Read TOK: is reasoning based on attitudes? (Crane, p.82)
Which of the statements best reflects your view of the how human memory works? Why?
Discuss how reliable you would find accounts of restored memories if you believed in statement 1 or statement 2. Why is this so?
Have you learned anything in TOK yet that would support your position?
My veiws are best reflected by statement one, though I still do not veiw accounts of restored memory to be reliable because the small details that eventually become inacessible to the brain are easily filled in by false memories or details.
ReplyDeleteI agree largely with Rebecca. It is too easy for the brain to create false memories seeing as we do it all the time anyway. Simply believing that a memory is real doesn't always cut it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeither statement one or statement two agree to the way I look at memory. Although if I had to choose a statement, it would be statement one. I believe that everything we experience is recorded and stored into our memories, right down to the last detail; a fly buzzing around, a piece of hair next to the textbook which is next to the stack of useless papers, which are aligned to the wall. Although I believe this, I also believe that our brains are not capable of accessing that memory entirely and instead accesses the outline or "summary" of it which can also explain the many discrepancies that we face with memory today. If we had the ability to access that "total" memory that I believe in, then yes I would undoubtedly call it a reliable source, but since we cannot, no I would not call it a reliable source, especially because we can "fill" in gaps of memory which we cannot remember and think that we are remembering what actually happened.
ReplyDeleteI agree with statement one, however I believe that memory is recorded in an outline or a summary. Calling memory a reliable source is a false statement because of the way memory is recorded. It is easy for the brain to include details that were not there before when reconstructing the memory.
ReplyDeleteStatement 1 best reflects my view as to how human memory works because I don’t believe that any memory could be “permanently lost” (as stated in statement 2).
ReplyDeleteThe reliability of restored memories depends, to me, on a couple of factors: how long ago the memory was thought, believability of the memory, and eyewitness accounts. The older the memory, the less likely I would find it reliable. If the memory involves anything unbelievable or totally unrealistic (ex: being abducted by aliens, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc.), that would give me more of a reason to not rely on the memory. If the memory is old and unbelievable, but there are other people who agree with this memory, than its reliability is slightly restored.
So how reliable would I find restored memories? As stated above, it depends on the situation; but overall, I would find restored memories slightly reliable (I would not base my research/argument/support on a restored memory, though).
We have not had formal TOK classes yet :(
Personally, statement 2 most resembles my opinion. Some details that are subconciously absorbed can just drift away because we really don't need to know, let's say, the number to call for the lawyer on the bench you sat on waiting for the bus. If you are previously informed, or if you infer, that you need to remember minor details, THEN you will absorb more specific information. But casually, some information can be lost forever.
ReplyDeleteAnd about the reliability, memory is not something you'd want to base major research on, like Rachel said. However, it has it's uses. It can provide good details for, let's say, a testimony when a police investigator asks "Where were you the night of April 21st?".
I would agree with statement one, but like most of my fellow classmates i would agree that it does have its flaws. For example, with the hypnosis part i believe that maybe some parts would definitely be accessible (agreeing with statement 1)but i also believe some things could not be resurrected from our memory because we simply choose to forget them and not think about them, such as a tragic occurrence or a point in your life that you are shameful of, and simply things that have a negative effect on us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with statement 1 because what is learned is never forgotten yet I don't think our memory is a reliable source because it is very easy for us to add on to events that have ocurred to us, sometimes even making them more dramatic... like when my brother and I used to fight when we were little, he always says that I was the one that always ended up crying the most but in reality he used to cry more than I did. What I'm trying to say with this is that we tend to include false details in our memory.
ReplyDeleteStatement one is spot in with my perspective of memory. I think that our memory keeps everything we show attention toward retained, but we are unable to pull out every aspect of that memory.I believe that while memory is extremely important to everyday life, there's always that chance that what you or someone else recalls is actually false memory that is unreliable. Like if you asked me I'd say I've always been taller than my sister when I've really only been since I got to be about 13. See ya tomorrow higs and classmates. Stay classy. Oh by the way we had a skit meeting today and me and Curtis wrote a scene with you and coach jones
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is definitely a possiblity that our brain retains all of our memories, I am going to have to saide with statement 2. The brain discards information it deems unimportant or could even discard traumatic events to prevent the individual from experiencing too much pain or stress. Not to mention the possiblity that the brain might be damaged or deformed and incapable of recalling all knowledge. In addition, I tend to believe that recovered memories of individuals who align themselves with statement one or two will be equally reliable. No one is infallible. That some people agree with statement one only demonstrates that they view the brain as some mystical, all-knowing diety, not a biological machine capable of making misakes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with statement one, the memory retains everything but sometimes you cannot recall something and then you make up a memory that you think fits better. its called inception. sometimes people pay more attention to somethings, therefore they remember thing rather than others. and ill see you guys on the flip side. keep it casual. love ya higs ;)
ReplyDeleteAle
I find myself more inclined to statement two, just because of this one episode of Spongebob where he has to learn how to be a waiter in less than thirty minutes. Because his brain is so pressed for time, his brain starts burning files in his brain such as spice garden tips, etc. I'm not saying its the best reference, but it works, right? For example, even if someone put me under hypnosis, I would have no idea what we did in class today. (And by the wayy, we haven't learned anything particularly helpful in TOK.)
ReplyDeleteI generally find that Statement 2 fits me to a tee. While I suppose it could be argued that all information could be eventually regained if forgotten, who is to say that the memories that were remembered weren't merely a false creation by a mind that wants to believe that it has remembered by, as I believe was said: fitting in pieces of information that just sound right to us. It doesn't sound completely reliable in that regard, as there will be cases where points where it may be impossible for someone to actually prove or disprove the actual correctness of these "recovered memories". Plus, there are points of where the human mind is physically incapable to store ANY kind of information. I believe it's in between the ages of 0 (yes, I'm using that) to 3 or something like that, where the infant can certainly "learn" information, however it is incapable of actually incorporating that into committed memory. It would be nice if I could find my Psych 1 notes from last year...
ReplyDelete*'tis me, Michael!*
I agree with statement two. I believe that memory discards the things that are unnecessary, such as colors or shapes you might see while passing by. I also believe that, if needed, memories that are lost can be replaced by false memories. I do not think that recovered memories would be reliable because they could be false memories that the person could have subconsciously created. We haven't learned really anything in TOK yet beside things about the Extended Essay.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyy statement one. I don't think momery can be permanently lost, but instead you just put it away somewhere in your brain. I do not believe in the hypnosis thing through. I think hypnosis itself is just stupid. Although there are probably other alternatives to remembering that there knowledge in you head.
ReplyDeleteI dont know if i could side with one of the two statements. I believe that statement one is true because what we show attention to is what we will remember. However, i believe that the brain can discard memories that are unnecessary, have not been used, or are unimportant to our lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with statement two because some things that we learn or see are just not important to us and therefore our brain can disregard them and make room for new pieces of information.
ReplyDelete