Memory

[Belisarius]

Once you get down to it(and don't make me walk you through how), materialism and empiricism itself are founded on the premise that Memory is an accurate account of our perceptions. I think it is an exercise in absurdity to make this assumption and that without this assumption knowledge of anything that is attained by your perceptions is impossible. During my life I have observed, and I'm sure you have too, several instances in which I remember doing things that I did not actually do(or could not have done if the rest of my memory was correct). These contradict other memories or the other memories of other people. This shows that I can not accept memory as a reliable record of my perceptions as it is often self-contradictory. I have already gone too far in my demonstration because even if memory were perfectly consistant, there is no reason to believe that it is an accurate account. We have nothing to, as subjective entities, compare memory to that could possibly affirm it in a meaningful way. Without reliable memory empiricism becomes nonsensical as we cannot rely on memory to gain any insight into reality. Can anyone here justify the accuracy of memory?

[pyrhho]

not unless you can justify the accuracy of senses. (as far as i know, anyway)

[AirRick101]

I was reading a book "Working on Yourself Doesn't Work." It talks about how hanging onto old memories is not necessarily an accurate recording of the past. It is subjectively, though, meaning we remember exactly what we experienced back then, with our conditions that we harbored at that time. It's nearly impossible to see anything with sober judgement, so memories are the same. If memories are indeed accurate recordings, they are only accurate to our recording capacities during the past. It's only possible to see the world through our own perception, though sometimes we may parallel with others' views, it's still our own perception.

[irishcream]

It talks about how hanging onto old memories is not necessarily an accurate recording of the past.[/b] i agree with this, because often when we look back on something, i think we are remembering what we want to remember, ie, we look back on a bad situation, but we may not remember just how bad it was, and be able to see the good points. so memory is not an accurate recording of the past, because if it was, people wouldn't make the same mistakes twice, surely?

[sensi]

This is quite interesting. I have recorded my life in journal form since I was 14 years old and now I'm 29. A few months ago I reread almost all of it (25 books) and I found my perception of certain experiences were a little wrong. I thought I had totally recalled everything exactly how it was but to see it there right in front of me written in a different way than my memory had constructed was a great thing. A wonderful insight. AirRick101 - "It's only possible to see the world through our own perception, though sometimes we may parallel with others' views, it's still our own perception." - I totally agree. Peace Sensi.

[LucidDreamGod]

Sometimes dreams can evolve into memories over the years. The things we do in the present also can change past memeries.

[FaatFaat]

My memory appears to be good enough to make many, many accurate predictions about what will happen in my daily life. I find it hard to believe that a normal person doesn't (subconsciously) accept that their memory is accurate enough to assume physical reality to be a fact.