So Reid thinks that Hume is illegitimately smuggling in a more standard understanding both of what memory is and of the knowledge it provides in giving his deflationary account.  But it gets worse. Hume's theory does no better than Locke's in offering a sufficient condition for memory. First, as Locke and Reid have previously noted, it isn't literally true that the ideas of memory are the same ideas that were experienced before; when we cease to be conscious of the original ideas, they cease to exist.  So memory must be nothing but “the faculty of making a weak impression…after a corresponding strong one.” But to this, Reid offers the following counterexample: