Memory Skepticism

[@KaneB]

A popular response to skepticism that I did not discuss in this video is the Moorean shift. I outline this argument here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2jdpWCqer6jpbc For more on IBE as a response to skepticism, see this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/opmcZKNjgpxnmtE

[@bos567564]

what is interesting to me is how some of our memories change over time. We start to see them in a different way. We deconstruct and reconstruct them. Some memories we repress because they are very painful. I think of adults who have suffered child abuse. As a result, I think there is an interesting philosophical question about how well our memories actually instantiate the past. I think this question of changing memories raises a challenge to memory realism, that memories actually do represent the past to which we have some sort of access. Do we not just have memories of memories of memories, none of which truly instantiate the past?

[@HudBug]

I sorta don’t care. There is no way in which my beliefs, nearly every single one, can be epistemologically validated to be true by anything. My skepticism is this powerful. But, i also see that there is no way in which in my beliefs, nearly every single one, can be epistemologically validated to be false by anything. Most of my beliefs have no epistemologically sustainable evidence for or against my beliefs. I still don’t care. I find the view that the only reasons to believe are given by the object of my beliefs (what i believe), that is, they are only object given reasons to believe. Thus, the only epistemological Impermissibility is a contradiction. This also is fitting according to the work of Derek Parfit 😁

[@marshallsamford3240]

Even in using words I rely on memory, or knowledge how. There's a retention of the use of a tool and I use the tool successfully. It's hard to think of anything you do without memory.

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

I think the objection to harold's argument confuses bad abduction with harold's argument,the attack is on bad abduction and not on harold's argument.

[@nialv22]

Susanna Rinard has an ingenious argument against external world skepticism that involves the self-defeatingness of complex reasoning skepticism, due to the unreliability of memory, predicated on past skepticism. It's a pretty complex argument, but maybe interesting to you! Link: philpapers.org/rec/RINROW

[@KaneB]

I did reference her article in the video description -- it's definitely worth reading for folks interested in the self-defeat objection. I'm planning on doing a video on the notion of self-defeat at some point, and I'll probably cover her article in that.

[@nialv22]

@@KaneB Oh, cool! I didn't see that.

[@joeber3869]

Ain't that also an argument against external world positivism at the very same time? Concluding we cannot say anything about external world at all?

[@justus4684]

Finally I love you kane

[@silverharloe]

I take it, then, that the memory skeptic doesn't just doubt the memories in people's heads, but also all records of past events? I know the evil daemon can fake records, but there were other accounts of memory skepticism that didn't involve continuous reality alteration. If we have an independent reason to dismiss the evil daemon, which we wrote down and stored with other written arguments as well as various accounts of past events and timestamped photographs, etc, it seems like a memory believer could build a case for general reliability of memory - even, at each step, making summaries of positions simple enough to hold in one's present experience. Or maybe I'm a numpty.

[@unknownknownsphilosophy7888]

My fake best friend always delivers!

[@uninspired3583]

Agreed

[@justus4684]

Hello there

[@kingofsalem]

@@justus4684 General Kenobi

[@teoteo3522]

I as a memory sceptic and radical empiricist only need to say that: What I perceive now is the only thing that exists, memory is just another perception like all the others. I don't even need to say it, I just "feel it". Simple as.

[@bos567564]

but isn't memory qualitatively different from imagination? Memory has some belief component, namely that such-and-such actually happened. Imagination doesn't have this belief component about the past that memory does.

[@teoteo3522]

​@@bos567564 What is belief? A feeling? A thought? How those it manifest experientially?

[@uninspired3583]

@@bos567564 being qualitatively different doesn't make memory more reliable though. Vision is qualitatively different than hearing, why could memory not be classified as an internal perception?

[@bos567564]

@@uninspired3583 because memories are apparently supposed in some way to represent or instantiate the past so that a man says ''I _remember_ . I have seen this before. I may not know how, but I _have_ '' while vision concerns the present. I think the phenomenal contents for memories and perceptions are different too.

[@uninspired3583]

@@bos567564 so imagination is for the future, perception the present, and memory the past. Would it interest you to know that some of the same parts of the brain light up when we remember, perceive, and imagine a certain event? Imagining a square isn't as different as perceiving one as you might think. What isn't clear as of yet is how we can differentiate thoughts that are meant to be real vs imagined.

[@henrikmunch8609]

Besides invoking additional skeptical hypotheses like the evil demon or the 5-minute world, what would be the shortcomings of running a No Miracles type argument here? I.e., it would be a miracle that I could succeed in most tasks if my memory were not reliable (putting on my shoes without them exploding, eaten an apple without getting poisoned, safely crossing a bridge, etc.).

[@kimyo-jong7024]

WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[@MrJMont21]

I don't understand how that without assuming there to be memory at all (the ability to remember past events) and that the/a past exists, that any predictions that are used to confirm the reliability of memory, do not run into circularity. Note: I have not listened to entire video. Writing some of my thoughts as video plays.

[@justus4684]

9:40 How can you use memory as evidence for memory skepticism?

[@trappedcosmos]

Because if memory can disprove the reliability of memory than the idea of reliable memory could be considered inconsistent

[@rath60]

i mean there is no present moment in the mind. Whatever the mechanism of understanding takes time.

[@teoteo3522]

KANE HELP! I realized that I am a realist trapped in an empiricist body. HEEEEELP!!!

[@depressivepumpkin7312]

hold on there bro

[@yusufdogan2330]

Philosophical exorcism.

[@InventiveHarvest]

Saying you cant use memory to see if memory is reliable is like saying you cant use the economy to see if economics works.

[@MeeTerra]

no its like saying you cant use economics to see if economics works

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Happy I'm an Objectivist and don't need to entertain such non-sense (both the arguments for and against).

[@ivan55599]

Interesting thing is, that when we do exams in schools, universities etc., you don't get punished by telling (unconsciously, usually) lies (read: remembering things wrong), so theoretically you can write lots of incorrect stuff.

[@Steve-hu9gw]

Your final analogy involving utilitarianism fails. When you argue that “utilitarianism entails X,” you don’t use the truth of X to actually construct your argument. On the other hand, to argue that memory is unreliable, you have to assume that memory is reliable. There’s no valid analogy there.

[@KaneB]

I don't see how this shows that the analogy fails, since all the analogy is supposed to demonstrate is that an argument does not have to be convincing to person giving the argument in order to raise trouble for the recipient of the argument. As long as I think memory is reliable, then I can endorse all steps of the argument, and that will be a problem for me if the conclusion of the argument is that there is no justification for thinking that memory is reliable. (Of course, there may be other ways of making the self-defeat objection that are not dealt with by this analogy.)

[@Steve-hu9gw]

@@KaneB , I don’t believe you’re grasping the nature or flow of your own argument. The point has nothing to do with whether an argument is convincing to the person making it. The point is that any argument whatsoever against the reliability of memory depends on the reliability of memory and is therefore invalid and incoherent. (Note that no one is arguing that memory is universally or absolutely reliable.) The analogy in your example, then, would have to involve an argument against utilitarianism that depends for its very logic and structure on the truth of utilitarianism and/or X. That’s not the analogy you presented. So your argument at that point is irrelevant to the subject of your video.

[@KaneB]

@@Steve-hu9gw >> The point is that any argument whatsoever against the reliability of memory depends on the reliability of memory and is therefore invalid and incoherent No, that is not the point. If that were the point, it would be easy to rebut, since there are plenty of arguments against the reliability of memory that are both valid and coherent. For example: (P1) If the moon is made of cheese, then memory is unreliable. (P2) The moon is made of cheese. (C) Memory is unreliable. Perhaps a memory skeptic could not judge this argument to be valid and coherent. But so what? The rest of us can.

[@Steve-hu9gw]

@@KaneB , you’re joking, right? The point isn’t whether the point is easy to rebut, but that the point is the point and was not even remotely rebutted by your failed analogy. Btw, as far as your silly syllogism goes, it remains utter gibberish unless one assumes the reliability of memory to the extent of understanding what words mean and how grammar and syntax work. It’s a lesson in the dangers of trusting syllogisms.

[@Steve-hu9gw]

@@KaneB, I’m so thoroughly persuaded by the undeniable grandeur and sophistication of your thought. Morons in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. To cut to the chase, I believe “the sufficient reliability of memory” must be assumed, together with the axioms of logic, to maintain the intelligibility, coherence, and reliability of reason.

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

The answer is almost trivially obvious. We don't have to trust only our own memory. We have records from the past and of course the other people's memories , so we can check reliability all the time. If one's memory deviates significantly from all other people's, and all recordings, then something's going seriously wrong ( brain damage, dementia etc...)

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

The " circularity" argument ( that sceptics use) is very weak, because you can check your memory's reliability in real time whenever you want ( with records from the past etc). If "you" believe that it's not enough, then you have to deny entirely your cognitive abilities, your senses, your whole perception of the world. As usual, these "sceptical" arguments do not hold much water. Most of them ( if not all) are going straight to the garbage can after only a few moments of critical thinking...

[@christopherrussell63]

Are you an atheist?

[@KaneB]

I don't believe in god.

[@OBGynKenobi]

The past doesn't exist but in books and brains. And how do we know if someone or something implemented those memories into our brains 5 minutes ago?

[@Nikator24]

That bible bashing though

[@tombouie]

Thks but only the changing-NOW exist & the past/future are only abstractions in our minds. Note records/memories about the past encode abstractions for us about the past.

[@Steve-hu9gw]

Modern physics with its B-theory of time strongly disagrees with you.

[@tombouie]

@@Steve-hu9gw Interestingly, I am a retired military physicist ;). The concept of time is just a pragmatic but abstract means/tool. However the concept of time in the relativity & quantum realms begin to lose meaning (and falls apart inside a blackhole). Empiric science should follow the empirical world whether than vice versa (including fancy math).

[@Steve-hu9gw]

@@tombouie, first prove to the theoretical physicists that the B-theory of time is wrong, acquiring a few prizes along the way, then get back to me.

[@tombouie]

@@Steve-hu9gw 1st you're not an empirical scientist 2nd proving a positive is hard enough & proving a negative is even harder (ex: try proving god don't exist). 3rd Apparently I'm wasting your & especially my 'time' ;)