The word 'fms' is not correct and usable in written English
'Fms' does not have an established definition in the English language, so it is not typically used in written English.
Similarly, in the case of a living organism such as a redwood tree or a fetus, as well as non-individual entities, such as species and ecosystems, they would not have FMS on these views.
Individuals have FMS solely because they can engage in certain cognitively sophisticated acts or responses on their own.
Moreover, any non-human individual who lacks cognitively sophisticated capacities, which includes most (but not all) animals, lacks FMS.
According to this type of account, a being has FMS if and only if the being has very sophisticated cognitive capacities.
That is, they hold that infants and the severely impaired, whether their impairment is intellectual or emotional, not merely have higher moral status than most animals but have FMS.
In the journal Advances in Psychiatric Treatment I find a description of false memory syndrome, or FMS.
FMS can take place as a result of "recovered memory therapy", an umbrella term for a witchbag of techniques, many involving dream interpretation and hypnotherapy, widely discredited in the 1990s.
That is, there are now two routes to FMS: having sophisticated cognitive capacities or belonging to the human species.
Of course, it is true that the human species (as opposed to its membership criteria) is characterized both psychologically and biologically, and so in this sense the second route is related to the first route to FMS.
Moreover, any being that has these sophisticated cognitive capacities has FMS, and so the accounts avoid anthropocentrism.
The above accounts can be modified as follows: sophisticated cognitive capacities or the capacity to develop these sophisticated capacities (without losing one's identity) are necessary and sufficient for FMS.
