By the definitions *, the Memories comprise EXPERIENCE ITSELF: why not more research?
I believe it is because of the prevalence of DUALISM in our societies: this leads to "it" (the Memories) being considered a "separate faculty" !
* FOOTNOTE: The definitions are quite well-established already, through empirical research -- certainly some of the best in all Psychology.
I made this a Discussion, rather than a Question, because I am not really asking a Question; just looking for your thoughts (philosophers need not apply). I seek to help change this disgraceful and irrational problem situation. In my view it would be stupid and ridiculous, if it was not so very neglectful and damaging (of our understanding(s)).
If I had/have to make a Question, I guess it would be to ask for further information on what is wrong with Psychology people. Dualism is a silly philosophy, not a life-style.
It seems like to these "academics" , etc. LIFE IS LITERALLY JUST A GAME .
Given the evident strength of your interest, I'm quite mystified how you can have remained unaware of major research trends in cognitive psychology such as this. From the 1990s, the reciprocity of memory and experience has been an intensively pursued field of inquiry in cognitive science.
For a suggested path to this research, see Lawrence Barsalou's publications page:
http://barsaloulab.org/Online_Articles/
His articles, of course, all include numerous references to other research up to their date of publication, which you can follow up, and so on, anon. Thereby you will soon find every word of your bitter and insulting ranting to have been wholly unjustified.
By contrast, few today in this and other contemporary fields of cognitive science would disagree with you about the blindness of Descartes' theory, and likewise of all those who accepted its truth over the four centuries since its publication. For cognitive scientists in the 1990s their blindness was necessarily ended by realizing the theoretical impasse posed by Cartesianism to further understanding, including understanding the exponentially increasing research findings in neuroscience and experimental psychologyfrom the 1950s on that defied Dualist theorizing. Implicitly the death-knell of Dualism began then, around 1950, when the Cognitivist and Cybernetics revolutions ousted Behaviourism, which can be seen as Dualist science taken to its absolute extreme. First-generation cognitivists and cyberneticians, of course were trained by behaviourists - so two or three decades had to pass before less "conditioned" researchers took the lead and got things moving.
Dear Brad.
I was surprized with your considerations. If I understand it well, it seems that you are making a plea for more reserach on memory. Of course, any psychological phenomenon can give rise to a multitude of studies. However, I wonder whether memory is not the most topic addressed by cognitive psychology. Are not you aware of this? So, I stick to what our colleague Richard Traub says about about you question and answer. From your previous posts, as a psychologist, it seems to me that you have say, a bitter temperament and are always prone to be, say, a kind of "intellectual killer". Needless to say, I do not want to offend you, only to call your attention to the fact that Earth is not alawys flat, that is, in the scientific domain are different voices. We should listen to them before faulting them for this, that, and so forth.
Kind regards,
Orlando
Dear Richard Traub and Orlando M Lourenço
I may not be fully aware of the extent of the research, because I am just going by all I can get through researchgate -- which is not a lot. I have access to little else. But, there is also an issue of how "Memory" is handled, which makes some of the research not helpful in any general way (and NOT about the real nature of the Memories, thus, in a sense, "not about the Memories"). If they start out viewing "Memory" as merely a separate faculty, then typically the findings they report are of VERY little value to me.
It seems clear I do still make a point about the dualist idea that the Memories are just another, separate faculty -- and that is a wrong view. No one seems to be arguing with me about that, but rather offering some support. (The definitions of the Memories, again, make them comprise EXPERIENCE ITSELF -- and it is in this sort of perspective/approach by/from which I would like to see them addressed; they should typically NOT be considered a separate faculty, even in most of the research involving them, but this happens A LOT, inappropriately.)
The research on the Memories I have access to is not enough to clarify their roles fully (or how they relate): THAT IS MAINLY WHY I WANT MORE RESEARCH (and indicates the nature of that needed research). Again: it is possible to see more "research on memory" than I acknowledge and this is partly how they approach the topic in their research: that is: as dualists (and seeing "it" as just a separate thing).
P.S. Dear Orlando M Lourenço: I would rather have you see me as a "Psychology killer" . This is because I have well-argued at great length on a most-excellent basis that THERE IS NO GOOD PSYCHOLOGY THEORY (today, or in the entire history of Psychology); correspondingly, I see all psychology research as disjointed, trivial, or facile. Please, Orlando, if you must refer to me as a "killer", make it a "Psychology killer". Can you do that for me? [( By the way (contrary to your attitude/outlook about me): If you want to see what a real paradigm shift, then see my extensive papers and writings. )]
It is MUCH MORE TRUE THAT PSYCHOLOGY IS an "intellectual killer" ; just look at how psychology theorists/researchers do not find behavior patterns of a biological nature (showing biological patterning); even more telling is that the VERY RARELY even use the phrase "behavior PATTERNS" -- which absolutely MUST be the way it is. THIS ALONE MAKES THE CASE OF THE CLOSED-OFF AND ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND HOW IT IS NOT A SCIENCE. Orlando: If you do not recognize this, YOU are an "intellectual killer" because you insufficiently support good, real science.
P.S. Dear Richard Traub : the link your provided to Barsalou's stuff offers stuff that is often of less than limited value, because he is a basically an "embodied" 'theorist' -- a position that in no sense is justified and is bad, in even more basic ways: because it takes positions that can NEVER SHOW ANY KEY DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE OVERT EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THEM (in a well-founded direct OR indirect way) ; AND, to get to the "bottom line" : it can be clearly seen as completely UNfalsifiable/verifiable: this is BELOW my standard for minimal empiricism. See the Article: "The Poverty of Embodied Cognition" -- the full pdf easily found with an Internet search. This fully argues for the view, just expressed.
.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology