Thank you for interesting discussions about memory. In conclusion of your appeal, it was regretted that no one will appreciate your attempts to understand the complicated memorization processes. As you can see, this conclusion was untenable. And, simultaneously, in your regret one more thought sounds, which has appeared lost in the justifications stated by you. Memory is inextricably linked to other complex processes in the brain (dominants, motivations, instincts, emotions ....). I wish you good luck in the further development of your ideas.

Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky

Please explain your remark: "As you can see, this conclusion was untenable." (I see nothing untenable and you showed nothing as untenable.)

I do not like your unsupported pronouncements; you have no authority with me, and I do not accept statements, especially vague qualitative ones, as true ON the basis OF authority.  I hope you understand this.  Trying to just make unexplained pronouncements and have them accepted and  trying to find vague new statements to indicate that you think I am "nuts" (i.e. out-of-my-mind or insane) is simply rude and unacceptable.  (Your 100% disparaging remark to(about) me in your "Answer" to another Question ( https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_Skinner_support_my_view_He_would_if_he_wanted_to_be_the_ultimate_empiricist_OK ) , even more clearly shows your damning, hostile intent to denigrate my credibility ; I have "Recommended" both your nasty responses to me, so people can see the unkind and hostile reactions you have had -- and perhaps wonder about your motivation.)

Secondly, you say: "Memory is inextricably linked to other complex processes in the brain (dominants, motivations, instincts, emotions ...)".  I do not deny emotions as important -- they are simply not central in "containing" behavior (or memory) overall and can be added in later in one's conceptualizations, so obviously then, I do not agree they are "inextricably linked" -- and ALSO BECAUSE THEY DO NOT ALWAYS OCCUR AND ARE NOT NECESSARILY PRESENT; emotions are important aids to guide responses, but not THE guiding processes of MAIN major behavior pattern change (IN FACT, the development of some emotions themselves relate very much to the cognitive developments, which are those main sorts of behaviors I look at, not vice versa).  [( And, just for the record: Do you see ANY simple processes or are all things "complex"?  Do you know that that would never be of the nature of science?; science finds simple, elemental things, to be clear and to progress clearly. Perhaps you are "inextricably" brain-biased and not a good behavioral scientist.)]

Then, I have a problem with you speaking in terms of "in the brain"; I believe there is a behavioral science (roughly similar to much mainstream Psychology), studying ONLY behavior patterns and the corresponding  proximate observable environmental aspects (and knowing other behavior-patterns-and-proximate-observable-environmental-aspects that occurred in the developmental past of the organism AND which MAY ALSO BE CURRENTLY RELEVANT).  (Here is the more detailed "picture" as I see it: There are behavior patterns/environmental aspects, as presently well-seen and understood thanks to primary research, with further "applied" investigation of relationships with other interacting behavior patterns, e.g. the emotions, and looking for progressive results of the existing cognitive abilities which can be seen, and integrating all this with other notable behavior change factors (e.g. better-defined sorts of social learning). AND there is also on-going or new primary observational research, where behavior patterns and environmental aspects are clearly seen/found together and thus defined.  Both sorts of psychologists (primary and the more 'applied' types) should relate present behavior patterns to those discovered through psychology's existing (previous) primary fundamental research on cognitive DEVELOPMENTS (and, needless to say:  ALL this, applied and primary, is also always involving knowledge of and/or growing knowledge of the memories).)  Still, in short: behavior-patterns-and-observable-environmental-aspects IS THE FULL COMPLETE SUBJECT MATTER -- for my psychology and [at least supposedly] for many, many psychologists -- and yet, some of the activities I just described address some of your concerns.

With regard to motivations -- I never find the need to identify such separate entities; organisms act and they act differently in different circumstances (understanding that would include implicitly understanding anything you call 'motivations').

Finally, most of the time regarding already-developed behavior patterns (those existing later than infancy), it is outrageous and untenable to think you can partial out, from any significant important behavior pattern, "instincts" that have to do with those patterns or as clearly distinct factors in any further major developments in behaviors -- you cannot do it (and you could not show otherwise).  That is a groundless, baseless, ignorant and less-that-useless (destructive) claim. Instincts (innate action patterns) are OFTEN more than inextricably linked to behavior patterns:  they are essentially, in effect, "mixed in" OR PART of the behavior patterns (whichever ones are relevant to the current research) as those patterns advance (progress) as new, later stages of development emerge.  [ To say it just a bit differently, yet perhaps more to the point: at the inception of new major behavior,  innate action patterns, in effect, ARE the new aspects of behavior/response patterns, eventually resulting in the major behavioral changes (most certainly including cognitive developments) --- and of course, at the inception of major new behavior: the involved behavior patterns are directly and observably involved with clear present aspects of the environment. This simply and necessarily is how to be an empiricist in Psychology; to argue against this point of view, I believe, is very essentially arguing against empiricism -- against rationality and  logic. ]

[ The editing of this essay continued for about a half a day, trying to provide more details and, at the same time, taking care at least some of  the concerns of Vladimir A. Kulchitsky (and others).  I do thank Vladimir A. Kulchitsky for the impetus to elaborate a bit more here. ]

---------------------

[ A final P.S.: Perhaps you and others are wondering why, if anything I say is good, correct, and useful, that I do not get more responses (Answers):  For more on my view AND to perhaps understand why I do not get a lot of responses, SEE: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_really_central_in_real_thinking_its_points_of_inception--but_lets_say_more2 AND ALSO (especially) SEE MY ADDED Answer below that question for the real explanation of why I do not "mesh" well with other psychologists:  You will see described how present day psychologists are extremely and unreasonably, even irrationally, opposed to some of my core views (or they think they are), for sure: THIS IS actually quite a big part of the explanation of WHY THEIR IS LITTLE RESPONSE. ]

-----------------------

P.S. to Dear Vladimir A. Kulchitsky:

If you can't be not be rude and cannot be clear enough in what you are talking about to be making a cogent, clear argument, you will find that what you are doing will have no effect on me (or anybody) reading your pronouncements.