During "Brave To Be A King," Keith Denison is Cyrus the Great. At the end of the story, Denison has not been Cyrus even though he remembers having been.
A counter-intuitive although logically possible explanation:
When we read an account of Everard meeting and conversing with Denison as Cyrus, we read not what did happen but only what would have happened if it had not been prevented from happening! We must read to the end of a Time Patrol story in order to find out which of the described events happened and which did not - and even that can be revised in a later story.
Try to imagine this scenario. Having stepped out of a time machine in the nineteenth century, you are told that:
there is only one timeline;
in this single timeline, you will not be born in the twentieth century, will not live into the twenty-first century and will not then enter a time machine;
the time machine with you in it has been created ex nihilo in the nineteenth century;
all your memories are false.
Would you find that easy to accept? I feel that memories are as real as present perceptions. They are also continuous with and necessary for present perceptions. Perpetually renewed amnesia - such that at each indivisible instant the only presentation to consciousness was an immediate sensation with no memory even of the immediately preceding sensation - would be indistinguishable from unconsciousness.
Nevertheless, it remains logically possible that my memories of yesterday are false. So what do the Time Patrollers say that is logically impossible?
8 comments:
But memory is not a record, anyway. It's re-created every time you remember something; and it's mutable. Everyone remembers things which did not happen, because memory changes.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
And we should SCRUTINIZE our memories, and try not to "remember" things which did not happen. Easier said than done, I agree!
Sean
I am not sure that I remember anything that did not happen. Today Sheila and I gardened, drove to Morecambe, attended a concert, walked along the promenade and returned home. I do not remember every detail but I do not think that I invent any. And many memories feel like knowing exactly what it was like then, almost like revisiting that moment.
Kaor, Paul!
That seems to be true of much RECENT memories. But we might erroneously remember things associated with memories from 20 or thirty years ago.
Sean
Sean,
We might. I think that I either remember or forget and that's it. But I know that my thought processes are odd anyway. I do not visualize and have very little visual memory. I answer questions literally and do not elaborate, which is often not what the other person wants. I always thought that some topics of conversation were important and interesting whereas others were not and I would insist on logical consistency to an extent that irritated my peers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What I'm trying to suggest is that we might have an image or memory of something seen 20 or 30 which actually differed from what we thought it was. That is, we might remember seeing a house years ago and think it was painted brown, when the actual color was red.
And I certainly agree with the desirability and necessity of logical consistency!
Sean
Sean,
Of course I have no way of knowing whether I am misremembering like that. Occasionally we can check our memories against other people's or against photos etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! Sometimes we can check the accuracy of our memories with other sources.
Sean
Post a Comment