A person still has a subjective experience of a false memory; it’s just that eir proposed explanation (“I remember X, so it must have happened”) isn’t correct. A very similar scenario to NDEs, actually.
Remembering is still an experience, though, which is my point. “I remember this because I had the original experience” is an explanation that turns out not to be true in the case of false memories. What we can’t deny is that the person experiences something. With an NDE, someone might say “I was able to have a near-death experience because the afterlife exists”; we can’t deny ey had the experience, but we can evaluate the likelihood of the explanation.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about someone saying at time 2, “I remember experiencing x at time 1”, when at time 1 they experienced no such thing. Forget misinterpretation of experience—I’m mentioning that not every recalled experience was actually experienced.
I don’t see how that’s different in principle from anyone reporting any subjective experience after the fact. All we ever know is that there’s the memory of an experience; anything else is explanation.
13 years late here, but I think there’s a place for this distinction.
When someone says “I experienced such-and-such when I was near death, and that proves <something spiritual>”, there are 2 places for doubt that RobinZ is distinguishing.
That the best explanation for experiencing such-and-such is <something spiritual>
That the best explantaion for him remembering experiencing such-and-such is that he actually experienced such-and-such
RobinZ is distinguishing between those two avenues of doubt, whereas you’re apparently grouping them together.
A person still has a subjective experience of a false memory; it’s just that eir proposed explanation (“I remember X, so it must have happened”) isn’t correct. A very similar scenario to NDEs, actually.
They experience remembering—that’s not at all the same thing as having an experience and remembering it.
Remembering is still an experience, though, which is my point. “I remember this because I had the original experience” is an explanation that turns out not to be true in the case of false memories. What we can’t deny is that the person experiences something. With an NDE, someone might say “I was able to have a near-death experience because the afterlife exists”; we can’t deny ey had the experience, but we can evaluate the likelihood of the explanation.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about someone saying at time 2, “I remember experiencing x at time 1”, when at time 1 they experienced no such thing. Forget misinterpretation of experience—I’m mentioning that not every recalled experience was actually experienced.
I don’t see how that’s different in principle from anyone reporting any subjective experience after the fact. All we ever know is that there’s the memory of an experience; anything else is explanation.
13 years late here, but I think there’s a place for this distinction.
When someone says “I experienced such-and-such when I was near death, and that proves <something spiritual>”, there are 2 places for doubt that RobinZ is distinguishing.
That the best explanation for experiencing such-and-such is <something spiritual>
That the best explantaion for him remembering experiencing such-and-such is that he actually experienced such-and-such
RobinZ is distinguishing between those two avenues of doubt, whereas you’re apparently grouping them together.