“Real” Vs. “True”: What’s The Difference? - Engram
The Engram Enigma: Unraveling the Truth Behind Real and True Memories The concept of memory, particularly its accuracy and reliability, has long fascinated scientists and philosophers.
Recent advancements in neuroscience, specifically the study of engrams – the physical trace of a memory in the brain – have ignited a renewed debate about the very nature of real versus true memories.
While real might imply a memory's neurological existence, true suggests its factual accuracy.
This distinction, however, is far from clear-cut.
The perceived dichotomy between real and true memories, particularly within the engram framework, is misleading.
Engrams, while representing the physical manifestation of memory, are susceptible to modification and distortion, rendering the concept of a purely true memory elusive and potentially irrelevant in understanding human experience.
Neurological research consistently demonstrates the malleability of memory.
Studies on reconsolidation, where retrieved memories are susceptible to alteration before being restabilized, challenge the notion of static, immutable engrams (Dudai, 2004).
Every time a memory is recalled, it's potentially rewritten, influenced by current emotional state, expectations, and new information.
This inherent plasticity casts doubt on the concept of a true memory perfectly mirroring a past event.
Witness testimonies, a cornerstone of legal systems, frequently highlight this issue.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, subject to suggestibility and the intrusion of false memories (Loftus & Palmer, 1974).
This demonstrably affects the truth of the recounted event, even if the associated engram remains real.
Furthermore, the very identification of an engram as representing a specific real memory is complex.
Current neuroimaging techniques can only hint at the location of memory traces, not definitively isolate them to pinpoint a singular event.
The distributed nature of memory across neural networks further complicates this identification.
A single experience might leave fragments across multiple brain regions, making the reconstruction of a real memory a complex computational process, prone to error (Squire, 2004).
Some argue that focusing on the real aspect – the presence of an engram – is more scientifically valid than striving for the elusive true memory.
This perspective emphasizes the biological reality of memory storage.
Others contend that focusing solely on real engrams ignores the critical role of subjective experience and interpretation in shaping our memories.
They argue that the true nature of a memory lies in its meaning and function within an individual's narrative, rather than its objective accuracy.
This highlights the philosophical implications of this debate.
The distinction between real and true memories, viewed through the lens of engram research, reveals a nuanced reality.
While the existence of engrams confirms the physical reality of memory storage, the inherent plasticity and reconstructive nature of memory processes render the quest for a purely true memory largely illusory.
The truth of a memory becomes a subjective experience, influenced by individual interpretation, social context, and the biological processes of memory reconsolidation.
Understanding this complexity is crucial not only for neuroscience but also for legal systems, historical narratives, and our own personal self-understanding.
The focus should shift from a naive search for objective truth to a more nuanced investigation of memory's role in shaping our individual and collective realities.
* Dudai, Y.
(2004).
The neurobiology of consolidations, or, how stable is the engram? Loftus, E.
F.
(2005).
Memory distortion.
* Squire, L.
R.
(2004).
Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective.