person has immediately forgotten exactly what they were told and has added or taken away from the original message. As you say the second person is recalling what they thought they were told, but that’s the whole point of the exercise i.e. the memory of what they were actually told is not what they thought it was despite as you say they my believe that’s what was said to them. The first person may also not recall exactly what the message was an hour later but they are not the issue here, the experiment is about the second person onward and proves the point of how memory of an event can change form what actually happened was said.
You probably had an experience very similar to what you remember, McS, but it was maybe a general impression of what had happened at the time, making it much more difficult to recall the precise details after the fact because they simply never burned into your brain deep enough. And maybe you even had a few similar experiences and they've run into one another in your mind, making it difficult to separate them into their component parts. I'm not disputing your theory, I accept it in a large number of cases, but I don't believe it necessarily explains everything about memory.
For example, some people have what is called a photographic memory (as have I, but it just hasn't 'developed' yet - will anyone get that joke in the digital age?). No, my memory is a relatively normal one, but to someone with a pm (photographic memory), one glance at a page of a book and they can remember every word. The trouble with the rest of us though, is that usually we're not paying enough attention to things, so we don't take everything in to begin with. Later, trying to recall something, we're relying on a vague general impression that simply can't be relied upon.
In instances like that, everything about your theory is accurate (adding in things to make sense, etc.), but I'm saying that it must be possible, on occasion, for something to make such a deep impression on our brain, that we can remember just about every detail of it. For some reason, those with photographic memories take everything in in such detail, whereas for the rest of us, the details didn't embed themselves enough to start with for us to be able to access them.
Again, I have to say that all the Chinese whisper analogy illustrates is that people don't listen properly, not that they - in every instance - don't remember what they were told. By that I mean they never had a complete grasp of the facts to begin with. (You'll never remember what you didn't hear because you weren't paying attention.) Also, consider this example; we two may each read a paragraph in a book, word for word the same, but we may each get a different impression of what was being said. When we relate our different impressions later, the differences aren't necessarily due to 'misremembering' what we read, they can be caused by us placing a different interpretation on what we read, due to how we're 'tuned' when it comes to words.
Also, the Chinese whispers analogy is a hyperbolic example, because it's entirely possible (even likely) that one person recalls exactly what he was told by the previous person, going back several people, before someone else down the line veers off track. So it's a bit too variable an analogy to completely capture the facts of the case. Person 2 may tell the exact same story as person 1, person 3 the same as person 2, before things start to become muddled, so it's too variable to be viewed as a scientific example of what happens, because something different can happen in various instances.
And, as previously stated, some differences in the tale being told may be more down to incomprehension or interpretation than due to poor memory, so it's not exactly a reliable measure. Though I freely grant that poor memory (or lack of memory because someone wasn't listening properly) also plays a factor in many instances. However, without knowing the reason for people getting it wrong in every instance, nobody can know precisely what it proves in regard to memory.
As I said the issue of whether some people can recall things with crystal clarity may be correct, and perhaps in some instances ordinary people can remember certain aspects of an event in detail but based on scientific research (its not my theory)that is uncommon. As you say yourself most folk are not focusing on the detail of things to burn them into their brains (unless perhaps its a traumatic event) they are just living their lives taking in events. Yep my dad story was probably based on what you say but that was my point - memory is not reliable which I think your saying as well?.
The Chinese Whispers I mention were a series of recorded scientific experiments undertaken in the US where people were told to listen and pass on the message they were given, so for me its a totally valid exercise that highlights a point on memory. Its not that because person 4 got it wrong then they all got it wrong except participants 1-3. If participant 4 is the first person that got it wrong they then pass on their wrong message and that is passed on by participants number 5,6 and 7 correctly based on number 4 message, but then participant 8 gets that wrong and they pass their version on and participant 9- 11 pass that on correctly but number 12 gets it wrong etc. etc.. In the end 8 people out of 30 made errors on the previous "whisper" - that is down to poor memory and or concentration but its impacts on the fact that memory is not reliable either through time or lack of concentration. Incidentally photographic memory is disputed (although I'm sure my brother had a PM).
When I said 'your' theory, I merely meant the theory you were referring to, not that you'd invented it. Isn't it funny that we get lost in words sometimes so that the meaning of what we're saying gets confused? As I've said at least a couple of times now, I totally believe that memories can be inaccurate and misleading, for the reasons previously stated by both of us - i.e. not paying attention, things not being memorable enough to impress themselves on our brains, etc. However, where I perhaps differ, is that I wouldn't go as far as to say that there is no such thing as an accurate and reliable reminiscence. I'm inclined to believe that some events can make such a lasting impression that our memory of them is, essentially, 100% accurate. Which is not to say that we'll necessarily recall absolutely everything about an event, but that what we DO remember actually happened (even if it's not the full picture).
Again, my point about Chinese whispers is that the failings might not necessarily always be down to poor memory, but to (mis)interpretation or mishearing what was said. It certainly proves that communication can have its problems and failings, but memory (or the lack of it) is only one factor. To quote Wikipedia on the subject, 'reasons for changes include anxiousness or impatience, erroneous corrections, and the difficult-to-understand mechanism of whispering'.
Left a comment on your latest blog post, McS.
We will need to agree to disagree on the Chinese Whispers experiment Kid. You'll be glad to know I'm back at work today so no more long rambling replies lol - Thanks for the message on the blog - think I'll revamp it a bit to take in music and the 70s in general as well as comics as most comic subject have been blogged about already (far better than I can) and I don't have the time to spend on it for a regular blog like yours due to work etc :(
That's all right - disagreement as well as agreement are both welcome on this blog, McS. I don't throw a huffy fit and ban people just for having a different opinion to me on any given subject. However, I think we're closer on the Chinese whispers thing than you perhaps realise. I fully agree that the message or story tends to get distorted, it's just that I think other factors are also at play rather than 'just' memory. I've also found that 'scientific' tests can often result in the researchers confirming their own bias, which is why 'science' is constantly being rewritten every few years.
On the question of work, with an elderly relative to look after, my daily life is far from one long idle self-indulgence. I make time for my blog as it's a welcome and needed distraction from the demands on my time and attention on a day-to day (sometimes hour-to-hour) basis.
Incidentally, what you call your 'long rambling replies' are appreciated, as it gives me the opportunity to stretch my brain and give it a bit of much-needed exercise.
Oh sorry Kid, I didn't mean that to come out like that at all. I am aware you have caring responsibilities. I have been there myself and I am sadly well aware that looking after an elderly relative is physically, mentally and emotionally draining. I just meant you have momentum with your blog and you are good at presenting subject matter ideas etc. I sit there looking at my blog page and have no idea what to write about for days on end, and in that time you (and others) have rattled out loads of interesting articles.
Oh, no need to apologise, McS, I didn't think for a second you were trying to imply such a thing. I thought others might though, which is why I thought best to mention it. I also think you give me too much credit for my blog, as I usually just write whatever ol' sh*te pops into my head. Personally, I find some of the things you write about your parents and brother interesting, so I'd like to see more things like that on your blog. Your comment about your dad buying you comics and you misremembering the details would make a great blog post on its own.
Well I think you’ve proven that memory isn’t like videotape. It can be misremembered as we see fit or as we want to remember it. Sometimes it’s yow or more memories misfiled so to speak. But usually for good reason. Much like do you file Amazing Spider-man under A or S or are you the type who files him under M for man? It all makes sense - to you.
Well, PS, I wasn't saying that ALL memories are like video tape, I was suggesting the possibility that SOME memories are - when the events that cause them make a significant, deep, and lasting impression on us. Filing Spider-Man under m for 'man' makes no sense to me - 'cos then he's competing with Superman, Batman, Hawkman, Ant-Man, Iron Man, etc. 'S' has fewer choices to muddy the puddle.
Post a Comment