The Experience of Being Oneself in Memory: Exploring Sense of Identity via Observer Memory

Abstract

Every episodic memory entails a sense of identity, which allows us to mentally travel through time. There is a special way by which the subject who is remembering comes into contact with the self that is embedded in the episodic simulation of memory: we can directly and robustly experience the protagonist in memory as ourselves. This paper explores what constitutes such experience in memory. On the face of it, the issue may seem trivial: of course, we are able to entertain a sense of identity—the experience of our recollection structurally resembles our perception of the original event. However, given the phenomenon of observer memory, in which our visual perspective is decoupled from our embodied dimension, it is unclear whether it is the observing or the embodied one that is identified. This phenomenon is important not only in illustrating the complexity of identification but also in assessing how best to address it. In this paper, the issue is analyzed through concepts introduced from the literature on bodily self-consciousness. The potential approaches to addressing the issue of identification are examined, including the inheritance view, according to which the identification relies on the inheritance of mnemonic content from the original experience. I propose and argue for the self-simulation view, which suggests that what results in the experience of “I am this” in memory is the observing and the embodied dimensions as well as the relation between them, which enable different ways of projecting oneself into an episodic simulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Another core element is the temporal dimension.

  2. 2.

    The absence of recognizable features may be due to decreased vividness or accuracy of memory retrieval (Marcotti and St. Jacques 2018) or the vantage point adopted, which prevents some or any external properties represented in the visual scene.

  3. 3.

    In this paper, it is assumed that the experiences of identification in field memory, observer memory, and other forms of distorted memory have the same basis or constituents. While this assumption can be explored in detail, here it is accepted because these forms of memories are likely to be associated with the same underlying mechanism, and thus it is likely that the experiences of identification in these cases have the same basis. Second, the sense of identity manifests similarly in these cases. Consider the core characteristics of the experience of identification in observer memory, they are also shared by the sense of identity in field memory.

  4. 4.

    In a standard situation, SI is localized within one’s represented body.

  5. 5.

    Blanke and Metzinger (2009) made the distinction between strong and weak 1PP. 1PP in this paper only refers to weak 1PP.

  6. 6.

    To address the worry that appealing to self-identification in UI is circular: self-identification does not presuppose the current subject’s ownership of the simulated body. That is, it is conceptually possible that one can create an episodic simulation within which a simulated character is embodied and has a sense of ownership of the simulated body, while one does not experience that simulated character as the same person.

  7. 7.

    See also Callow and Hardy (2004) for the examination of the strength of the relationship between visual perspectives and kinesthetic imagery.

  8. 8.

    To be more precise, these properties are simulated (Metzinger 2004).

  9. 9.

    For example, it includes how things far away are presented as smaller than things that are closer to oneself.

  10. 10.

    In his book, McCarroll (2018) argues that the observing perspective is unoccupied and there is only a two-term relation in observer memory. I will address this issue later in this section.

  11. 11.

    McCarroll (2018) raised this issue in the context of replying to Vendler’s argument against the possibility of observer memory due to the problem of authenticity.

  12. 12.

    The nature and constitution of 1PP, SI, and SL have been studied (e.g., Bertossa et al. 2008; de Vignemont 2018; Limanowski and Hecht 2011), and it is unclear whether these phenomenal properties emerge in the same way in episodic simulation. However, this topic is beyond the scope of the current paper.

  13. 13.

    If the issue of identification is conceived in a way that requires a process of an unidentified target to be identified with, to frame the issue in question as how one identifies with oneself can be misleading, since according to the self-simulation view, there is no unidentified protagonist prior to the identification being established (as in the scenario of recognizing oneself in a photo). However, such requirement does not seem necessary. The issue merely concerns how the identification between the rememberer and the remembered is established.

  14. 14.

    Such flexibility also exists in future-thinking and mind-wandering. A cross-cultural study of the prevalence of the two visual vantage points in imaginary events during mind-wandering shows that almost half (46%) of participants reported most commonly adopting an observer perspective (Christian et al. 2013). Additionally, McDermott et al. (2016) revealed that future events are more likely to be imagined from an observer perspective.

  15. 15.

    A larger idea behind the self-simulation view for the identification in episodic memory is how one’s phenomenal self can manifest in many different ways. Out-of-body experiences (Blanke and Metzinger 2009), bodiless dreams (Windt 2010), and ego dissolutions in psychedelic experiences (Letheby and Gerrans 2017) are among typical cases for research on this topic. However, cases can also be found in ordinary experiences. Observer memory is one of them, and there are more to be explored. Besides, if one can accept that there are numerous forms of the (altered) phenomenal self, then one need not worry about the dualism that troubles McCarroll (2018).

  16. 16.

    Whether memory can be regarded as a mental action is a matter of debate which is beyond the scope of this paper. Here, I agree with Arango-Muñoz and Bermúdez (2018) that some mental processes of memory can be seen as mental action. That is, there is an active component in memory, even though it can be absent.

References

  1. Arango-Muñoz, S., and J.P. Bermúdez. 2018. Remembering as a mental action. In New directions in the philosophy of memory, ed. K. Michaelian, D. Debus, and D. Perrin, 75–96. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159591.

  2. Bernecker, S. 2010. Memory: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berntsen, D., and D.C. Rubin. 2006. Emotion and vantage point in autobiographical memory. Cognition and Emotion 20 (8): 1193–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930500371190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bertossa, F., M. Besa, R. Ferrari, and F. Ferri. 2008. Point zero: A phenomenological inquiry into the seat of consciousness. Perceptual and Motor Skills 107 (2): 323–335. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.107.2.323-335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanke, O., and T.K. Metzinger. 2009. Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (1): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buckner, R.L., and D.C. Carroll. 2007. Self-projection and the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Callow, N., and L. Hardy. 2004. The relationship between the use of kinaesthetic imagery and different visual imagery perspectives. Journal of Sports Sciences 22 (2): 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001641449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Christian, B.M., L.K. Miles, C. Parkinson, C.N. Macrae, J.D. Jackson, L. Libby, and T.O. State. 2013. Visual perspective and the characteristics of mind wandering. 4 (October): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00699.

  9. Dana, A., and E. Gozalzadeh. 2017. Internal and external imagery effects on tennis skills among novices. Perceptual and Motor Skills 124 (5): 1022–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512517719611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Brigard, F. 2013. Is memory for remembering? Recollection as a form of episodic hypothetical thinking. Synthese: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0247-7.

  11. De Brigard, F., D.R. Addis, J.H. Ford, D.L. Schacter, and K.S. Giovanello. 2013. Remembering what could have happened: Neural correlates of episodic counterfactual thinking. Neuropsychologia 51 (12): 2401–2414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Vignemont, F. (2018). Mind the body: An exploration of bodily self-awareness. Mind the Body: An Exploration of Bodily Self-Awareness. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198735885.001.0001.

  13. Fernández, J. 2014. Memory and immunity to error through misidentification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5 (3): 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0193-4.

  14. Fernández, J. 2018. Observer memory and immunity to error through misidentification. Synthese.: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02050-3.

  15. Fernández, J. 2019. Memory: A self-referential account. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klein, S.B. 2012. Self, memory, and the self-reference effect: An examination of conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Review 16 (3): 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Klein, S.B. 2013. The complex act of projecting oneself into the future. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4 (1): 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klein, S.B. 2015a. Autonoetic consciousness: Reconsidering the role of episodic memory in future-oriented self- projection. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69 (2): 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1007150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Klein, S.B. 2015b. What memory is. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 6 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kross, E., and O. Ayduk. 2016. Self-distancing: Theory, research, and current directions. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1st ed. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.002.

  21. Letheby, C., and P. Gerrans. 2017. Self unbound: Ego dissolution in psychedelic experience. Neuroscience of Consciousness 3 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/nix016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Limanowski, J., and H. Hecht. 2011. Where do we stand on locating the self? Psychology 02 (04): 312–317. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.24049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin, Y.-T. 2018. Visual perspectives in episodic memory and the sense of self. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (November): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Loftus, E.F. 1997. Creating childhood memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology 11 (7): S75–S86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marcotti, P., and P.L. St. Jacques. 2018. Shifting visual perspective during memory retrieval reduces the accuracy of subsequent memories. Memory 26 (3): 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1329441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. McCarroll, C.J. 2018. Remembering from the outside: Personal memory and the perspectival mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McDermott, K.B., C.L. Wooldridge, H.J. Rice, J.J. Berg, and K.K. Szpunar. 2016. Visual perspective in remembering and episodic future thought. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69 (2): 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1067237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Metzinger, T.K. 2004. Being no one: The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Metzinger, T.K. 2013a. The myth of cognitive agency: Subpersonal thinking as a cyclically recurring loss of mental autonomy. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (DEC): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Metzinger, T.K. 2013b. Why are dreams interesting for philosophers? The example of minimal phenomenal selfhood , plus an agenda for future research. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (October): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Metzinger, T.K. 2017. Why is mind wandering interesting for philosophers? In The Oxford handbook of spontaneous thought: Mind-wandering, creativity, dreaming, and clinical conditions, ed. K.C.R. Fox and K. Christoff, 1–27. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nigro, G., and U. Neisser. 1983. Point of view in personal memories. Cognitive Psychology 15 (4): 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90016-6.

  33. Perrin, D. (2016). Asymmetries in subjective time. In K. Michaelian, S. B. Klein, & K. K. Szpunar (Eds.), Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel. New York: Oxford University Press.

  34. Rice, H.J., and D.C. Rubin. 2011. Remembering from any angle: The flexibility of visual perspective during retrieval. Consciousness and Cognition 20 (3): 568–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schacter, D.L., D.R. Addis, and R.L. Buckner. 2008. Episodic simulation of future events. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1124 (1): 39–60. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schacter, D.L., D.R. Addis, D. Hassabis, V.C. Martin, R.N. Spreng, and K.K. Szpunar. 2012. The future of memory: Remembering, imagining, and the brain. Neuron 76 (4): 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Suddendorf, T., and M.C. Corballis. 1997. Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 123 (2): 133–167.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Suddendorf, T., and M.C. Corballis. 2007. The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (03): 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X07001975.

  39. Sutton, J. (2014). Memory perspectives. Memory Studies, 7(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698013518131

  40. Tulving, E. 1983. Elements of episodic memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tulving, E. 1985. Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology 26 (1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Windt, J.M. 2010. The immersive spatiotemporal hallucination model of dreaming. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (2): 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-010-9163-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. This research was supported by a grant from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Tung Lin.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, YT. The Experience of Being Oneself in Memory: Exploring Sense of Identity via Observer Memory. Rev.Phil.Psych. 11, 405–422 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00468-8

Download citation