6 ms·

Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Using animals in research i

Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Using animals in research is generally inaccurate.

npstr 7y ago
A human is just an animal.
- simonh 7y ago
  An animal with analytical and self-reflective mental faculties other animals do not seem to possess, or be able to articulate. For example, I know that some of my memories are not original. They are memories of me previously remembering something, which I was able to remember clearly at the time, but can’t recall as clearly now. But my memory of the experience of remembering it and the circumstances in which I did so are quite clear. So I know some of my memories are reconstructions. It seems unlikely there are many nonhuman animals capable of making that sort of distinction.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Great apes, corvids, large parrots recognize their reflection in a mirror. Some of them are known to use tools in the wild. Cetaceans are officially recognized as conscious beings. What separates humans from animals is not a sharp edge, but something more like a smooth gradient.
    - simonh 7y ago
      None of which addresses the point in question. To re-iterate: >Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. These animals seem to uncritically follow the artificially stimulated behaviour as though it was 'real' or original to them. It seems a reasonable suggestion that, perhaps, a human would be able to distinguish it from an original memory. Are you suggesting that is wrong? If so sure, explain why. It seems to me these objections are merely intellectual nit-pick points scoring, devoid of any actual critical or analytical point that I can discern. It's just so tedious. 'people are animals too' Genius! Now how about making an actual point?
      - ben_w 7y ago
        ”””These animals seem to uncritically follow the artificially stimulated behaviour as though it was 'real' or original to them. It seems a reasonable suggestion that, perhaps, a human would be able to distinguish it from an original memory. Are you suggesting that is wrong? If so sure, explain why.””” What you describe is behaviour I observe in humans. I wonder if I demonstrate such behaviour, and how I might find out. To the extent that I am self-critical it has been by observing that other people are not. When I was a teenager I was interested in the occult, and had several experiences which seemed totally real at the time, but which I can only explain now as self-hypnosis — while my accidental Philosophy A-level taught me not to believe everything in the New Age section of the bookstore, my mother continued to believe that Bach flower remedies could help her memory right up until she forgot what those “remedies” are because of encroaching Alzheimer’s. My earliest childhood memories are 2/3rds dreams and I only found out by asking my relatives about things which occurred within them, not by introspection. And then Brexit, where… well I can say with high probability that half the country believes the other half is out of touch with reality, and vice-versa, but all the online arguments seem to show each side accusing the other of uncritically parroting cliches.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >An animal with analytical and self-reflective mental faculties other animals do not seem to possess, or be able to articulate. Which also makes it easier to rationalize the fake memory as real!
  - circlefavshape 7y ago
    > It seems unlikely there are many nonhuman animals capable of making that sort of distinction It doesn't seem that unlikely to me. We've no way of telling if the mice in this experiment know the memory is untrustworthy, but avoid the smell anyway just in case
kiba 7y ago
Given that we know for decades about falsified or inaccurate human memories for decades, I am not quite so sure.
coldtea 7y ago
>Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Well, humans have proven time and again not to be able to do the same, in other circumstances of fake memories...
lostjohnny 7y ago
> Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. In the same way, we can't tell humans can do it without testing the hypothesis first. If animals can, probably we can, if animals can't, it's possible that we can't as well.
- jpttsn 7y ago
  ...fly? Shed skin? Sleep upside down? Survive without oxygen? Travel to mars?
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    Probably means probably. On the same (wrong) line of thinking we can't say humans can walk because some of them can't. Not all birds fly as well... besides, some animals are better than others for testing purpose. Mice are well known for having a great memory, testing mice for memory makes sense. Recent studies proved that mice memory cells work on experiences and not on places, just like ours.
    - jpttsn 7y ago
      I’m contesting your claim, not claiming the inverse.
buboard 7y ago
Animal models are definitely inaccurate in general. But memory mechanisms are conserved and it's also false to believe that our brain's intuitions are true. We have blind spots left and right, a false sense of free will and a long history of inaccurate memories.
Hitton 7y ago
This is very good remark. I saw Vsauce video about chimpanzees' photographic memory compared to normal human memory. Proposed explanation is cognitive tradeoff hypothesis - basically that while chimpanzees' memory is visual, human memory is influenced by language - basically how you describe event in your head.

Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Using animals in research is generally inaccurate.

npstr 7y ago

A human is just an animal.

simonh 7y ago
An animal with analytical and self-reflective mental faculties other animals do not seem to possess, or be able to articulate. For example, I know that some of my memories are not original. They are memories of me previously remembering something, which I was able to remember clearly at the time, but can’t recall as clearly now. But my memory of the experience of remembering it and the circumstances in which I did so are quite clear. So I know some of my memories are reconstructions. It seems unlikely there are many nonhuman animals capable of making that sort of distinction.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Great apes, corvids, large parrots recognize their reflection in a mirror. Some of them are known to use tools in the wild. Cetaceans are officially recognized as conscious beings. What separates humans from animals is not a sharp edge, but something more like a smooth gradient.
  - simonh 7y ago
    None of which addresses the point in question. To re-iterate: >Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. These animals seem to uncritically follow the artificially stimulated behaviour as though it was 'real' or original to them. It seems a reasonable suggestion that, perhaps, a human would be able to distinguish it from an original memory. Are you suggesting that is wrong? If so sure, explain why. It seems to me these objections are merely intellectual nit-pick points scoring, devoid of any actual critical or analytical point that I can discern. It's just so tedious. 'people are animals too' Genius! Now how about making an actual point?
    - ben_w 7y ago
      ”””These animals seem to uncritically follow the artificially stimulated behaviour as though it was 'real' or original to them. It seems a reasonable suggestion that, perhaps, a human would be able to distinguish it from an original memory. Are you suggesting that is wrong? If so sure, explain why.””” What you describe is behaviour I observe in humans. I wonder if I demonstrate such behaviour, and how I might find out. To the extent that I am self-critical it has been by observing that other people are not. When I was a teenager I was interested in the occult, and had several experiences which seemed totally real at the time, but which I can only explain now as self-hypnosis — while my accidental Philosophy A-level taught me not to believe everything in the New Age section of the bookstore, my mother continued to believe that Bach flower remedies could help her memory right up until she forgot what those “remedies” are because of encroaching Alzheimer’s. My earliest childhood memories are 2/3rds dreams and I only found out by asking my relatives about things which occurred within them, not by introspection. And then Brexit, where… well I can say with high probability that half the country believes the other half is out of touch with reality, and vice-versa, but all the online arguments seem to show each side accusing the other of uncritically parroting cliches.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >An animal with analytical and self-reflective mental faculties other animals do not seem to possess, or be able to articulate. Which also makes it easier to rationalize the fake memory as real!
- circlefavshape 7y ago
  > It seems unlikely there are many nonhuman animals capable of making that sort of distinction It doesn't seem that unlikely to me. We've no way of telling if the mice in this experiment know the memory is untrustworthy, but avoid the smell anyway just in case

kiba 7y ago

Given that we know for decades about falsified or inaccurate human memories for decades, I am not quite so sure.

coldtea 7y ago

>Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Well, humans have proven time and again not to be able to do the same, in other circumstances of fake memories...

lostjohnny 7y ago

> Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. In the same way, we can't tell humans can do it without testing the hypothesis first. If animals can, probably we can, if animals can't, it's possible that we can't as well.

jpttsn 7y ago
...fly? Shed skin? Sleep upside down? Survive without oxygen? Travel to mars?
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  Probably means probably. On the same (wrong) line of thinking we can't say humans can walk because some of them can't. Not all birds fly as well... besides, some animals are better than others for testing purpose. Mice are well known for having a great memory, testing mice for memory makes sense. Recent studies proved that mice memory cells work on experiences and not on places, just like ours.
  - jpttsn 7y ago
    I’m contesting your claim, not claiming the inverse.

buboard 7y ago

Animal models are definitely inaccurate in general. But memory mechanisms are conserved and it's also false to believe that our brain's intuitions are true. We have blind spots left and right, a false sense of free will and a long history of inaccurate memories.

Hitton 7y ago

This is very good remark. I saw Vsauce video about chimpanzees' photographic memory compared to normal human memory. Proposed explanation is cognitive tradeoff hypothesis - basically that while chimpanzees' memory is visual, human memory is influenced by language - basically how you describe event in your head.