3 ms·

> How can you tell the difference between real memories and implanted memories[1]? Let's say something emotionally significant happened to you at the age of 2.

> How can you tell the difference between real memories and implanted memories[1]? Let's say something emotionally significant happened to you at the age of 2. Because it was significant, you keep recalling it regularly, maybe every week or so. Recalling and thinking about the memory is also strengthening it (and often altering it). There's not enough time to forget it if you keep refreshing the memory of it (kinda like LRU cache). I have a couple of such early memories which I believe survived through this recall mechanism.

lelanthran 3y ago
> Because it was significant, you keep recalling it regularly, maybe every week or so. That's not how two year olds work. Even something as significant as losing a (or both) parents is still not significant enough to be recalled periodically, and we have many cases of that to support the hypothesis that "that's not how two year old brains work". > I have a couple of such early memories which I believe survived through this recall mechanism. I'm still skeptical. The first reason is that two year olds don't understand the concept of age in years (or age at all, TBH - they recognoise larger people and smaller poeple, but hafve no conept of age). The second reason is that the odds are very much against your hypothesis. I have maybe ... two memories which I think were from age 2, but before age 3. But I cannot determine if I was three or four at the time, instead of two. I cannot determine if they were real or a dream (because they are memories of an event of such non-significance[1] that no one else remembered). I also cannot determine if they were not real and not a dream! I cannot tell if I "remember" them purely because when I was older my mum used to talk about the place they lived in when I was born, and with all the details, 6yo me simply interleaved actual facts with something my mind made up so that my made up memory is consistent with the facts I heard. So, yeah, very skeptical when people tell me they can remember being two, because the odds are very much against it, and I say this as someone who has "memories" from 2yo, and I don't believe that those memories are, in fact, the memories of a 2yo me. Not even a little bit. [1] Memory #1: being taken to the bathroom one morning by an aunt who sometimes lived with us (and so babysat me quite often and would have done this quite often). I only have a memory of it happening once though, even though it must have happened at least a hundred times. Memory #2: Looking at a patch of grass with a path that lead to the landlords house (also on same property, I was told when older). With either of these, I can't be sure if I was 1, 2, 3 or 4 years old at the time. I also cannot tell if either was a dream, and if it was, was it a dream I had at 6yo, dreaming about being 2 yo or was it a dream I had when 2yo?
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  > and we have many cases of that to support the hypothesis that "that's not how two year old brains work". What are those cases preventing a 2-year-old remembering something from a week ago, thus strengthening the memory, rinse and repeat? > The first reason is that two year olds don't understand the concept of age in years In my case, the memory is linked to potty training and I know when that happened. > I cannot determine if they were real or a dream (because they are memories of an event of such non-significance[1] that no one else remembered). I'm kind of confused that on one hand you say that you don't know if it was a dream or reality, and on the other hand completely discount the possibility of having such an early memory. > because the odds are very much against it You keep mentioning the odds. How do you calculate them?
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > What are those cases preventing a 2-year-old remembering something from a week ago, thus strengthening the memory, rinse and repeat? I don't see how that is relevant to "we have all these examples of two-year-olds not remembering recent signficant events". I mean, we have observation that $X doesn't happen, but you know want to know what the mechanism is? Why is the mechanism at all important to the observation? With or without a plausible mechanism, the observation still stands. > I'm kind of confused that on one hand you say that you don't know if it was a dream or reality, and on the other hand completely discount the possibility of having such an early memory. Well, it's the same reason I am an atheist - as there's literally no evidence for any religions' specific story of a god, I discount the possibility of there being a god at all. People's subjective experience isn't "evidence". > You keep mentioning the odds. How do you calculate them? Because there's too many much more likely explanations, many of which I mentioned already, than a non-falsifiable belief in the memory of a two-year old. Unless you want to dismiss the suggestibility of children, that's basically the most likely explanation.
    - sethammons 3y ago
      > we have observation that $X doesn't happen You can't prove a negative. Did you know that the blue whale was declared extinct in the 80s only to have a pod show up some years later? We observed there were no blue whales and then there were. You didn't know about anyone with that early of memories and now you do.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Because it was significant, you keep recalling it regularly, maybe every week or so. That's not how two year olds work. Even something as significant as losing a (or both) parents is still not significant enough to be recalled periodically, and we have many cases of that to support the hypothesis that "that's not how two year old brains work". > I have a couple of such early memories which I believe survived through this recall mechanism. I'm still skeptical. The first reason is that two year olds don't understand the concept of age in years (or age at all, TBH - they recognoise larger people and smaller poeple, but hafve no conept of age). The second reason is that the odds are very much against your hypothesis. I have maybe ... two memories which I think were from age 2, but before age 3. But I cannot determine if I was three or four at the time, instead of two. I cannot determine if they were real or a dream (because they are memories of an event of such non-significance[1] that no one else remembered). I also cannot determine if they were not real and not a dream! I cannot tell if I "remember" them purely because when I was older my mum used to talk about the place they lived in when I was born, and with all the details, 6yo me simply interleaved actual facts with something my mind made up so that my made up memory is consistent with the facts I heard. So, yeah, very skeptical when people tell me they can remember being two, because the odds are very much against it, and I say this as someone who has "memories" from 2yo, and I don't believe that those memories are, in fact, the memories of a 2yo me. Not even a little bit. [1] Memory #1: being taken to the bathroom one morning by an aunt who sometimes lived with us (and so babysat me quite often and would have done this quite often). I only have a memory of it happening once though, even though it must have happened at least a hundred times. Memory #2: Looking at a patch of grass with a path that lead to the landlords house (also on same property, I was told when older). With either of these, I can't be sure if I was 1, 2, 3 or 4 years old at the time. I also cannot tell if either was a dream, and if it was, was it a dream I had at 6yo, dreaming about being 2 yo or was it a dream I had when 2yo?

The_Colonel 3y ago
> and we have many cases of that to support the hypothesis that "that's not how two year old brains work". What are those cases preventing a 2-year-old remembering something from a week ago, thus strengthening the memory, rinse and repeat? > The first reason is that two year olds don't understand the concept of age in years In my case, the memory is linked to potty training and I know when that happened. > I cannot determine if they were real or a dream (because they are memories of an event of such non-significance[1] that no one else remembered). I'm kind of confused that on one hand you say that you don't know if it was a dream or reality, and on the other hand completely discount the possibility of having such an early memory. > because the odds are very much against it You keep mentioning the odds. How do you calculate them?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > What are those cases preventing a 2-year-old remembering something from a week ago, thus strengthening the memory, rinse and repeat? I don't see how that is relevant to "we have all these examples of two-year-olds not remembering recent signficant events". I mean, we have observation that $X doesn't happen, but you know want to know what the mechanism is? Why is the mechanism at all important to the observation? With or without a plausible mechanism, the observation still stands. > I'm kind of confused that on one hand you say that you don't know if it was a dream or reality, and on the other hand completely discount the possibility of having such an early memory. Well, it's the same reason I am an atheist - as there's literally no evidence for any religions' specific story of a god, I discount the possibility of there being a god at all. People's subjective experience isn't "evidence". > You keep mentioning the odds. How do you calculate them? Because there's too many much more likely explanations, many of which I mentioned already, than a non-falsifiable belief in the memory of a two-year old. Unless you want to dismiss the suggestibility of children, that's basically the most likely explanation.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    > we have observation that $X doesn't happen You can't prove a negative. Did you know that the blue whale was declared extinct in the 80s only to have a pod show up some years later? We observed there were no blue whales and then there were. You didn't know about anyone with that early of memories and now you do.