Where's the part in that article where it was proven he did not? There was certainly a miscarriage of justice, but it sounds like everything still ended in a he-said-she-said. From your description, I was expecting an eventual proof of innocence and didn't see it. There's even a quote from the jury foreman insisting that the verdict shouldn't be interpreted the way you're interpreting it.

To understand this better, read "Try to Remember", by Paul R. McHugh. Therapists can and do often cause false memories and do real damage.

> can and do often cause false memories and do real damage.

False memories are almost always viewed as negative and certainly not desirable but what if you could use this effect for what you want to achieve?

False memories as way to engineer your past and improve your own life?

Isn’t having an accurate model of reality considered an inherent good?

Is being delusional somehow good as long as it leads to preferred outcomes? Seems questionable to me and rife with potential bad incentives.

If the false memories are constrained to sentiment, then I think it could be alright. I’ve become quite disillusioned with many things over the years; this disillusionment only serves to bum me out. If I could rewrite some of the few pivotal experiences that have me feeling this way, I would immediately benefit: I’d have more fulfillment in what I do and my disposition would benefit from looking forward to things as I used to.

On the other hand, one could imagine expunging useful negative feedback and being worse off (e.g. less socially adapted, lacking in character, etc).

Say you only have terrible, traumatic memories of extremely violent abuse throughout your entire life that is causing you such extreme issues that prevents you from leaving your room or interacting with anyone. Would you still prefer an accurate model of your life over a useful model of your life?

Inherently good doesn't imply inherently better than some alternative.

>Would you still prefer an accurate model of your life over a useful model of your life?

In the short term, absolutely. But I think my preference would be to work through the actual experience through different methods of therapy so that long term you aren’t forced to choose between reality and a functional existence. I don’t think the MIB eraser device is a good long term coping strategy.

>But I think my preference would be to work through the actual experience through different methods of therapy so that long term you aren’t forced to choose between reality and a functional existence.

Who is to say that therapy isn't just creating a useful model of your life?

I would hope that it is, but is a more useful model based on reality rather than fabricated delusion.

This was my thought as well. Increase self-efficacy by emphasizing successes. Increase happiness by emphasizing joys.

Since it's clear our memory is already false to a considerable degree (or holographic rather than photographic, if you like), and since memories/beliefs have an outsized influence on our feelings/thoughts/behaviors/actions, this seems like a great opportunity for, er, "ethical self exploitation".

Hacking, if you will.

I'm certain there are many methods for doing this very thing.

That's precisely how some of these therapists saw their jobs. There were interviews from some therapists who helped people recover memories where they said they didn't care whether the patient was actually abused as a child, so long as they came out of the sessions feeling better.

Like a false memory of a ride in a hot air balloon?

Or, at the risk of a Schizoid Embolism, becoming an adventure hero who saves a mutant Martian race from an evil slave owning corporation and restores the 'Blue Sky Over Mars'.

That would require proving a negative. I agree with your conclusion that nothing is truly proven.

We're not arguing over the existence of God here. Sure, you can never truly prove a negative, but you can never truly prove a positive either. New evidence leading to exoneration (above and beyond a mere finding of "not guilty") is still a coherent and useful concept to anyone who isn't philosophizing their way up their own ass.

There could have been something like DNA evidence eventually showing a different perpetrator, or proof that he was in a different country when the alleged incidents occurred. The sort of thing that would make it instantly clear to any reasonable observer that the recovered memories did not reflect reality. I was primed to expect an eventual finding like that, but there wasn't one.