The question about the correlation beteen memory capacity and experience has been addressed by the following papers.

Dear Jin-Hui Wang

I see not a "correlation" but an identity with experience. Active types of Memories == experience.

Please summarize material you support and NOT simply provide links.

memory creates metaphors from direct experience, which by themselves carry little to no meaning. memories are not simply a response, constructing a separate, if shared, reality.

Dear Brad,

Through the lens of functionalism, we can say that memory cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the context in which it was formed. This is not an easy question to explore; nevertheless, it is an important one. The nervous system, indeed the entire body, acts as an integrated whole. Therefore, memory must play an important role in maintaining the integrity of that whole. How memory was formed may implicitly or explicitly play a role in how and when it will be used. Context, hence, must play an important role.

This will be a meaningful dialogue to engage in and I hope to hear back from you. Please take a look at the meta-analytic study by Smith and Vela (2001), which I have attached so that we can use some shared language for future conversations.

Best wishes,

Micah

Dear Stanley Wilkin , Syed Ismyl Mahmood Rizvi, and Micah Sadigh

I completely disagree with all of you. It basically by-definition of the ACTIVE episodic memory buffer, ACTIVE working memory, and the other types of Memory which are ACTIVE, that it CANNOT BE OTHER THAN WHAT I SAY -- which, because of true research-based definitions, is BEYOND A simple CLAIM. Let's see ANY OF YOU can present evidence and cogent arguments YOURSELVES (since YOU _are_ responsible for your own thinking): that active Memories (all the types of Memory, currently active) are NOT experience itself. You will not be able to. I believe the only thing you actually present evidence for is that you are dualists (in another one of the BAD senses) and are irrational dualists -- as most dualists are (if not all of those typically called "dualists"). I am not such a dualist.

If you think you can argue against my position, go ahead and try, but realize way the various sorts of Memories are defined by the research and how they (and "things") MUST BE, when they (whatever portion, BUT ALWAYS SOME PORTION) are ACTIVE. I believe your sort of argument cannot be based on definitions and any true understandings of the Memories, thus you are doomed to failure to argue against my position. Active types of Memories ARE experience, itself. (I do not CARE how you "like to think", I care only about reasonable and necessary accounts of phenomenology, INCLUDING _ALL_ OF EXPERIENCE (itself, always).)

General P.S. to ALL : Please do all your own arguments, as you ARE responsible for them and the fact-based data (actual data) they are "based" on (as "seen" by you -- though dualists may try to argue that THAT is something separate from themselves (even as seen and interpreted)).

P.S. for Micah Sadigh : While I can fully appreciate your statement, "we can say that memory cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the context in which it was formed." BUT: The statement from the Article you recommend that " If associative information is encoded and stored in memory traces, the same associative information can be self-generated and used to guide memory searches, even if physical cues are not provided at test" is BOTH patently false and ridiculous; obviously the authors have no real appreciation for "cues" as factors in/of the nature of active Memories. Those authors make other similar extreme and unsupportable assertions ( of the "if this, .... it can't be THAT sort ). The article is mainly a display of "Western man's" huge biases (and dualisms), with NONE of the claims made being necessarily true **. (NOTE: [ (and HERE is where any actual more-legitimate confusions arise) ]: It IS true at times, and to a notable extent, that new aspects of at least special/important environments must BE SOMEHOW MORE [ extra, i.e. more-than-otherwise-expected ] SALIENT: And, Ethogram Theory provides the nature for/of the account for JUST THAT SORT OF THING. See under my Profile.)

I think (and it is noteworthy) that: Any chance of providing a complete framework for General Artificial Intelligence, RELIES ON MY VIEW; it seems clear to me that opposing my view is to make General Artificial Intelligence IMPOSSIBLE FROM THE "PERSPECTIVE OF PSYCHOLOGY". I hope you all do agree we need a system in general Psychology which is (or can be) implemented by artificial intelligence; I would argue that THAT is the nature of an understanding which is clear _and_ true -- such can be "mechanized", given sufficient resources (

Rave on Brad, rave on.

Dear Robert Farrell

I "rave" with complete consistency and good logic and based on either established facts or related to discoveries that could be made from the most reasonable, fully testable (verifiable/falsifiable) hypotheses, which are also the best empirical and well-specified hypotheses ** . If that is the bases for one's position, one should "rave" on (but let's rather say: "continue to express their positions and approaches" (vs. "rave")).

Other kinds of positions allow for "carrying on" indefinitely and in a useless, endless, non-constructive manner: because they are based just on what someone has been told, what someone has read, or otherwise on mere unestablished "personal opinion" or presumptions -- all positions where one may well not know what he/she is talking about. (

Dear Brad,

This is a scholarly forum. I have no desire to enter into a "fight" with you. I sent you a meta-analytic study, published in a respected journal, to work on some common language so that we could have a dialogue. You thought their findings were "ridiculous."

I have no problem with someone offering an opposing view. That is a perfect place to start the dialectic process: a thesis must invite an antithesis, and in time, we can hope for a synthesis. That is growth, that is the purpose of scholarly work, that is the true meaning of being an academic. We can disagree but no need to "fight."

I look forward to the day when we shall meet, when I will shake your hand as a fellow academic and in friendship.

In words of Cicero,

Cura ut valeas,

Micah

Dear Micah Sadigh

It seems that "scholarly arguments" have gotten Psychology VERY close to nowhere, in its entire history. (About the Article you cite: the one position of theirs I quoted was -- for anyone with decent knowledge/perspective -- both FALSE and RIDICULOUS. AND: I could cite at least 2-3 more that are clearly that way (and that makes most of the Article false and ridiculous, as I said). This IS a scholarly matter.

P.S. Dear Micah Sadigh

Let me present just one more BIG piece of the "working hypotheses" crap your authors (of your cited Article) engage in:

One other notable irrational and often importantly false "hypothesis" or claim your authors (of the Article you recommended) make over and over shows a skewed or limited idea of WHAT CONCEPTUAL LEARNING MAY BE (and at perhaps especially important times/developmental learning points). Statements of theirs I present, below, indicate a lack of appreciation for the necessary fact that conceptual learning can validly PUT MORE information (internal AND external) together. Most readers will recognize that this often is not only very much the case, but IS CERTAINLY the case in some of the most important conceptual developments. YET, THEY WAY over-generalized and always put CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE current environmental factors. Your authors ONLY say things like that quoted below: (this, they present, not as part of "the story", but as the only notable way things are/can be) (the following is quoting them):

"Conceptual thought, according to this theory, is accomplished by an effortful suppression of one’s processing of the ambient environment.Therefore, when memory retrieval is guided by interitem associations or by mental reinstatement of nonambient environmental cues (i.e., thinking about places other than one’s current environment), such conceptually guided retrieval causes suppression of the environment in which retrieval takes place."

Your authors basically say this over and over AND NEVER mentioning any mental (cognitive) processing that does not occur this way. Here is another one of those "choice" statements your authors make: (again, quoting):

"In accordance with Glenberg’s (1997) idea that the environment must be suppressed for conceptual processing to occur, we propose that one’s default policy is to encode immediate environmental contextual features in memory traces and probes." AND:

"...Given some effort, the environment CAN [(

Dear Readers/Followers

I am sorry my editing of the essay in my "Answer", above, went on for nearly 3 hours. (Perhaps I am a bit tired; the essay did need all the editing.)

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to remind those who follow me that the only reason I do not follow all of you back is that I am at a RG Following Limit.

Perhaps, I should provide (as a Reference for my LAST Answer (above)): https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_what_is_taught_in_colleges_universities_skewed_often_implicitly_toward_what_people_incl_professors_just_believe_or_what_they_want_to_believe

My knowledge of psychology is limited, partly because it seems to me that if we have no valid idea of the mechansm behind memory, which we do not, then there is little reliable foundation for the science of psychology in the first place other than observation. I also reckon that memory is a large element of the mind's operation and once the principle behind its operation has been cracked, a great deal of other stuff about mind and behaviour will rapidly follow.

I have been working in fits and starts on a possible explanation for memory since1978 in my spare time. I learned in 1983 I had some surprisingly strong support when I came across biochemist Rupert Sheldrake's first book (1981) that his proposals were very similar to mine in conclusion but from a completely different approach. I use principles of quantum physics, whereas he does not. I explain how similar structures in the brain (firing neurons and synapses) from an earlier time, can be duplicated or transferred to the present or a later time through what Rupert descibes as morphic resonance. Without his encouragement I would have ceased to develop my work decades ago since it is not what I do for a living.

I did manage some qualifed support from a few physicists and neuroscientists (David Bohm and Karl Pribram for instance) but did little to push forward my couple of papers, life in the office being demanding. I am recently retired and in the last few years there have been some startling advances in experimental work with quantum entanglement, which supports some of my fundamental assumptions. As a result I have drafted and placed my two earlier papers on this website, together with about five later and shorter ones, in the light of what I have recently understood about quantum entnglement.

They can be found under Nicholas Greaves, should you have the energy or inclination to glance through some of them. No maths is involved, but some knowledge of physics would be helpful. Too much might be a disadvantage, for the experts do not seem to be able to agree on that much on the rationale behind quantum mechanics: a tabula rasa more or less.

Nick

My knowledge of psychology is limited, partly because it seems to me that if we have no valid idea of the mechansm behind memory, which we do not, then there is little reliable foundation for the science of psychology in the first place other than observation. I also reckon that memory is a large element of the mind's operation and once the principle behind its operation has been cracked, a great deal of other stuff about mind and behaviour will rapidly follow. I have been working in fits and starts on a possible explanation for memory since1978 in my spare time. I learned in 1983 I had some surprisingly strong support when I came across biochemist Rupert Sheldrake's first book (1981) that his proposals were very similar to mine in conclusion but from a completely different approach. I use principles of quantum physics, whereas he does not. I explain how similar structures in the brain (firing neurons and synapses) from an earlier time, can be duplicated or transferred to the present or a later time through what Rupert descibes as morphic resonance. Without his encouragement I would have ceased to develop my work decades ago since it is not what I do for a living.

I did manage some qualifed support from a few physicists and neuroscientists (David Bohm and Karl Pribram for instance) but did little to push forward my couple of papers, life in the office being demanding. I am recently retired and in the last few years there have been some startling advances in experimental work with quantum entanglement, which supports some of my fundamental assumptions. As a result I have drafted and placed my two earlier papers on this website, together with about five later and shorter ones, in the light of what I have recently understood about quantum entanglement. They can be found under Nicholas Greaves, should you have the energy or inclination to glance through some of them. No maths is involved, but some knowledge of physics would be helpful. Too much might be a disadvantage, for the experts do not seem to be able to agree on that much on the rationale behind quantum mechanics: a tabula rasa more or less.

Nick

I agree that memory is a crucial aspect of who we are, and that without this cardinal ability, we would have no record of experience at all. I know little about subject but until we understand the mechanism behind memory, about which we know little, then psychology has to be a very inexact science, if that is the right description of the discipline.

I have an explanation for eidetic memory and from that working memory in terms of principles of physics and quantum entanglement. This is contained in a few papers on this website under my name Nicholas Greaves, and the briefest summary of which in nine A4 pages is attached. My proposals do not require mathematical ability and has some support from a few physicists and in particular, one well known biochemist.

Nick

I agree that memory is a crucial aspect of who we are, and that without it we would have no record of experience in any event. I know little of psychology but until we understand the mechanism behind the operation of memory then it seems to me psychology has to be a somwewaht imprecise science, assuming science is the right description of the discipline.

I have worked for quite some years on an explanation of mind and memory and especially on how information is transferred across time and space in terms of principles of physics, and in particlar quantum entanglement. Attached is a summary of a few earlier papers which deal with the subject in more detail. It is a top down conjectural exercise but has some support from a few physicists and one well known biochemist in particular. No mathematical ability is required. Five other papers on this subject can be seen under Nicholas Greaves on this website

Nick

Dear Nicholas Greaves

FIRST, I believe, that Psychology has to have a true connection to Biology (more accurately, it must BE: Psychology AS Biology -- since behavior (act. behavior patterns) MUST BE AND ARE BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING).

This has to be the case before ANY interpretable OR meaningful "bridges" to physics, or even to biochemistry, can be made. (Kuhn recognized the need for such "bridges".)

To put it another way: the quantum or physics "stuff", and even the biochemistry "stuff", are presently so uninterpretable (because of a total LACK of clear connections to behavior patterns) as to have the status of speculation (at best: speculation about SOME "type" of future connections with biochemistry and with physics).

[ I have 600 pages+ of large papers and essays (all related), here on RG, explicating and explaining many aspects and particulars of my perspective and approach -- INCLUDING hypotheses which are as clear and empirical as possible and testable (verifiable/falsifiable).) THIS is the was to have FULL consistency of principles between Psychology and Biology -- instead of the crazy dualisms we have today.

My writings are ONLY about Psychology, with a classic sort of definition (all being about ONLY behavior patterns and enviromental aspects -- new behavior patterns being affected BY BOTH, as proximate causes ). ]

Did I have trouble in transmitting my note: too embarassing, and I kept on getting messages that each draft could not be sent and so had to start again. Never mind, you are quite right that psychology is all to do with biological functions and in particular that of the mind which I take generally to be that of the brain connected with the whole nervous system. But biology now seems to be increasingly dependant on chemistry. I was surprised when I learned that in UK to be qualified to train as a doctor 'A' level at school is esental in chemistry but not A level biology. But then chemistry is now little more than the applied physics, and classical physics is now old hat, albeit useful and being replaced by the rules of the quantum world.

I agree that nobody really knows much about the latter with any certainty, but all major governments are pumping funds into its reserch, especially into that of the mysteries of superposition and the development of quantum computers which we are assured will change the world when they increase the current maximum level of 20 qubits to about 40, not that I can start to grasp much of what is involved, other than it is all about quantum entanglement.

However if you were to attempt some of my material (no maths), I think you might find it not impossible to see how one application of the quantum world might be reduced in principle to show how information might be transferred (more correclty correlated) through space instantaneously, and also via a couple of failry recent experments, across time as well. Early days of course, but this renders the whole question of the nature of passing time rather interesting, and it seems there is a great deal of new physics being done on that. In my world this has great significance to the operation of memory, and especially to that of eidetic memory or perfect recall in the trance state, when I assume that the neuropns and syanspes will be firing randomly. Quantum entanglement, as it is carried out currently, depnds on the systems involved having to be acting completely randomly, and this bears out some of my early assumptions before Ihad even heard of entanglement when I completed my first paper in 1985.

There is very litle reason you should believe anything I might write about it as I do, in a top down manner, which involves assumptions and conjectures. Even more so if you knew about my background, but sooner or later we are going to understand a great deal more about the mind and then things will change and psychology become yet another adjunct of applied physics. memory's operation is a tabula rasa which means that some new principle will probably have to be set up and sorted before it is resolved.

I agree that quantum physics stuff is incomprehensible in its present state of development but when once a great deal more is fully understood, then I reckon it should become as obvious as the heliocentric system became after the time of Copernicus and Kepler. The history of science seems to work that way.

Meanwhile, I agree with your initial point that memories should not be 'considered as something separate from our knowledge or our knowing..................or as anything ever considerable as separate from experience itself'. Is this such an important consideration in Psychology? It seems to be a question of semantics as much as anyhting else, but I know nothing of formal academic psychology.

Nick

Dear Nicholas Greaves

You say: "[we have] no valid idea of the mechanism behind memory ". Fine (as an assesssment so far; but now it is time for Psychology's real history to begin).

The processes as well as the becoming-extant "structures" and skills have ALL to be purely discoveries IN HOW THE MEMORIES WORK (and what thus must also be); you may "want" more, but you do NOT NEED "more". You need to have more appreciation for the possibilities of discovery (PERIOD). That's all. We MUST BE "phenomenological", even if we coined the term (no special privilege for "coining"). 'Western' "wants" for "definitions' are often both invalid and misleading.

Well yes, I suppose if we never manage an explanation for memory, then we have to fall back on observation of the way in which people behave and I suppose experiments in furtherance thereon. That seems a rather limited approach, but of course far better than doing nothing. But I am more optimistcic than that and believe that advances of physics and in particular increased understanding of the quantum world will resolve the mechansim of memory and thence the mind's operation.

Given the huge funds that the UK government poured into 10 research institution in 2015 (£450 million) for development of quantum computers which depend on quantum entanglement and superposition, which many physicists and some bioscientists now speculate is what is going on in the brain, then we may have some exciting advances within a decade or so. If that is what is happening in the UK then doubtless the USA is pumping many times more than that into such research.

When a result happens such as I anticipate, a great deal will fall into place, and psychology as it is known today will either become almost redundant or certainly much amended. Then such nice defintions of whether memories recording experience are separate from knowledge or consciousness will fall away when the actual workings of mind and memory are made clear. Meanwhile we are left, I suppose, with what limited understanding we have now gained by psychology in that respect, without really having much clue of the content of our mind's operation to any reliable or authoritative extent.

My explanation of memory's operation also leads to an almost embarassigly simple possible explanation of consiousness in princple, which Rupert Sheldrake's proposals do not , even though his conclusions from a biochemical aspect are remarkably similar to mine, albeit derived froma very differnt approach. Far too hubristic a claim to yet be taken seriously, but have a look at my longish paper on Duplication theory, why not, and judge for yourself.

I have some difficulty in grasping the gist of your second paragraph. Of course we need more knowledge and you can either do that bottom up step by slow step, often in the wrong direction, or a crucial advance can also be accomplished top down by amending and improveing a few principles of physics which are not yet well understood. There are certainly enough of the latter. This is what I have done over the last 30 years, on and off in my spare time, most enjoyably, but to what effect I wait to see, but it is such a fascinating subject .

I believe that, given the definitions of the types of memory, and their workings, and capacities, and their inter-relationships: One could not conclude anything other than the Memories, in their role and as they function, are EXPERIENCE ITSELF.

Given Ethogram Theory, I believe at key points related to cognitive development: perceptions (then attention) is guided WITH (including) innate guidance. (This is the basis for developmental stages/periods, especially of childhood. )

[ Then outside of all that are the associative learning phenomenon we are all familiar with. With these, the systems of human cognitive functioning and its development (AND artificial intelligence, for that matter) are made clear. ]

Memory comes in discrete blocks, are expressed dfferently and differ in substance and integrity. They can and do through interelationships create the self. Nevertheless, it is not possible to describe these things separately and say there is consciousness, there self and there memory.

Dear Vahid Rakhshan and Stanley Wilkin

Thanks for your responses. I see that you agree. It thus makes no sense not to frame learning (and changes in learning) and other phenomenology in terms of the Memories (memory systems). Yet, several ignore this central and well-researched area completely and do not even address it (e.g. several "embodied" cognition 'theorists').