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.
Using animals in research is generally inaccurate.
Well, humans have proven time and again not to be able to do the same, in other circumstances of fake memories...
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.
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.
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.
Cetaceans are officially recognized as conscious beings.
What separates humans from animals is not a sharp edge, but something more like a smooth gradient.
>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?
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.
Which also makes it easier to rationalize the fake memory as real!
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