In a message dated 10/19/08 4:36:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Our memory is not like a closet or file cabinet where we store past experiences and retrieve them on demand. We reconstruct our memories from scraps of neuronc activity and each time it's a new memory. To the extent that we feel we have sufficiently recollected the associated feelings and body sensations of the original "memory" we believe we have remembered it." Basically I have little quarrel with William on this. Analogies are never exact replicas, and never "prove" anything, but let me try this. The brain is "like" a computer. A conscious memory is like the visible image that pops on my screen. I have no illusions that an "image" -- visual, aural or otherwise -- is "in" my computer. When I try to "recall a computer memory", I hit "Enter" or click an icon, and the "neurons" of my computer churn and produce the image on the screen. Whether or not I'd call it 'new' would be solely a matter of arbitrary agreement, and it's no importance -- to me anyway. I'd agree it's a "new" image because the screen was blank before. If its contents are exact replicas of what I saw the last time I summoned it up I'm likely to call it the "same old image" even though it's a new instance of the image. Because my "computer" is not as good as William's at handling visual stuff, there's every chance the will be different from last time. I have a friend who "has in his extraordinary memory" all the sonnets of Shakespeare. Since a given sonnet is not on his "screen" -- i.e. in his "consciousness" -- until called for, I presume his neural "chips" if properly excited can pop it into his consciousness. I'm content to call this a "new memory", even though it's identical every time, because this moment of consciousness never occurred before. This event, the summoning up of a new/old memory is what I have in mind when I say he "remembers" it. None of that tells me anything of deep interest about the interaction of "mind-body" -- i.e. "consciousness" and "neurons". Damasio et al are doing interesting work. But they seem a very, very long way from supplying anything truly informative in a way that "explains" much. We can map "where" (with our current machinery) there is discernible activity in the brain when some types of conscious events are taking place. But we got into all this originally with the question, "What is happening when I get an "aesthetic experience". I would still feel wanting in understanding if a neuroscientist said, "When that happens, there is activity here and here with wave patterns of such and such form and frequency." "By lie I mean we believe in the fiction of remembering." You're almost alone in the universe in thinking of "lying" that way. Let me ask, what is your word for "knowingly and intentionally uttering a falsehood"? ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
