4 ms·

The research may show that the mice are responding to stimuli, but how can anyone honestly claim to know what the experience is like, or whether the "memories"

The research may show that the mice are responding to stimuli, but how can anyone honestly claim to know what the experience is like, or whether the "memories" are truly recalled as negative and induce actual "fear". I mean, it's not like mice can verbalize their experience. They don't use words to tell us how they "feel" about these memories on the inside. And in the article, it states that no new memories were actually created. Only the nature of existing memories were augmented to be negative. From the article: ...whether they could create a new, negative association by flipping the switch on an old, neutral memory while giving the mouse a negative experience. So they took an existing memory of a location, and made the mice scared of the location. That's a lot different from the claim in the headline.

tomrod 13y ago
I volunteer to take part in an experiment for false memory implantation on humans. Sounds like fun.
- darkchasma 13y ago
  You already did, and were a great help.
  - tomrod 13y ago
    Hah! Reminds me of "Tom" from 50 first dates. Thanks for the good laugh this afternoon.
- ExpiredLink 13y ago
  Sounds like you'll be brain-dead afterwards.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 13y ago
  I wish there was a website where people could sign up to volunteer for experimentation. They could make (simplified) health data available, and tick what kinds of things they'd like to do. Until then, here's a website that'll let you experience a common memory error. (http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/falsememory_instructions.html http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/fa...) There are probably more experiments you can do on yourself to induce a false memory.
  - aperrien 13y ago
    That might be a good idea for the future, if we can insure the experiments are done ethically, and with the subject's full understanding.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
It's amazing that intelligent people often accept material answers to immaterial questions like memory, consciousness and thought. As if those questions could ever be answered by natural sciences.
- polemic 13y ago
  It's amazing that intelligent people can assume that questions of memory, consciousness and thought cannot be answered by the natural sciences. Given our species long history of pushing back the boundaries of mysticism, fear and uncertainty, it would seem presumptuous to doubt that our own minds are somehow exempt from the rules of the natural world.
  - ExpiredLink 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind
- gems 13y ago
  If you could actually define those words in a rigorous way, maybe then we'd be able to have a conversation about whether or not they are material. Too bad nobody really knows what consciousness is. Do you have some insight that nobody else has? It's pretty clear there is a physical basis for cognition. Some extremely pedantic philosophers may not come to the same conclusion though. If you have any doubts, here's how you can find out: get a friend to beat your head in with a baseball bat (made with preferably something tough like steel or titanium).
hackinthebochs 13y ago
If the mice respond in a way that indicates a fear response, why would you not consider that as strong evidence for the experience of fear? I would also add that verbalizing an "experience" is a behavior just the same as a "fear response" action being observed. Both types of evidence have the same problem of extrapolating the inner mind by external behavior. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. That's the best we can do for now, whether mice or men.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. That's the best we can do for now, whether mice or men. That doesn't sound particularly scientific. Sometimes a bit of precision with language is nice.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Yes, that's a fear response, but there's still a missing link. The mice associate blue-cage-related-thoughts with pain, but that doesn't mean they have any memory of being hurt inside a blue cage. They might just remember the time they were considering blue cages and got punished. In short: just because their test activated a memory doesn't mean it created one

tomrod 13y ago

I volunteer to take part in an experiment for false memory implantation on humans. Sounds like fun.

darkchasma 13y ago
You already did, and were a great help.
- tomrod 13y ago
  Hah! Reminds me of "Tom" from 50 first dates. Thanks for the good laugh this afternoon.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
Sounds like you'll be brain-dead afterwards.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 13y ago
I wish there was a website where people could sign up to volunteer for experimentation. They could make (simplified) health data available, and tick what kinds of things they'd like to do. Until then, here's a website that'll let you experience a common memory error. (http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/falsememory_instructions.html http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/fa...) There are probably more experiments you can do on yourself to induce a false memory.
- aperrien 13y ago
  That might be a good idea for the future, if we can insure the experiments are done ethically, and with the subject's full understanding.

ExpiredLink 13y ago

It's amazing that intelligent people often accept material answers to immaterial questions like memory, consciousness and thought. As if those questions could ever be answered by natural sciences.

polemic 13y ago
It's amazing that intelligent people can assume that questions of memory, consciousness and thought cannot be answered by the natural sciences. Given our species long history of pushing back the boundaries of mysticism, fear and uncertainty, it would seem presumptuous to doubt that our own minds are somehow exempt from the rules of the natural world.
- ExpiredLink 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind
gems 13y ago
If you could actually define those words in a rigorous way, maybe then we'd be able to have a conversation about whether or not they are material. Too bad nobody really knows what consciousness is. Do you have some insight that nobody else has? It's pretty clear there is a physical basis for cognition. Some extremely pedantic philosophers may not come to the same conclusion though. If you have any doubts, here's how you can find out: get a friend to beat your head in with a baseball bat (made with preferably something tough like steel or titanium).

hackinthebochs 13y ago

If the mice respond in a way that indicates a fear response, why would you not consider that as strong evidence for the experience of fear? I would also add that verbalizing an "experience" is a behavior just the same as a "fear response" action being observed. Both types of evidence have the same problem of extrapolating the inner mind by external behavior. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. That's the best we can do for now, whether mice or men.

DanBC 13y ago
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a duck. That's the best we can do for now, whether mice or men. That doesn't sound particularly scientific. Sometimes a bit of precision with language is nice.
Dylan16807 13y ago
Yes, that's a fear response, but there's still a missing link. The mice associate blue-cage-related-thoughts with pain, but that doesn't mean they have any memory of being hurt inside a blue cage. They might just remember the time they were considering blue cages and got punished. In short: just because their test activated a memory doesn't mean it created one