大家好，我是今天的主持人袁园，欢迎大家来到哲学与认知科学明德讲坛第18期，服务器艺术人工智能哲学论坛第6期。

大家好，我是朱锐，今天晚上我的主要任务是翻译。My name is Rui and my main job tonight is function as a translator.

今天我们探讨的内容是记忆，有幸邀请到文学、心理学、医学、哲学和神经科学的多位学者，从不同的领域来探讨记忆这个主题。那么接下来有请宁肯——北京老舍文学院专业作家，老舍文学奖、鲁迅文学奖获得者；Daniel Schacter——哈佛大学心理系教授，记忆专家；贾建军——中国人民解放军总医院（301医院）老年医学研究所所长，主任医师，教授，博士生导师；Katja Vogt——哥伦比亚大学哲学系教授，规范认识论和伦理学专家；杨天明——中科院神经科学研究所高级研究员，动物认知神经机制研究专家。

记忆是自我认知的基础，但它同时也充满扭曲和各种不确定性。个人的记忆存在哪些典型的偏见和扭曲，背后又有怎样的机制？记忆到底有没有真假之辨？动物有记忆吗？关于记忆的各种技术，包括文字、数字媒体和图像技术，会不会从根本上削弱和改变我们个人对于记忆的认知？

我们先从宁肯老师开始。有一部日本的纪录片叫《全身小说家》，拍的是日本小说家井上光晴生命的最后5年，他曾获得日本最高文学奖芥川奖的提名。影片前半段是小说家回忆自己的经历，后半段是他回忆的情景呈现和其他当事人的讲述，揭示出小说家所回忆的自身经历也是虚构的。

我在您的虚构和非虚构小说写作当中都看到您说，“有故事才有记忆，有记忆才有自我意识”。所以我想问您，作为作家，自我是否意味着记忆和写作的双重虚构——在虚构的记忆中写作，在虚构的写作中挖掘记忆？有请宁肯老师。

The first question is for professor Ning Ken. Professor Ning Ken，there is a Japanese documentary “A Dedicated Life” about the last 5 years of the Japanese novelist Mitsuharu Inoue，who was nominated for the Top Japanese Literature award，the Akutagawa Prize. The first half of the documentary is the novelist’s recollection of his own experience and the second half is a representation or a recreation of the episodes in the memory and also the narration from other witnesses. As shown in the documentary actually, the writer’s recollection is mostly fictitious. 

So, in your opinion, does the writer's self imply a double fiction of memory and writing? As you wrote in your books, there has to be a story in order for memory to exist and there has to be memory for self to exist. As a writer, do you mean that self is a double fiction of memory and writing, writing in fictional memory and mining memory in fictional writing?
 

首先我想说，记忆这个主题我非常感兴趣。这样一个和每个人相关且可以深入讨论的主题，我觉得是非常有意义的。同时，记忆这个话题也引起了我的深入思考。

刚才主持人提到一个问题，作为一个作家，记忆和虚构之间的关系是怎样的？的确，对作家来讲，我觉得记忆和虚构有时候难以区分。而且这种难以区分带有主动性，而不是一种被动状态。有时候人的记忆可能是虚构的，但他自己不自知。好比事情可能并没有发生，但是由于洗脑、灌输、暗示等各种原因，他认为事情发生了，他把没有发生的事也当成自己的记忆。对于一个作家而言，记忆和虚构既有被动的、普通人的这一面，也有主动的一面。因为他从事虚构，就是要把记忆重构。没有重构就没有小说，甚至有时候重构的、虚构的记忆比记忆本身还要真实，这也恰恰是记忆主动性虚构存在的理由。

那么为什么有时候作家虚构的东西比真实还要真实？以我的个人体会来讲，人的记忆有时候会记录一段完整的时间，比如车祸或者遇到什么麻烦时。但是更多的时候，记忆是一种散点，没有故事性，但它留下的印象又非常之深。而这种印象深是有道理的。我举一个小时候的例子。我生活在70年代，70年代是中国的一个非常特殊的年代——一个没有书、没有电视的环境下。在我的记忆中，小时候已经几乎没有私人的买卖行为了，所有的买卖行为全部经由国有的商店。而在之前的50年代和60年代初，私人买卖还是有的。后来就都作为一种私有化的东西被取消了，这就使得我们的生活非常单调。我记得自己当时住在北京琉璃厂附近的一条胡同，一个四合院有七八户人家。我们当时对于一个邮差说谁家来信了这种事，都特别的惊讶、高兴、新奇。大家都去看，从院里跑到大门口。邮差一来，大家抢着把信拿走。但是有一次突然出现和邮差来不一样的事情，有人对着我们院的大门口喊了一声“有旧鞋换洋火”（洋火就是烟火，就是火柴，当时火柴也是受控制的）。这是我们小时候从来没有经历过的事情。所以我记得当时孩子全都跑出去。一看这和邮差不同，而且可以拿鞋换烟火，我们就都回到家里拿旧鞋，和他换了一包。事情很简单，但是给我留下的印象非常深。

由此，对于小说家，像这样的事情，它绝不仅仅是事情本身。换句话说，一件事情出现本身，其下还潜藏着巨大的内容——一个巨大的、被遮蔽，同时又有关系的东西。那么，作为一个小说家该怎么去虚构一本书呢？除了真实的事情，它下面的东西该怎样去反映？就像海明威所说，“小说露出的部分只是下面潜在的更大部分的冰山的一角”。

那么对于记忆而言也是一样，在旧鞋换烟火这个点下面仍然存在着像冰山那样的东西，这就是小说家需要构思出来的。所以我就写了一篇小说（小说的内容由于时间关系我就不多说）。这里，我只是概括地说一下我如何把它写成小说。我构思了一下：小说主人公“我”有一次问喊“旧鞋换烟火”那个破衣啦撒带着毡帽的人“除了烟火，能不能换别的？”那个人就问我，“你想换什么？”我说“你有没有小人书？我想和你换小人书，你要有小人书的话，我可以拿我们家最宝贵的东西，比如闹钟之类的？我现在已经不上学了，我给你换行不行？”当我虚构出这样一个所谓的记忆时，它比千篇一律的换烟火这个事情还要真实。因为它表达了那个年代对书深深的渴望，通过对书的渴望反映出那个年代的特点。为什么会出现对书这么大的渴望？这会引起人们的思考。

由此还可以引申出一系列内容，比如很多不相关的记忆能够结合在一起。由于时间关系我就不多说这些。我只是想说，小说所反映的所谓虚构的那部分记忆，它和记忆本身同样真实、同样重要，因为它是潜藏在露出那个点下面的东西。所以记忆和虚构两者对于小说家来讲，某种意义上是不可区分的，它们都非常的真实，甚至后者更加真实。这就是我关于小说家怎么去在虚构中挖掘记忆，在记忆中虚构的回答。
 

Thank you. Let me briefly translate professor Ning Ken’s point. As we know that there is a lot of reconstruction in everybody's memory, part of the reconstruction is passive. But as a writer that the construction is both passive and also most importantly active reconstruction. So when we reconstruct the memory, actively, which means we fictionalize memory, but in that fictionalization that there is actually is also a deep mining of truth and a greater truth for that matter.

Allow me to use a very simple example, because as a child that I remembered that back in the 1970s, when China was still impoverished and also that any kind of private selling and buying was forbidden and never seen or heard before. I remember that there was one time there is an old man yelling was basically that traveling through these alleys and asking to butter for a worn shoe with matches. So basically butter between worn shoes and matches. As a kid that I've never seen anything like private selling and buying and so that small, very trivial event left a deep impression on me. Then as a writer,  when I recollected that impression, I know that even though the impression itself is a sort of trivial, but there is a larger story. There is a deep meaning behind that one episode. So I tried to recreate that called iceberg belowed the surface and through recreation to activate that deeper meaning which is concealed by that there are very small impressive.

In general that a writer's job is to actively recreate those fictional backgrounds. In order to truly represent the meaning of a very trivial episode that's from perhaps the way back even in childhood.
 

刚才宁肯老师举了一个自己童年时候现实记忆的例子，并指出在文学作品中关于这部分记忆的虚构，恰恰说明了对记忆的主动虚构更为接近真实，而且接近的不是那个可见的、视觉上的现实，而是一个潜在的、被遮蔽的、不可见的真实。我想请问其他的几位老师对宁肯老师的发言有什么问题或者反馈？

I thought the distinction between the active and passive reconstruction was very interesting. Because, most of us who study memory believe that it is fundamentally reconstructive. And there are a variety of reasons why that is so. But typically, when we're reconstructing memory, whether we do it accurately or not, we're usually trying our best, to give an accurate rendition of the past, but there are a variety of reasons why we typically are not able to do that in the sense of a video recorder or a photograph, our memory doesn't work that way.  But it's interesting to me to hear the idea that there might be a kind of a more active reconstruction going on in the case of writing a novel where there would be an intentional reconstruction of an episode or giving up imparting to a character's memory, a reconstructive nature that would be the intention of the writer, where as the character we would think of as reconstructing the past in a passive way. Anyway, I found that an interesting distinction that I hadn't really thought about before.

宁肯先生关于主动重构和被动重构的区分很有趣。因为对于大部分记忆研究者而言，我们相信记忆是一种重构，并且有很多原因导致事情就是如此。但是当我们在重构记忆时，我们通常希望尽可能精确地重建过去，尽管有很多原因导致我们的记忆不能像录影或相机一样做到这一点。对我来说有趣的是，刚刚听到在写小说的情况下可能存在更主动的记忆重构。作者可能根据创作意图对情节进行有意的重构，或者根据作者的意图使得角色的记忆有更改或缺失，而我们会认为那个角色本身对过去的记忆进行了被动重构。我觉得宁肯先生的这种区分很有趣，我之前没有这样想过。
 

Schacter教授说，宁肯先生关于记忆的主动重构和被动重构的区分是个非常重要的区分。作为一个记忆研究者，我也是第一次听到这种区分，但我觉得宁肯先生的这种区分是非常合理的。这种主动的记忆重构，跟常人记忆的这种被动重构，确实有区分。
 

我想再稍微概括一点说。记忆作为一个点本身的意义有时候并不大。如果仅仅是从真实的角度来看，它很真实，比如用旧鞋换烟火。但如果它仅仅是一个孤立的记忆点，其真实性反而会大打折扣，因为它只是露出了和它相关的事物的冰山一角，遮蔽了它下面很多的真实。仅仅把这个点呈现出来，认为它就是100%的真实，我觉得是不对的。而文学作品很大的功能就是唤醒那部分潜在的东西。通过一个小点，它唤醒了在很多人记忆下面生活之中的很多东西。

接下来，我们有请贾老师。贾老师，我给您的问题是我特别关心的一个问题，因为我的家族当中，我伯父就是阿尔茨海默病去世的，所以作为70后，我也很焦虑。因为我现在也是46岁了，随着年龄的增长，感觉记忆质量在下降，这是一个明显的认知的变化。我就想问一下，正常衰老的记忆和阿尔茨海默病的记忆障碍有什么样的区别？我想知道这两者之间——就是随着年龄增长正常衰老的记忆和阿尔茨海默病的记忆障碍有本质的区别吗？不同的记忆系统，是同时老化或者同时发生记忆障碍，还是说不一定、并不是同步的。那么我把这个问题先抛给您。
 

好的。在线的各位老师，还有国外的朋友，大家晚上好。刚才听了宁肯老师给我们讲的故事，也因为自己做的工作，我感觉这个疾病跟真实事件的联系更多一点，因为我们面对着的很多病人都是活生生的人。那我就直接回答我们主持人的问题。

首先，因为在座的很多朋友还不是专业人士，我给大家解释一下，阿尔茨海默病是什么样的疾病？它是100多年前由一位德国精神科大夫阿尔茨海默发现的。他当时收治了一个51岁的女病人，名字叫奥格斯特，当时这个病人是以精神行为症状发病的。这个病人住院四年零六个月后去世。上个世纪初在德国等欧美国家，病理检查（尸体解剖）是做的比较好的。她去世了以后，阿尔茨海默获取她的脑组织，在显微镜下面看。发现这个病人的大脑组织结构与其他病人不一样，因为一般的精神科病人，脑子里是没有什么太多病理变化的，但是这个病人的脑子里有老年斑沉积，还有神经元纤维的缠结，这么两个特殊的变化出现。

阿尔茨海默请教他的老师和同事，大家都不知道如何解释这种结构的变化？接下来他们团队就把这个发现报道出来。后来，陆续发现这种病人越来越多。阿尔茨海默大夫1915年就去世了，他也就活了51岁。到1930年的时候，大家为了纪念他，就把这种疾病称为“阿尔茨海默病”，也就是说阿尔茨海默病是一种病理性的老化。刚才主持人问的问题非常好，我们都知道人老了以后，正常人年龄大了以后，包括到40多岁的时候记忆都会发生变化的，肯定比年轻时候都要差。但是一般的记忆减退是属于正常老化引起的，是与增龄相关的。而阿尔茨海默病的脑子里有跟正常人不一样的病理结构——他们的脑子里有了炎性细胞，有了神经元纤维缠结，打个形象一点的比方，就是有了疙瘩，属于病理性的改变。

那么目前来讲，在65岁以上的老年人群里，患阿尔茨海默病的大概在5~15%左右。以前大家对这个疾病认识不够，没有引起足够的重视，但是随着老龄化社会的日趋严重，这个疾病的患病率越来越高，给我们的社会、家庭造成的负担也是越来越大。不管是美国还是中国，就这个疾病而言大概要花费国家GDP的1%，也就是说我们全世界每年大概要拿出全部收入的1%还要多的钱来对付这个疾病，这个压力是很大的。一个家庭如果摊上这么一个病人，就中国来讲，要花费13万多的人民币，这个负担当然是不轻的。

那么从临床医学来看，我们怎么区分正常老化和阿尔茨海默病人呢？实际上就是靠临床经验。我总结出三点：

第一，如果是正常老化的病人找你来看门诊，他往往说“大夫，我这记性已经很差了”，就比如刚才主持人说“我现在老了记不住了”，这种情况反而是正常老化引起的；而阿尔茨海默病人往往是乐呵呵地说我没病，我没事，但家属或与其亲近的人发现他有问题了。这是最重要的一点区别。

第二，如果是正常老化，记忆力减退往往是经过别人的提示、提醒还可以回忆起来；而阿尔茨海默病人他回忆不起来，怎么着想不起来了，这是第二条。

第三，阿尔茨海默病引起的记忆力减退，往往还有其它伴随症状出现，就是身体上还有别的表现。但是正常老化引起的记忆力减退，往往只有记忆力减退，没有别的伴随症状或者体征。所以从我们的（临床）经验上来看，有这三条就能鉴别开来。

当然我们现在还有很多辅助检查，包括神经影像检查——做个脑部核磁共振，现在发展很快的分子影像等等。现在血液里也有很多比较特异性的标志物叫marker，都可以比较准确地把它区分开来。但是平时我们就凭这三条，就能把它们初步区别开来。好，谢谢主持人。
 

谢谢贾老师，解除了我很多顾虑。然后朱锐老师请您先翻译贾老师的问题和他的回答，一会儿我们再把问题抛给Schacter老师。

Apologies for the problem with the internet. We will come back to Prof. Schacter’s questions later. First, let me briefly translate Prof. Jia’s point about the differences between Alzheimer’s and normal aging memory loss. And according to Prof. Jia that the Alzheimer’s is increasing [becoming] a big problem for not only for China, but also for the entire world, and about 5 to 15% of the normal population will eventually develop into Alzheimer’s. In fact, the best guess is that the world will have to devote about 1% of the entire world GDP to the treatment of Alzheimer's. So it is a very serious problem for everybody, including China. 

Even though there are many clinical tools to tell the difference between Alzheimer's and the normal aging process, according to Prof. Jia, there are three very simple rubrics to tell the difference between the two. First, when the patient comes in and complains about memory problem, normally that patient does not have Alzheimer’s, because a true Alzheimer’s patient is not aware of his or her own memory problem. The second is that the Alzheimer’s they will have a very true difficulty in cute recollections, whereas the normal people are relatively having less problems with that. And the third, Alzheimer's is not just a memory problem, but also is accompanied by other physical impairment and physical symptoms.
 

我们进入下一个问题，这个问题是问夏克教授的，我看到在您的作品《探寻记忆的踪迹》的开篇谈到了马尔克斯的小说《百年孤独》，我们都知道马孔多的村民因为一场奇怪的瘟疫失去了记忆，最后连自我意识和身份都忘记了。

那么相比起在百年孤独当中马孔多这个没有记忆的世界，博尔赫斯的短篇小说《博闻强记的富内斯》中的主角富内斯则是一个完全相反的例子。他因为从马背上摔下来失去了知觉，等他在苏醒的时候就完全失去了遗忘的能力。他记得所有事物的所有细节，而他的自我也迷失在了无穷无尽的细节当中。

那么就您在这本书当中提到的马尔克斯和博尔赫斯的例子，我想提一个关于记忆、遗忘和自我意识之间关系的问题，那就是自我意识是如何既依赖记忆又依赖遗忘的呢？有请朱锐老师翻译。
 

Now let's return back to the question for Professor Schacter. Professor Schacter, as you wrote in your book Searching for Memory, you begin your book with a quote from Marquez's novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, where the villagers of Macondo lost their memory due to a strange plague. And compare to the world of Macondo, in which people do not have any memories, Jorge Luis Borges' short novel Funes the Memorious is the exact opposite example. After waking up from an accident, Funes lost the ability to forget. And his life basically passed in endless and unforgettable details.

Now the question is, Professor Schacter,  how do you see the relationship between memory and forgetting？And what is the relationship between these two and self or self awareness.

Right,  good question. What's so interesting about the start off example from the Marquez novel the village of Macondo is, he describes a kind of progressive process where the villagers at first have a kind of everyday forgetfulness, they might not remember an appointment or some everyday event, but the memory problem gets worse and worse for reasons that are never truly explained in the novel. But it gets to the point where the villagers forget the names of things and the functions of objects. They become almost completely helpless because of the extent and severity of their memory problems. What's interesting about that? There are two points I want to make, number one is that I think it links back to what we just heard about Alzheimer's disease, because in a way he was describing roughly a progression of memory loss that in some ways resembles what one sees with Alzheimer's disease. It starts off a little bit innocently, but then becomes much more severe and pervasive, to the point where the individual loses virtually all forms of memories, so I think there's a nice analogy there.

Second, another point is that the reason why it's the begin of the Searching for Memory book is that I think the example nicely illustrates the importance of memory, and how virtually everything in our mind depends so much on memory. You see that unraveling of all the different layers of memory. We have forgetfulness in Marquez's book , but in the Borges example, we have Funes the Memorious who doesn't seem to forget anything at all. Back to when I wrote Searching for Memory, the book first came out a number of years ago in the united states, the way I talked about it and the way I thought about Funes the Memorious was that: in some ways, remembering everything could be as harmful as forgetting everything. So Funes's mind is so overwhelmed with trivia and detail that he had a hard time functioning at an abstract level.

There is a famous case of a mnemonist, a real life case, known as Shereshevsky, who was described by the great Russian neuropsychologist, Alexander Luria, who in many ways resembled Funes. He had an overwhelming ability to remember virtually everything, but because of that, his mind was so cluttered with details that he had a hard time functioning at an abstract level, kind of like Funes. That story from Borges and the real life example of the Shereshevsky case led me and others to think that having too much memory can be almost as bad as having too little.One of the interesting developments over the last 15 years or so has been the description of a kind of extreme form of memory recollection that is a little bit like the case of Funes and Shereshevsky. Nowadays it's known as highly superior autobiographical memory. These are individuals who seem to be able to remember almost every event that's ever occurred in their lives. For example, most of us would struggle to try to remember what happened in our lives on May 7th, 1994, and we couldn't do it, but these people can do it pretty easily.

Now it's so interesting about these folks is that, for the most part they do function pretty well. They're not overwhelmed by their memory. Their memories are not interfering with their abilities to function in everyday life. So I think it provides a different perspective on the question of whether too much memory can be a bad thing. There are circumstances were too much memory can be a bad thing. An example would be post traumatic stress disorder. For example, some people are overwhelmed with uncontrollable memories of traumatic events that they only wish they could forget. But this example of highly superior autobiographical memory provides one instance where too much memory doesn't seem to be a really bad thing, at least for some of those people. I'm not sure if I answered all of your questions, but those are the responses that came to my mind.

这是一个很好的问题。书中开头所引用的马尔克斯小说中的马孔多镇很有趣的一点是，他描述的这些镇民一开始只是会忘记一些约好的事或者一些日常生活中的事情。而随着时间流逝，他们的记忆却因为小说中从未解释过原因慢慢变得越来越差。到了后来，大家甚至都忘记了事物的名字和功能。因为他们记忆能力的丧失，他们也开始变得极度无助。为什么这很有趣呢？我想引出的点有两个，第一个是我觉得这和我们谈到的阿尔茨海默病很有关联，他（马尔克斯）描述的这种渐进式的记忆丧失，某种程度上和阿尔茨海默病十分类似。它（书中的疾病）一开始的症状很轻，但是会慢慢变得越来越严重且无孔不入，直到这个人失去几乎所有形式的记忆，因此我觉得这是一个很好的类比。

第二个用这两个故事作为《追寻记忆的踪迹》的开头的原因是我认为这些例子很好的展示出了记忆的重要性，以及为何我们脑中的几乎所有的事物都依赖着我们的记忆，而你可以看见这一点能在记忆的几乎所有层面中展现出来。马尔克斯的书中更多的主题是忘记，而在博尔赫斯的例子中，记忆超强的富内斯却几乎不会忘记任何事情。当我在写最开始在美国出版的《追寻记忆的踪迹》的时候，我对于博闻强记的富内斯的思考是：有些时候记住一切和忘记一切一样痛苦。就像我们可以看见富内斯的脑中充满了细节和琐事以至于他没法进行抽象的思考。俄罗斯心理神经学家亚历山大鲁利亚在现实生活中也发现了一位和富内斯十分相像的记忆力很强的人叫做舍雷舍夫斯基。他极强的记忆力使得他几乎可以记住生活中的所有琐事，但因为他的脑中被塞满了各种细节，他和富内斯一样也很难进行抽象的思考。博尔赫斯的故事和现实中舍雷舍夫斯基的例子都使得我和许多人开始思考拥有太多的记忆或许可以和拥有太少记忆一样可怕。

过去十五年中一个很有趣的研究进展是我们对于超强记忆能力的描绘，这有些像富内斯和舍雷舍夫斯基，我们现在将它叫做超忆症。这些人几乎可以记住生活中发生的每一件事情。比如，我们绝大多数的人都会很难记住1994年5月7日发生了什么，但这些人却可以轻易的做到。

这些人很有趣的地方在于，大多数时间他们都十分正常的运作着，也并没有被他们的记忆量所压垮。多数时候他们的记忆都没有妨碍到他们的正常生活。我认为这一点为我们理解“记得太多是否是坏事”这一问题提供了一个新的视角。不过我认为确实在某些情况下拥有太多记忆会是一件坏事，其中一个例子是创伤后应激障碍。比如有一些人常常会被无法控制并极力想要忘掉的创伤记忆所淹没。但超忆症却提供了一个至少对于某些人来说，拥有太多记忆却并不一定是坏事的例子。我不确定我有没有回答你的所有问题，但这些是我现在能想到的回答。
 

Thank you，professor Schacter。夏克特教授回答的第一点讲到了马尔克思的小说《百年孤独》里马孔多村的场景跟阿尔茨海默病的情形非常相似。马孔多的村民和阿尔茨海默病的患者一样会有一步一步的记忆恶化，一开始是记不得人名或者一些日常的不重要的事物，随着时间的推移甚至会慢慢的忘记几乎所有的东西，在这个方面他们之间确实有一些非常有意思的平行关系。

第二个问题则和刚才袁园老师提到的博尔赫斯的小说《博闻强记的富内斯》有关，它和前文提及的故事是相对的，富内斯拥有极强的记忆力，他记得几乎所有的事物。在我看来，这种极端的记忆跟极端的遗忘都有可能是一种残疾或者说是一种障碍，他们可能会对人造成一些伤害，不过事实也并没有那么简单。

著名的俄国的神经心理学鲁利亚曾谈到一个真实事例，一位俄罗斯记者舍雷舍夫斯基能够记得见过的几乎一切，而这种超群的记忆力也让他的心智背上了沉重的包袱。比方说如果你问他1994年5月7号发生过什么，他能轻而易举的告诉你那一天发生所有事件。一般情况下，这种极强的记忆力并不会特别影响一些人的正常生活。但对于一些有创伤后应激障碍的人来说，这种极端的记忆可能是跟极端的遗忘一样，会是一种很严重的障碍。谢谢。
 

I have a question. The case that someone who has highly superior autobiographical memory and the question concerning whether it is a bad thing to have an unusual amount of memory are both very interesting. In the philosophy of mind, we use the term occurrent as meaning that some state of mind is functioning in the forefront of the mind versus a state of mind that can be prompted or can be made occurrent.

So it sounded to me the case of the highly superior autobiographical person is someone who remembers what he or she did only when the memory was prompted by a question. But it's the memory only goes not constantly active in the forefront of their minds. Up to the forefront of their minds when it was prompted by a question. And I am curious whether you think that too many things being present in the mind at the same time is a problem, as if there is a turmoil in it, too much is going on.

我想问个问题。超忆症的例子以及一个人拥有过量的记忆是否是好事的问题都很有趣。话说回来，在心灵哲学中我们用“发生”来指代脑中正在进行着的活动，这与可以被激发出来，或者可以被“发生”的记忆相对。

我的理解是，得超忆症的人只能够在被问到回忆相关的问题时才能回想起来，但是记忆并没有时时刻刻在他们脑中发生着。只有当被问到回忆时，这些记忆才会出现在他们的意识里。我很好奇。你是否会觉得过多的事情同时出现在脑海中是一件坏事，也就是这种脑中很混乱，很多事在同时发生。
 

Let me translate it first. 在心灵哲学之中有一个区分, 就是在线的和不在线的区分，所谓在线的就是指假如有一个记忆力超强的人，他所有的记忆都会同时在脑中浮现，这是一种情况。另外一种情况是大部分记忆不会一直在线，但是能够被回忆起来。这两种情况会不会有很大的差别。然后对这些记忆力很强的人来说，如果他所有的记忆都同时在线的话，他脑中是否会有一个记忆风暴，而他的心智也会完全被这些记忆所压垮。
 

I think that's a very important and interesting distinction that actually helps to understand different reactions of individuals with highly superior autobiographical memory. So the first case of that was a woman who was reported in a paper back in 2006. She was described by her initials A. J. and then she ended up writing a book about her conditions later and revealed her name, which is Jill Price. She fits your descriptions of someone who had involuntary memories coming to mind and clutter it, the current kind of memory that you talked about. She was not too pleased with her memory. She described her memory as a burden, for I think exactly the reason you described. But after that first case was reported and it was shown on (TV for) 60 Minutes and became well known at least in the united states, other people who met the criteria for highly superior autobiographical memory started coming forward.

And what became clear is that many or most of those people were pretty happy about their memories. They didn't find it burdensome, and I think it's because they had more control over them. They could remember when they wanted to, but they didn't find, the memories of events come to mind  involuntarily. So the distinction you made is exactly right. Another interesting point to know about those individuals goes back to some of the points made earlier in the discussion. It is that although their memories are accurate, it is not so under all circumstances.

They say, here's what I remember happened on May 7th, 1994, if you check their diaries, it's pretty much what happened. We checked if you can get good corroboration of these memories, they are still pretty accurate. But other tests have been done that shown that there are some experimental paradigms where most of us are subject to memory distortions of various kinds, where we can induce in the lab, a false memory. These people show the same susceptibility to those memory distortions and false memories. So I think it nicely makes the point that even these people who have an astonishing ability to remember a lot of things that happened to them accurately, their memories are still not like a video recorder or a photograph, they are fundamentally reconstructive. And you can show that by the fact that they are prone to the same kinds of memory distortions and illusions that everybody else is.

我认为做这个十分重要且有趣的区分，它可以帮助我们理解超忆症患者的一些与众不同的行为。第一例超忆症是在2006年的一篇论文中被提到的。她最初被称作A. J.，这也是她的姓名首字母的缩写。她之后在自己写的一本关于她症状的书中提到了她的真名，也就是吉尔普莱斯。她拥有符合你所提到的那种不受控制的进入并塞满她意识的记忆，那种“发生”式的记忆。她并不喜欢这些记忆，并因为和你所提到的相同的原因，认为它们是一种负担。但是当第一个例子被报导出来，在《六十分钟》被播放并且至少在美国家喻户晓之后，其他符合超忆症条件的人们也开始慢慢出现了。

结果我们慢慢发现大多数超忆症患者其实都对自己的记忆能力持蛮正面的态度，并没有觉得有很重的负担。而我觉得这是因为他们对这些记忆更有控制的原因。他们可以在希望回想起来的时候回想起来，也并没有发现这些记忆会不受控制的入侵他们的意识，所以我觉得你所做的区分是十分正确的。另外一个这些人很有趣的地方关系到一个我们前面讨论过的话题，那就是虽然他们的记忆很准确，但并非在所有的情况下都是如此。

他们会说，这是我印象中1994年5月7号发生的事情，假如你去看他们的日记，会发现他们基本上回忆的都是对的。我们也进一步验证了这些记忆的真实性，他们的回忆依旧很准确。但是有一些其他实验的范式已被证实能让我们中的大多数人的记忆发生扭曲，而我们也在实验室中引导人们生成了错误的记忆。结果这些记忆超群的人和我们一样容易产生错误和扭曲的记忆。我觉得这很好的证明了即使是这些有着超群记忆力的人，他们的记忆本质上也是重建性的，而并不像是录像或者照片。我们可以通过他们和其他人一样容易受到记忆扭曲和错觉的影响来看出来这一点。
 

您提到的在线的记忆和不在线记忆是非常重要的一个区分，也是非常合理的区分。实际上在2006年，美国有一个临床的先例，是一个名字叫做A. J.的女性，后来才知道她的真名叫Jill Price。她的所有的记忆都是在线的，并且很不可控。在我看来这种在线和不在线的一个重要区别是一个人能否控制自己记忆的回收。而如果记忆能够被控制的话，也许这种超强的记忆力并不一定完全是个负担，这是第一点。

第二点是我们在实验室中发现，尽管那些有超强记忆力的人的记忆在一般情况下确实比较准确，但是同样的他们也会有各种各样的错误的记忆，重构的记忆，或者是一种虚假的自我建构，这方面他们和常人的记忆是没有差别的。
 

好，谢谢朱锐老师，刚才Vogt教授提的问题引发了我的一个关于在线和不在线的思考。这可能是社交媒体时代带来的新问题。今天，记忆的储存和检索可能已经脱离了我们的身体，永久的保存在了网络上面，你既不能控制它，也不能消除它。它就在网络上面永久的、事无巨细的储存着。

但那样的话，就像我们讲到的，没有记忆的生活是可能的，但没有遗忘的生活可能自我是无法承受的。所以这是这个时代抛出来的一个新问题，每天有无数的关于我们的记忆碎片被上传到网络上面，我也想把这个问题抛出来供大家讨论。
 

Professor Vogt's distinction between our current and non-current memory raises a very interesting issue in the society nowadays. Due to the prevalence of media and technology, the stories and the retrieval of the information is always online, and they will never disappear. So perhaps we live in a society and a time where you may not have a personal memory. Forgetting has became impossible, exactly because everything is always somewhere out there all the time, in a non-personal sense. This is my feedback to the nice distinction made by Professor Vogt  and Professor Schacter. 
 

I have one follow up comment on that important point about technology and memory. That's something I've been writing about recently. I agree that there are a lot of retrieval cues out there in the form of photographs and posts on social media that are potentially memories that can remind us of lots of things and possibly prevent forgetting. But we also know from lots of research in psychology that there is an interesting phenomenon known as retrieval induced forgetting. What that means is that when we remember an experience, we will strengthen our memory for that experience, but we may also weaken memory for related experiences that we don't retrieve it at the moment.

This has been shown in a lot of different paradigms in the laboratory. The everyday life example might be you look at a photograph on Instagram or Facebook, you are reminded of something that happened in relation to that photograph, but you don't think of some other things that happened in relation to it. And what “retrieval does is forgetting” means is that those things you don't retrieve at the moment will be harder to retrieve in the future. So cues like photographs that are out there in social media can strengthen some memories, but can also weaken other related memories that you don't retrive.

So I think that makes it an even more interesting question about the effect of technology on memory. Because it does not just boost memory, it can also be making us forget related experiences that we don't retrieve at the moment.

关于技术和记忆，我还想指出一个重要的点。首先我同意如今的社交媒体上有很多以照片和推文的形式出现的回忆线索，而他们确实可以使我们想起许多事以及避免我们遗忘许多事情。然而还有很多心理研究提到过一个有趣的现象，叫做提取诱发遗忘。意思是我们回忆一个事件时，虽然会加强我们对于这一事件的记忆，但也会同时弱化与这个事件相关但却没有被回忆的经历。

很多实验室范式都讨论过这一现象。举个日常生活中出现的例子，当你在看一个Instagram或者脸书上面的照片时，你就会想到和这个照片相关的一些事，但是你不会想起和这张照片相关的另一些事情。所以提取诱发的遗忘的含义是，这些你现在不去回忆的记忆，在未来会变得更加难以回忆。所以说，像照片这样的社交媒体上的线索确实可以强化你的一些记忆，但是也会削弱另一些和这些记忆相关，但是你却并没有提取的记忆。

所以我觉得这个现象让技术对于记忆的影响这个问题变得更加有意思了。因为提取回忆并非只能促进记忆，它也会使我们忘记一些当下没有被刻意回想的记忆。
 

我同意刚才您说的记忆和技术之间的关系。实际上在我看来，记忆和遗忘之间的关系也有另外一面，那就是当我们每次在回忆一件事的时候，这种回忆本身同时也会弱化其他和这件事相关的记忆，这就是“retrieval induced forgetting”。我们在回忆A事件的时候，我们同时会弱化对于其他相关的B事件的记忆。现在各种各样的记忆辅助或者导致回忆的符号确实是无处不在.。但正是因为这种技术无处不在，使得我们只记得被强调的部分，而遗忘了更多其它细节。
 

因为朱老师卡顿了，我就把这个问题先抛给宁肯老师，然后也因为杨天明老师的问题是由朱老师准备的，所以我只能把问题抛给宁肯老师。

宁老师，那我就接着问您第二个问题，因为您在第一轮有谈到文学的唤醒作用。所以我特别想问您一些关于唤醒那些存在过、但是意识不到的记忆问题。就您自己的经历而言，那些记忆是图像、是声音、是文字，还是混沌的——混合着各种媒介的记忆？就您自己而言，您觉得您的记忆只能通过文学去唤醒吗，还是说可以被各种方式唤醒，只不过您输出的方式是用文学去唤醒他人的记忆？我就把这个问题抛给您。
 

关于唤醒这样一个话题，我相信这应该是文学最重要的一个工程，那么是否必须要通过文学去唤醒记忆呢？我想可能也有其他方式，比如说像催眠、精神分析，像弗洛伊德他们的学说、心理治疗等都可以恢复或唤醒一部分记忆。但是这种唤醒属于偏治疗范畴内的操作，是比较专业的。

而文学的唤醒是比较普遍的，不是病理性的，不是催眠性的，它是一种小说家或者文学作品对生活的描述和展示。它会唤醒很多人在生活中的习焉不察。我认为有些人如果不读书的话，甚至都没有办法进行回忆。我们经常在阅读之中会有这样的一种感觉，阅读的时候，回忆是一种很活跃的因素。而回忆本身也导致了阅读，所以我觉得文学和唤醒之间有一种非常密切的关系。包括像我这样的专业作家，也都需要经常看一些非常经典的，或者描述生活的作品。

我记得一些作家说过一些有点外行的话，他说我现在已经不需要再看小说了。一个小说家居然说我现在不需要再看小说了，而只是看点知识、杂学，我觉得这是违反记忆的。因为虽然知识和杂学也可以作为文学作品中很重要的一部分，但是真正需要唤醒的生活细节却不是靠知识唤醒，而是靠生活的那些细枝末节。像你去买菜，去逛自由市场，钥匙突然丢了，找不着锁了，没法回家了，出来的时候没顾上，这样的事。越是普通的生活细节描述，越能唤醒在生活中已经被忘掉的东西，已经不存在的东西。

我最近还在读美国作家卡佛的短篇小说，阅读他的小说能唤醒我在日常生活中的一些体验。我这样的作家平常很留心生活的一些小是小非，但是如果我没有阅读的话，我觉得就回忆不起来昨天干了什么，前天干了什么，一个星期以及一个月前干了什么。更不用说一年前了，这根本想不起来。

但是通过阅读卡佛的一些非常生活化的小说，我就能回忆起我某天是怎么回事，干了什么。而且他小说中的细节一下就唤醒了那些我跟他类似的感觉。我觉得我的生活很丰富，我觉得这种唤醒的功能恐怕只有文学能做到。还有一些好的、比较生活化的电影也能做到。而不是那种纯娱乐的恐怖片，悬疑片，这些都只是满足人们的娱乐需要。但是你要想能够感觉得到自己的存在，那种具体而微的存在的感觉，还是需要纯粹的，去描述人的心理、描述人的情感、梦想、烦恼、渴望、焦虑等一系列和心理有关的日常生活。

这样的文学作品最能够唤醒记忆，而记忆的本质，我认为就是生命。没有了记忆可以说就没有了生命。比如说像刚才贾教授说的阿尔茨海默病，得了阿尔茨海默病就等于一个人丧失了记忆世界，也就丧失了生命。他自己没有任何感觉，但他给别人带来了很大的负担。

所以某种意义上讲记忆是什么呢？如果一个人关注自己，关注生命，他就要通过大量的文学艺术作品去达到这种关注，像毕加索、达利那样的绘画其实都具有唤醒功能。还有音乐的唤醒功能，它会唤醒人们的内心的激荡，所以，我觉得文学艺术人文的存在都是在唤醒我们的记忆。

当然我说的文学作品是个体的记忆。还有集体的记忆，那么集体的记忆是靠什么唤醒的？也仍然是去靠那些非虚构的故事、历史、哲学、经济等等一系列事物，它会唤醒人的这种集体性的记忆。文学实际上也会唤醒历史记忆，只不过它和正经的历史学和社会学是不一样的，它有自己的方式，所以我觉得文学最重要的一个功能就是唤醒记忆。

Sorry, I apologize again, sorry that I don't know what happened tonight. The question is that how to reawaken the lost memory from the writer's point  of view. Professor Lin Ken's answer is that the first and foremost, we have to rely on emotional reenactments through fictional reconstruction. And the emotional reenactments  are the only way to reawaken  the lost memory.  This is true both individually and also collectively. That's the gist of professor Lin Ken's point. I'm sorry that I cannot translate every word of it because I didn't catch much of what he was saying.

我现在提一个给Vogt教授的问题。这个问题其实跟去年出版的一本书有关，是她主编的与皮浪学说的怀疑论有关的一本著作。我想问，记忆本身其实是一种纪律的机制，包括个人记忆、集体记忆和文化记忆，福柯把这样的一种记忆称之为权力的仪式。记忆和知识、权力都具有同样的性别、种族和阶级的特征，也是社会秩序合理化的方式。所以在这个意义上，对记忆的怀疑其实就是对现实的一种怀疑和抵抗。Vogt在这本著作当中谈到，作为一个怀疑论者，并不是持有某种肯定或者否定的观点，而是需要进行持续的探究。对记忆概念的无知和对记忆概念的教条主义，都会使得这种探究变得不可能。我想请Vogt教授从怀疑论跟当代认识论的关系，谈一谈如何处理记忆矛盾的表象和分歧？有请Vogt教授。

I recently read a book by professor Vogt. The book’s  name is “Epistemology After Sextus Empiricus”. In the book, professor Vogt emphasized that being a skeptic is not a matter of holding an opinion, but to engage in some kind of a continuous inquiry where's both ignorant of and also documents about memory will make that inquiry impossible. And also that as a focal emphasize that memory itself is a disciplinary mechanism, which he called the ritual of power. And it always chooses that what matters. And it sort out history full of fractures and convictions and turn them into a continuous narrative. So memory as a form of knowledge has a profound gender, race, and class characteristics and also indicate rationalization of social order and power structure. Therefore that I’d like to solicit comments from professor Vogt about, from a histological point of view, that's how to really deal with these all kinds of contradictions and distortions in memory as an active skeptic in the sense of continuous inquiry and of history and ourselves and also ritual power and things like that.
 

Maybe one way to think about this is to look at a class of verbs that philosophers or people in epistemology call “Factive”, for example, to know something or to understand something, if something or if you understand something, then that which you know or understand is a fact. You cannot say, I know that such and such, but such and such isn't true, or isn't a fact I understand such and such a theorem, then that means you understand it and not that you misunderstand it. And on the surface, it looks that like to remember working in the same way in which to know or to understand works that if you remember something, then that which you remember actually being a fact. I think it's a very interesting question sort of whether that is plausible or not, like several of you have already mentioned the difficulty of accurately remembering something, but then also the reconstructive effort and that there seems to be an active element in remembering.

And I find it kind of a really difficult question whether we should think that to remember is “Factive” because it's sort of on the surface of sort of the grammar of the verb is as if it is “Factive” but it just made that may be misleading. And because it seems that the more you think about memory, the more you see what are the active dimensions of the cognizer either. I was interested in the point that professor Schacter made in response to the last question that if we remember one thing, then it means like, say, if there's a memory prompted by a photo of one event, and that may also mean... that some other events are less remembered.

So even if we don't as if intentionally mislead or kind of manipulate our memory, the mere fact of selectivity seems to inevitably create sort of a story, a narrative. And the mere fact that it is selective means that it could also be a different story because it could also be a different selection that could also have been other photos that prompt other memories and then so on and so forth. And then on the whole you have a kind of in general, somewhat different narrative about your own past. So I think that those questions are extremely difficult. It's interesting that you connected to my general interest in skepticism because the more we think about the active dimensions of memory, the more we are prompted to keep an open mind on the factivity or not of memory, of what it’s really like, how much active construction is involved, even if in a best case scenario of remembering things very well and not inventing things and so on.

But nevertheless the mere selectivity does involve I think inevitably kind of active dimensions. And maybe one more kind of distinction that I find very interesting here is and that is something because when I was invited to this, you said that I should also mention some Plato and I'll do that. Now one distinction that interests Plato is whether a memory is prompted by something that is similar or by something that is dissimilar. He finds it very interesting that both happens. And I also find that very interesting like memory can be promoted or it could be a cue for a memory that you see a photo with your friends. So you see the photo of your friend, it prompts the memory of the friend. But it could also be in Plato’s example, you could see a dress and it reminds you of a person because that person used to wear that kind of dress and the dress is very dissimilar from the person.

So it seems that those cases where something dissimilar prompts a memory function differently, they already kind of involve like chains of association where certain things are kind of connected in the mind and through sort of several steps of association. And that if we factor in that dimension that there is not only the kind of being remembered by something similar, but also by these dissimilar things. And then by these chains of association and then if these chains of association also involve as an inevitably some contingency like you know what are the sorts of things that I happen to associate violin music with Paris and you happen to associate it with having a glass of wine. And those kinds of things seem highly contingent, but then that I think strengthens this concern that even if there's kind of no intentional manipulation of memory, there is selectivity. And there is as it were, some chance, even with it, there's some kind of happenstance and those are things I find very interesting.

可能思考这个问题的一个角度是去看看哲学家所说的事实性的动词，就是说知道、理解某个事情本身就意味着那个事情带有事实性，要不然你就不会知道或不理解它。表面上看记忆和知道、理解类似，也有这种事实性在里面。但有趣的是，就像刚刚很多人提到的一样，精确地记住一件事很难，记忆中还包含了重构和主动性的部分。

我认为记忆是否是具有事实性的动词的问题很难回答。从动词的语法上讲它是事实性的，但这一点可能会误导我们。似乎我们越去思考记忆，就越会意识到认知者在其中扮演的主动成分。我对于Schacter教授对上一个问题的回答中提到的一点比较感兴趣，就是说如果我们记得一件事情，比如有记忆被某个事件的照片所触发，那可能同时意味着我们就不太记得其他一些事情了。

所以即使我们的记忆不被有意的误导或者操纵，这种选择性不可避免地会创造自己的叙事。选择性意味着可以有不同的故事，比如不同的照片触发了不同的记忆等等，之后总体上你就有了对于自己过去的不同叙事。所以我认为这些问题很难回答。有趣的是你联系到了我在怀疑论方面的兴趣，因为我认为我们越去思考记忆的主动性维度，我们就越对于，记忆的事实性与否、记忆是怎样的、包括了多少主动重构，保持开放的心态，即使是在记忆力很好、不编造事情的最佳情景下。

不过选择性不可避免地包括了主动性维度。我觉得很有意思的另外一种区分来自柏拉图。他说，我们对一件事的记忆，可能是由相似或者不相似的线索所触发的。比如，相似性体现在，你看到朋友的照片想到这个朋友，而不相似性在柏拉图的例子中体现在，你看到一套裙子想到经常穿这类裙子的人。似乎不相似的线索触发记忆的情况有着不同的机制，它们已经涉及了联想链条，也就是说头脑中的一些事情通过几步联想被联系起来。而联想链条带有随机性的特征，比如，对我来说小提琴会让我想起巴黎，对你来说小提琴会让你想起葡萄酒。这进一步强调了即使没有对记忆的人为操纵，记忆仍然具有选择性和随机性。这很有趣。
 

我觉得你的问题一个方面是比较难的一个问题。但是另外一方面又让我想起，也许“记忆”类似于哲学家所说的，比如说“理解”，“知道”他们都有事实性，“factive”，就是说你知道某件事情，本身那件事情就带有事实性，不然你是不会知道它的。“记忆”是否也有这种事实性在里面？就是说你记得某个东西，或者回忆起某件事，尽管回忆中不可避免地包含着重构或者是选择性，但是回忆事实本身也许带有它事实性的一面。

从另外一方面来讲，这种重构一方面可能带有一定的虚构成分，但另一方面它也是一种不可避免的记忆选择性的结果，而在选择性的层面，它带有一种随机性。这种随机性以及选择性，不一定是一般意义上的歪曲或者操纵。

本来我今天来参加这个讲座，我以为我会主要谈柏拉图，现在我借这个机会来讲柏拉图。柏拉图曾经说过，当我们在回忆一件事的时候，相似性和不相似性同样可以导致对事件的回忆。而不相似性，比如说小提琴，对我来说会让我想起巴黎，对你来说会让你想起一瓶葡萄酒。这种心理的连接带有非常随机的特征，而这种随机性也是记忆选择性不可避免的结果，所以记忆的选择性是否可以同时和其事实性一直或相容，这是一个非常重要的问题。
 

因为时间的关系，我们就先请朱锐老师提问杨天明老师，因为是神经科学的专业，就由您来准备。
 

Apologies to Prof. Yang because due to my lab is a neural thing, so this is a question for Prof. Yang. As a neural scientist, I would like to know that how different is the animal memory of human memory, particularly that because as we understand in general, or we believe at least, animals may have a space memory, have a robust special memory. But now their memory of time, for instance, whether or not animals can engage in so-called time travel as humans do, that seems to be a very interesting question, I would like to solicit comments from you.

我对杨老师的问题就是：动物的记忆跟人的记忆有什么差别？尽管我们一般认为动物有空间记忆，但是我们一般同时相信动物是没有时间记忆的。动物就是所谓总是“生活在现在”，但是否动物也有时间记忆呢？杨教授可以用英文回来先回答。if you want.
 

So I think Prof. Zhu probably has read a lot about the hippocampus and the spatial memory, this kind of studies. These studies have been really popular recently because they won the Nobel Prize. Time is a very interesting question. I think a rule of thumb about memory is that if something can be perceived, it can be memorized, and can be stored in memory. And we know that animals can perceive time. As many [studies of] neuroscientists have shown that animals, including monkeys, rodents, and birds, can judge the duration of a period. They can understand the temporal sequence of events, and they have the concept of temporal sequence. They can store sequences in their memories, and they can even reproduce the sequences afterwards. So, if we are just talking about the memory of time lengths or the memory of temporal sequences, the animals obviously have that.

Interestingly, the hippocampus does not only contribute to the spatial memory, as we all know, it’s also highly relevant to the memory of time. As we know, when we or an animal travels through space from point A to point B, in addition to the change of spatial locations, there is always a a temporal sequence accompanying that change of location. When you’re moving, you will be receiving different kinds of visual stimuli and other sensory stimuli related to your movement. All these stimuli join together and form a temporal sequence. To some degree, the space itself can be defined by this temporal sequence of sensory inputs. So, there are some researchers believe that the hippocampus may be processing spatial information and temporal information with a universal mechanism.

So I think that’s about the question about the memory of time. But maybe Prof. Zhu’s question also includes another aspect, which is, do animals have episodic memory? To people who are not familiar with the concept, episodic memory is simply a memory of specific events, like what you had for breakfast this morning or the memory about a party in last week. There are three important elements of episodic memory- what, when and where. “When” is of course a very important component. Some people believe that animals don’t have real episodic memory, partly because they think that episodic memory requires mental time travel, which could be a unique capability of a human. Also, because animals don’t have languages, we cannot just ask them if they remember something or not.

Nevertheless, there are many studies shown that, at least from the point of an animal’s behavior, they do possess the ability to remember the three elements of episodic memory, the “what, when and where”. For example, there’s a kind of birds, scrub jays, which store food at different locations. Sometimes the food item is a dead insect, sometimes it’s a nut. After a while, they will go back to the locations to retrieve their stored food. And based on the food type and the storage time, they know when and where to go back to retrieve the food, because they know a dead insect wouldn't last very long, but a nut would last for a very long period.

So, based on this kind of behavior, we know that many animals can store memories about “what, when and where”, and they can link these elements together to direct their behavior. I personally believe that animals, at least mammals, including non-human primates, have a memory system very similar to ours. The animals don’t have language, that’s an important difference between animals and humans. So, the verbal aspect of memory is certainly different between us and animals.

Otherwise, I think both humans and animals share a lot of similarities in terms of the memory system.

我想朱教授可能已经读过很多关于海马体和空间记忆相关研究的文献。因为得过诺贝尔奖的缘故，这些研究最近非常火热。但时间也是一个很有趣的问题。我认为记忆的原理之一就是：能被感知的东西都能被记忆——都会被储存在记忆中。我们都知道动物能够感知时间。很多神经科学家（的研究）显示，猴子、啮齿类以及鸟类等动物都能够判断一个持续的时间段，能够理解事件的时间顺序。它们有时间顺序的概念，可以将顺序存储在记忆中，甚至可以在事后重现这个顺序。所以，如果我们只讨论时间长度的记忆或者时间序列的记忆，动物们显然有。

有意思的是，海马体不仅有助于空间记忆（众所周知），它也与时间记忆高度相关。因为正如我们所知，当我们或动物从空间中的A点移动到B点，发生空间位置的变化，总有一个先后顺序会伴随着位置的变化产生。当你在运动时，你会接收到不同种类的视觉刺激，以及其他与运动相关的感官刺激。所有这些刺激一起形成一个时间序列。在某种程度上，空间可以由这些感官输入的时序来定义。因此有研究者认为，海马体对空间信息和时间信息的处理可能具有通用的机制。

所以我认为这是一个关于时间记忆的问题。但也许朱教授的问题还包括另一个方面，那就是，动物是否有情景记忆？我为不熟悉这个概念的人讲解一下，情景记忆就是对某个特定事件的记忆，比如你今天早餐吃了什么，或者是关于上周派对的记忆。情景记忆有三个重要的要素——何时，何时，何地。“何时”当然是一个非常重要的组成部分。有些人认为动物没有真正的情景记忆，部分理由是情景记忆需要精神上的时间旅行，而这可能是人类特有的能力。而且因为动物没有语言，我们无法（直接）问它们记不记得什么。

不过，有很多研究表明，至少从动物行为的角度来看，它们确实具有记住情景记忆的三个要素的能力，即“什么时候、在哪、发生了什么”。举个例子，有一种叫灌丛鸦的鸟，它会在不同的地方储存食物，有时是死去的昆虫，有时是坚果。过一段时间后，它们可以回到原来的位置取回所储存的食物。它们懂得根据食物的种类和可存放时间，何时何地去取回食物，因为它们知道死去的昆虫没法存放很长时间，但坚果却可以。

因此，仅仅基于这种行为，至少许多动物能够储存关于“什么，何时，何地”的记忆，能够把这些要素联系在一起来指导自身的行为。所以我个人认为，动物，至少哺乳动物包括非人灵长类动物，都具有与我们非常相似的记忆系统。动物没有语言，这是动物和人类之间的一个重要区别。所以言语记忆在我们人类和动物之间肯定是不同的。

但除此之外，我认为人类和其他动物在记忆系统方面具有很多相似之处。
 

谢谢杨老师。杨老师的回答分为两点：第一点是一般原则下凡是能够被感知到的，就是可以被记忆下来的。我们有充分的实验证据证明哺乳动物、啮齿类动物和鸟类动物都能够记得时间的长短以及时间的次序。而海马体呢，不仅对空间有记忆，而且很有可能是利用了空间记忆和时间记忆，他们之间共享一个相同的机制，这是第一点。

第二点就是，诸位老师问动物有没有所谓的事件记忆（episodic memory）？很多人认为动物不可能有事件记忆，因为事件记忆第一要求有语言，第二要求有所谓心理的时间旅行mental time travel，这两点在很多人看来都是人类所独有的。但是从我的观点来看，事件记忆的三个要素——什么东西，在哪，什么时候，关于这三点的动物（记忆）实际上是有研究的，特别是灌丛鸦的研究说明它们在藏食物并回去再去获得食物的时候，他们是可以清楚地显示他们对什么时候以及在哪是有记忆的。
 

谢谢杨天明老师。接下来我有两个问题提给Schacter教授。第一个问题是记忆主观建构的问题。Schacter教授在书中写到，记忆不是对事件的忠实记录，而是我们的大脑基于当前活动的影响和过去的经验和知识，对事件进行的编码和储存。那既然记忆是个人主观不断重新建构的结果，我们该如何去理解和认同他人的记忆和集体记忆？这是第一个问题。

第二个问题是，是否所有的创伤事件都会被压抑在无意识的记忆里？之后这种无意识的记忆不受控制地、非自愿地、像幽灵一样不断地强迫性地回访，它如何影响我们的感知、思维和行动？
 

Due to the time constraints, I'm going to throw two questions at once to professor Schacter. The first question is that as you emphasized in your book that memory is mostly a result of subjective construction. So how do we understand and identify with other people or collective collective memory?  Question two, what exactly does trauma do with memory? Has trauma tended to be suppressed  memory? If so, are these some kind of ghost in the corner hiding in the visas off somewhere and haunting us throughout our lives.
 

我有三点。

第一点是关于创伤的。尽管很多人都说创伤是被压制的，但实际上根据现在的记忆研究发现，情况几乎是相反的，也就是说创伤更容易被记住。在神经科学上，有杏仁核和海马体两个结构，它们非常相近，并有非常明确的互动，这导致创伤更容易被记得而不是被遗忘，这是第一点。

第二点是袁园的第一个问题，就是既然记忆有重构性，那么我们之间怎么能够共享记忆，包括别人的记忆或者集体记忆？我认为尽管记忆充满了重构，但是我们依然有记忆的共同核心，它是共享的，所以没有太大的问题。

第三点是在我看来非常重要的一点，就是刚才讨论到的心理时间旅行。时间旅行包括两个方面，一个是回到过去，另外一个是走向未来。动物能不能够像人一样，做朝向未来的这种投射？现在至少有一些证据说明动物可以像人一样，既可以回忆过去又可以投射到未来。实际上在心理学上以及神经科学上有大量的证据说明人在想象未来的时候，跟人在回忆过去的时候，这两种神经过程、心理过程几乎是一样的，是不可分的，这也说明记忆不仅仅是关于过去的，记忆也是关于未来的。未来的想象或者过去的回忆，它是一个不可分的过程。所以从这个方面来说，当人们在想象未来的时候，体现了记忆本身的灵活性，而这种灵活性也许就是记忆为什么充满扭曲充满重构的原因之一。
 

If I may Yuan Yuan, I wanna throw a question to both professor Schacter and also professor Vogt. I want both of you to address this question which is related to the points that you made. As I read memory studies, the more I read, the more I felt that there is no process called “remembering”, there is only retrieval of information and the retrieval of information can be used in future simulation and also can be used in any other processes, rather than remembrance

So in other way that as we know，Plato that emphasizes that all the knowledge we know is from remembering from recollection. If that there is no remembering，there is no actually a process called remembering other than this neutral called retrieval of information for a foreign process.

Then first of all, I wonder if you agree with this kind of a possibility of this hypothesis that called elimination of this remembering and second is that from Plato point of view, what do we know and how do we understand the so called “anamnesis”?

我想问两位外国教授同样的问题。因为我个人在学习记忆的时候，越来越发现没有一个心理过程叫做回忆，而只有一个信息提取过程，而这个信息提取是被其他的过程所共享的，比如说畅想未来，还有其他很多的心理过程，也就是说没有一个真正的实在的过程叫做回忆。而柏拉图又特别强调回忆是所有知识的来源。如果我这种假设成立的话，我们怎么样去理解柏拉图的这种回忆说。我想问两位教授，一是可不可以说没有一个过程叫做回忆，另外一个是回忆是不是真的有所谓的独立的认知意义？
 

I'll just give a very quick response to that. It's a very important and interesting question. What I would think about is that remembering is a subset of retrieval. In other words, we can retrieve information for lots of different purposes. And often when we're retrieving information for a purpose, other than recalling an event in the past where we call that decision making or we call that future thinking，We call that imagination or we call that creativity and it's only a subset of experiences where we apply the label “Remembering” when we either are intentionally trying to think back and come up with a past event or something comes to mind, and we have the subjective sense that this is a particular part of my past. And that's one of the things we've been studying in my lab recently. I think remembering is a small subset of retrieval.

在我看来回忆是信息提取的一个小的子类。我们可能出于多种原因进行信息提取。当这个原因不是回忆过去的时候，我们会叫它决策、思考未来、想象或创造力。只有当我们有意地回顾过去想到一个过去的事件，或者突然头脑中出现一个事件我主观感受到这是我过去的一部分的时候，我才为这个信息提取的子类打上“回忆”的标签。信息提取是我们实验室最近在研究的东西之一，而回忆是信息提取中的一部分。
 

在我看来回忆是信息回收的一个小的分类。信息回收，包括在未来想象等很多其他的信息过程之中，但是回忆是其中的一部分，尽管是很小的一部分。
 

So maybe the first thing I want to say is that this way of studying both kinds of thinking about the past and thinking about the future kind of conjointly, is one of the things that I find most interesting in a plato that is also kind of a point that interests him very much.

I have a question about animal memory and episodic memory because I would have thought that it is one dimension of both anticipating future scenarios and remembering past scenarios, episodic anticipation and episodic memory that is not only the verbal or linguistic dimension, but that at least in humans, there is an affective dimension. And I would have thought that it relates very much to the role that all of this place in the decision making stage like you remember that you ate such then part of that is that you remember that you liked it or that you disliked it. It has some kind of affective or emotional or aversion-desiderative coloring and sort of pro-con coloring. It would interest me whether you think that in animal memory that kind of affective dimension exists? Do we have ways of studying this？How would we even go about studying this?

That would interest me very much, but I'll say very quickly about the interesting question about such a thing as remembering in Plato, there is a distinction which I find very interesting and I think a lot of philosophers accept that distinction between on the one hand, remembering in the sense of a state that has not been interrupted. So for example, if you know your date of birth, but you don't have it all the time or current in your mind, then it’s correct to say, I remember my date of birth like I can tell you my date of birth, but it's not like I think about it all the time. When someone asks me what it is, I still have to remember it. But it's not something that I have to retrieve and then versus so that would be remembering versus recollecting. For example, let's say someone asks you, do you know the parallel postulate. I did that when I was 18 in high school, I learned that and you have to do a little bit of digging in order to reconstruct what it is. That would be a case of you are able to recollect it by taking some in between steps. I don't know what was that about and sort of getting into it step by step.

I tend to think that there is an interesting distinction between things that we have to actively retrieve because they are somehow not immediately accessible to us versus things that we can, in principle, remember if we prompt it.So that's a kind of technical distinction or it's somewhat arbitrary distinction. But the point is to capture that there are these cases where we just have some information once in a while we bring it to the forefront of our minds versus we kind of really have to dig it out.

我个人对前面所说的同时研究回溯过去和朝向未来也非常感兴趣，这也是我关于柏拉图感觉最有意思的部分之一，柏拉图自己也对这个问题感兴趣。

我有一个关于动物记忆和情景记忆的问题，因为我会想到无论是在回忆过去，还是畅想未来的过程中，人类不仅有语言文字的维度，也有情感的维度。并且这会关系到它在决策过程中发挥的作用，比如你记得自己吃过一个东西，这种记忆里就包含了对它的态度是喜欢还是不喜欢。它总有一种情感的，渴望-厌恶，正-反的色彩。我感兴趣的是，动物记忆中有没有这样一种情感反应？我们是否有研究这个问题的手段？我们如何去研究这个问题？

我接下来要讲讲柏拉图的回忆说。实际上很多当今的柏拉图学者在柏拉图的意义上对回忆做一个区分。第一种是不间断的回忆。比如如果你记得自己的生日，虽然你现在没有想着它，但一被问起就可以回忆出来，不需要努力去攫取这种信息。第二种是需要努力攫取的信息。打个比方说，有人问平行线定理是怎么回事，我在18岁上高中的时候学过这个，我需要努力攫取才能重建信息。这时候你需要通过一些中间步骤来重建信息。你可能一下子想不起来，但是通过中间步骤可以一步步接近那个信息。

这种区分当然在某种意义上带有一定的任意性，但是重点在于对于能立即获取的记忆和需要努力攫取的记忆的区分。
 

我个人对前面所说的这种回到过去，然后朝向未来的这种模拟非常感兴趣。

在动物心理上面，我的问题是动物在做这种事件记忆的时候有没有像我们这样的一种情感反应？我们在回忆过去的时候，总有情感的色彩。怎样去理解动物这种时间旅行的情感特征?这是第一点。

第二点是关于柏拉图的回忆说。实际上很多当今的柏拉图学者在柏拉图的意义上做一个区分。一种是我们记得某个东西，尽管你不问我，我不知道，但是你一问我我马上就可以知道。这种叫做回忆，但是不需要努力去攫取这种信息。第二种是你必须得努力的去攫取已经被遗忘的信息，也就是通过走很多中间步骤。

打个比方说，如果我们回忆中学时学的平行线定理是怎么回事，你可能一下子想不起来，但是你必须得通过中间的步骤不断地攫取，只是在中间步骤的意义上才是一个很重要的回忆的过程。

这种区分当然在某种意义上带有一定的任意性，但是在柏拉图的研究中还是有很多学者是做这种区分的。
 

我想在这边回应一下Vogt教授问的动物相关的问题。那如果不介意的话，我就直接用英文。

So professor Vogt just asked a question about whether the animals have memories with an affective component or the emotion. And I would say, yes, the animals definitely have such memories, if not more than humans. In the lab, we train and test the animals with rewards and punishments, and they can learn to associate a stimulus like a sound or picture with a reward or a punishment. After learning, they often would show many emotion-like responses to the stimulus itself, such as a change of heart rate, pupil dilations, and many other behaviors, which suggests that they do remember what the stimulus means to them in terms of whether it's a good stimulus or bad stimulus, whether it will lead to a reward or a punishment. There is a strong component of emotion in the animal’s memory.

所以Vogt教授刚刚问的是，动物是否具有情感性的记忆。实际上动物可能比人更富有这种情感性的记忆。在实验室中，我们用奖赏和惩罚对动物做训练和测试，它们能够学会把声音或图片的刺激和奖赏或惩罚联系起来。在学习之后，他们经常对刺激显示出很多类似情绪的反应，比如心率变化、瞳孔扩张等，这表明它们确实记得这些刺激对它们而言是好还是坏、是会导致奖赏还是惩罚。在动物的记忆中有强烈的情感成分。
 

杨教授的回答就是说，实际上动物可能比人更富有这种情感性的记忆。他们在实验室里有充分的证据说明，动物知道、记得、能够有预感，哪一个刺激是有害的，哪个刺激是好的。
 

那么我接下来把问题抛给贾建军老师，这个问题同样关于记忆的衰退和丧失。我想问，这种记忆障碍，无论是衰退还是丧失，是否会影响情绪的感受和疏离？还是说这个事件的信息消失了，但是经历事件时的情绪感受并不会受影响。再或是正因为无法去归因到底是什么样的事件导致这样的情感，反而会导致我们在这种情感状态、甚至是负面的情感状态当中持续更长时间。好，有请贾建军老师。
 

谢谢主持人。我想这个问题可能在座的各位，特别是像杨老师这样搞神经机制研究的专家，在这方面理解更深一点。我想记忆和情绪都对维持我们人体正常的生理活动发挥作用。我们体内血液、体液里，有很多神经递质，比如记忆与乙酰胆碱有关系，情绪更多的是与五羟色胺、多巴胺有关系，这些神经递质在体内都是相互作用的，情绪可能更多的和有关，但这些神经递质在体内都是有相互作用的，这是第一点。

第二点，我们现在通过发展迅速的神经影像学和脑网络的研究发现，很多的神经环路都相互联系，所以说情绪和记忆是密切相关的。但并不是说一个人没有了记忆就没有了情绪，它并不是很同步。

另外我们发现，情绪低落是抑郁症最主要的特征之一，而抑郁本身就是阿尔茨海默症发病的一个高危因素。对于它们两个关系的研究，包括基础研究、临床研究目前来讲有很多。就其发生发展的机制目前有很多的假设，比如说我刚才提到的神经递质的关系，脑网络的关系等等，但是确切的机制目前也不是太清楚。

所以说今天晚上通过跟我们周围的老师，特别是搞哲学、宏观科学、人文科学的老师们跨界的对话，我们增长了不少知识。提示我们在研究客观世界的时候，有时候还是要把主观上的能动性、宏观上的东西等结合起来，进一步开拓我们的思维，把很多假说变为现实。还有一点，刚才大家说的episodic记忆，叫事件记忆，从我们临床角度上来讲，实际上叫情景记忆。可能情景记忆是事件记忆的一部分，但不是等同的。
 

As regards to the question raised by Yuan Yuan, about whether or not memory loss leads to emotion loss or the other way around. Professor Jia's answer is that the relationship between memory and the emotion is very complex and a primary system of neural transmitters, put for instance acetyl choline, there is a network of these feedbacks between these different systems. The exact mechanism between the two is still yet to be, as obtained, completely clear. That's the first point. And the second point is about the translation of episodic memory. Professor Zhu translated as 事件记忆 perhaps a better translation is情景记忆.
 

因为时间的关系，原本我还计划分享几个案例，但是留在下一次吧。我就做一个简单的结语。

因为我是做纪录片和当代艺术摄影的，我理解记忆本质上就是视觉的图像，同时也是想象力的媒介。在这个意义上，所有的艺术作品在某种意义上都是一种记忆装置，而所有的记忆装置都具有塑造未来的潜力。也正是因为记忆的这种冲突和张力，激发出特别丰富多样的当代艺术实践。我想讲一个观点，作为当代艺术而言，要主动地、积极地、激进地遗忘。主动地遗忘历史，就像宁老师主动地虚构记忆一样。因为历史是权力建构的，它把断裂的、矛盾的历史整理为一个连续的叙事，人们会因为这样重构的历史丧失思考和生活的能力。所以当代艺术要主动激进的去遗忘，跟这样的历史相对立。借用尼采的话说，遗忘对于任何行动都是必不可少的。

最后我想用下面的话来做结语。我们今天从文学、哲学、心理学、神经科学等角度来探讨记忆，只有深刻地理解记忆的这种复杂性、矛盾性、脆弱性和灵活性，我们才可能真正去理解和改变我们所身处的这个被记忆影响和决定的世界。

好，感谢各位嘉宾的精彩分享。由于时间关系，我们今天的线上讲座就到这里，谢谢观看直播的观众。
 

As a documentary film director and also an artist, from my personal point of view, I regard memory as essentially the image and all the images, visual images and auditory images, are memory apparati, and they actively shape and reconstruct our past our future and also our world all the time. It’s running out of time. So I don't have time to share my view, but you can see me as a kind of activist in a certain sense, a contemporary artist. I advocate for this active radical forgetting as a movement that we should try to forget it as we can because as Nietzsche said very well that forgetting is divine and forgetting is very important to everything. And tonight that we have this gathering of these prominent scholars and also artist, doctors. And we are very, very honored to have all of you here and the time is running out. Thank you so much and much appreciate.

 

主持人：袁园、朱锐

嘉宾：贾建军、宁肯、Daniel Schacter、Katja Vogt、杨天明

整理：安迪、一涛、腰总、光影 | 排版：光影