The Reliability Of Memory

Recently I posted an inquiry into the reliability of memory [1], and after providing myself with several days to think about the issue I have reached sound conclusions on the matter.  Memory is something that concerns us at every moment of our conscious experiences and perceptions.  After all, directly after the reliability of reason, no other faculty is so important to human learning.  Without reason we would not even be aware of our own existence or anything else at all; without memory we could never recall previously-learned knowledge.  The reliability of memory is crucial to the pursuit of truth.  If my memory did not work properly much of the time I might not even remember what I had hoped to write at the end of this paragraph or how to upload this post on my blog at all.  In fact, I might not remember how or what to eat and might unknowingly starve myself before I remember to eat again!

Verifying the reliability of our memory is a very urgent epistemic
concern.

I must remind my readers of a highly critical truth before I proceed much further.  The very fact that someone can have false memories means by necessity that the person has a memory to begin with, whether faulty or reliable.  It is impossible for someone without memory to have false memories at all.  All contemplation and discussion of the reliability of memory must acknowledge this core fact.  Now, with the existence of memory proven, confirming the reliability of it is the next objective.

If my memory was not reliable to a large extent, I would constantly be disoriented and would be unaware of my surroundings, goals, previous thoughts, and my very nature and identity.  I would be unable to consistently find my own bed at night and would fruitlessly hunt for everyday items all the time, unable to recall their locations or uses.  The fact that I am not always struggling to remember what I intended on doing when I arrived somewhere or always finding everything unfamiliar demonstrates to me that my memory is not totally or even mostly inaccurate, and the vast spectrum of information about philosophy and theology that my mind cycles through regularly indicates to me that I certainly do not have a blank mind scrambling to recall elusive or totally-illusory information.  False memory syndrome can exist in the lives of some individuals and afflict their minds.  However, someone who's memory always or usually failed would stumble around constantly in a perhaps unintelligible stupor, much like someone who could not innately grasp logic.

Besides, someone unsure of his or her memory's reliability can check certain things against evidence in the external world he or she perceives to verify or falsify them.  An example would be that someone forgetful of a password to an online account could access a written note of the password and type it into the computer or device by which he or she is trying to enter the account.  Someone memorizing a portion of a book can simply read the book and compare the actual words to the allegedly memorized ones in his or her mind.  If the perceptions of what is in the external world and the memories concur, then the consistency is the highest degree of support for the validity of a person's memory (regarding matters where this technique can be applied) one could ask for.  If two people disagree about something they both just witnessed and filmed, the best way to solve the dispute is to review the recording.

None of these facts mean that our memories are always reliable in the sense of never reporting false information, but my memory is reliable in the sense of providing me with enough information to ensure I am never totally incapable of recognizing the contents of my mind and facts about the external world.  I can demonstrate that denial of the existence of memory and belief that memory is wholly unreliable are both irrational, asinine, false positions.  Indeed, someone who argues that memory is entirely unreliable would undermine his or her own position--for if our memories are not reliable at all, he or she cannot even rely on his or her own memory to convey what the next stage of the argument is.  Like someone arguing that logic is not reliable, a person who claims that memory is entirely untrustworthy defeats himself or herself.

I hope that this information is useful, stimulating, and allows readers to experience the security that comes from knowing truth.  May those who seek truth rest in the comfort of recognizing the general validity of memory, even if occasionally it lets us down and deceives us.

We can demonstrate that we can trust our memories at least part of the
time, for we are not relentlessly stumbling around unaware and lost.

[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-enigma-of-memory.html