Okay, what we are talking about here, seems to me to be two different parts of the subject. I passed on the different kinds of memories and focused on memory in general, which I still would say can be manipulated later on. You are though right about the different kinds of memories, and how our subjective view of the world shapes our memories.

I overlooked that subjective gathering of memories, which I admit I shouldn’t have done.

However, this is mostly additive to the theory as a whole, as memories are subjective, we still rely on them in order to grasp what “the past” is, and without memories it would be hard to grasp time at all.

Additionally, I would still say that memories become more inaccurate, or at least changed, after a while. Bad memories become weaker and the brighter parts become brighter.

So, although our memories are subjective and inaccurate, we still need them in order to have any concept for “time”, and we rely on such memories as those we like to call “facts”, for instance our memories of mathematics, how to build or paint something, and so on. These memories are not of particular events, but of knowledge, and although we practice our subjective agenda on these as well, they are not as subjective, at least after numerous empirical experiments with them.

But then again, if you want to question the existence of the world around you, none of these things really matter, and to discuss any issue which happens in the world but outside your mind (memories are subject to sense-data obtained from the world, and thus I don’t think of that as “inside your mind”, we must assume the existence of the world.

It would be useless to always begin by discussing the existence of the world, as the subject you ought to discuss may be ruined by such things as Descartes’ Categorical Imperative.
Hence, I leave that topic to itself.

You’ve got an interesting approach here but imo you are making a faulty assumption at the very beginning of this deliberation. You assume that there is a world where something is happening, we record it with our senses and than it can be subjected to manipulation of various types. On this basis you put a thesis than there can be 3 types of memories (I let myself to categorize them ): precise (our own and not manipulated/changed), inaccurate (“damaged” by various factors) and false (theoretical category of imprinted, false memories).
I don’t agree with the assumption that we are able to create any reliable memories because of a simple fact: our understanding of events, facts, and in general of every situation is limited by our cognitive capabilities. In simple words – memories are derivatives of subjective judgments and opinions and can be only as accurate as they are.
It wasn’t as clear as I meant it to be so let me show my position on an example. Let’s say that there is a marriage – devoted catholic and his wife, an atheist. Their child is born with a serious disease. She will remember the day as a tragedy caused by either their damaged genes or or simply misfortune as human procreation is a complicated process prone to many errors. For him it will be the beginning of a mission given to him by god. They will remember the same situation but they will remember completely different things. The same thing and two different memories? Would it be eligible to say that one of these personas remembered something wrong or his or her memory was somehow altered? I must disagree.

Point of the text above is that imo we shouldn’t put too much attention to memories because past events may have, and usually do have, at least several interpretations. They may be contradictory but this doesn’t have to mean that any of them are false. If we want to base on past (I think that a human is made by his past), we should put much more attention to things that followed certain events as their outcomes than to our memories of those events.

You ask yourself a question if your memories are still as accurate after several years as when were fresh. My answer would be: yes. They weren’t neither “true” nor reliable in the beginning