On the Fallibility and Fallacy of Memory.

I will begin with several visual metaphors.

Imagine, in the first instance, a crater in an active volcano. This is distinct from a caldera in that it has a solid surface. It is akin to one because it is situated over an active stream of magma. From time to time, a ball of magma is shot into the air through a hole that appears in the surface of the caldera, by virtue of pressure from underground. It then becomes lava, formally.

Imagine that this lava, whilst airborne, solidifies into a stone called pumice. This is a fairly ashen gray rock with many holes running through it like the tunnels of exceedingly minute insects. By the time it hits the ground, it is solid.

Imagine watching four of these thus soar into the air, observing the process from a frame of reference at the base of the volcano.

You see each as it flies into the air, in succession, and you watch it "disappear" into the crater. They disappear from view.

You ascend the volcano, against your better judgement, to investigate the rocks.

Upon arrival, you see four nearly identical stones at the base of the concave surface. You cannot tell which is which. If asked which soared first into the air and which soared fourth, you would not be able to produce more than a good guess.

In this illustration, the balls of pumice represent memories. When they are airborne, this represents the formation of memories at the moment of Experience.

Imagine a second metaphor. Imagine that the four memories were puzzle pieces. You have to arrange them into their original image. Unfortunately, this cannot be done with certainty. There are several combinations which would appear to create a cohesive image. You would arrange them into whatever picture appears to make the most sense. Yet that would be determined by your frame of reference.

Imagine that I asked you to recall the major events of a day that befell recently. You would probably, usually, be able to recall them. With luck, you would be able to even recollect the order in which they befell.

Yet consider an instance wherein I ask you to recall extremely minute details that befell within seconds of one another.

The probable likelihood is that you would have difficulty remembering in what order they befell. You would be able to synthesise a good hypothesis, but that would be the product of what appears to make sense to you at the time. To claim Certainty in this consideration is misleading. With a different or expanded frame of reference, you may rearrange the events in your mind to form a different storyline. The differences would be subtle.

You would be just as helpless as though you stood at the rim of the crater and had to tell me in what order the stones hit the ground.

dm.A.A.