structure for 'Knowledge Sources'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

12. Knowledge Sources / E. Direct Knowledge / 4. Memory

[memory as source and preserver of knowledge]

37 ideas
Many memories of the same item form a single experience [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: When it occurs often in connection with the same item, ..memories which are many in number form a single experience.
     From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 100a05)
     A reaction: This is Aristotle at his most empirical. He is not describing an operation of the understanding, but a process of association. The process he alludes to is at the heart of the abstractionist view of concept-formation.
How can there be a memory of what is false? [Cicero]
     Full Idea: How can there possibly be a memory of what is false?
     From: M. Tullius Cicero (Academica [c.45 BCE], II.vii.22)
Memory is not conserved images, but reproduction of previous thought [Porphyry]
     Full Idea: Memory does not consist in preserving images. It is a faculty of reproducing the conceptions with which our soul has been occupied.
     From: Porphyry (Launching Points to the Realm of the Mind [c.280], 5Enn6 25(2))
I can distinguish different smells even when I am not experiencing them [Augustine]
     Full Idea: I can distinguish the scent of lilies from that of violets, even though there is no scent at all in my nostrils.
     From: Augustine (Confessions [c.398], X.08)
     A reaction: Augustine has a nice introspective account of how we experience memory, and identifies lots of puzzling features. I know I can identify the smell of vinegar, but I can't bring it to mind, the way I can the appearance of roses.
Memory contains innumerable principles of maths, as well as past sense experiences [Augustine]
     Full Idea: The memory contains the innumerable principles and laws of numbers and dimensions. None of these can have been conveyed to me by the bodily senses.
     From: Augustine (Confessions [c.398], X.12)
     A reaction: Even if you have a fairly empirical view of the sources of mathematics (a view with which I sympathise), it must by admitted that our endless extrapolations from the sources also reside in memory. So we remember thoughts as well as experiences.
Mind and memory are the same, as shown in 'bear it in mind' or 'it slipped from mind' [Augustine]
     Full Idea: The mind and the memory are one and the same. We even call the memory the mind, for when we tell a person to remember something, we tell them to 'bear this in mind', and when we forget something 'it slipped out of my mind'.
     From: Augustine (Confessions [c.398], X.14)
     A reaction: This idea has become familiar in modern neuroscience, I think, presumably because we do not find distinct types of neurons for consciousness and for memory.
Why does joy in my mind make me happy, but joy in my memory doesn't? [Augustine]
     Full Idea: How can it be that my mind can be happy because of the joy that is in it, and yet my memory is not sad by reason of the sadness that is in it?
     From: Augustine (Confessions [c.398], X.14)
     A reaction: This seems to contradict his thought in Idea 22981, that memory and mind are the same. Recall seems to be a part of consciousness which is not fully wired up to the rest of the mind.
We would avoid remembering sorrow or fear if that triggered the emotions afresh [Augustine]
     Full Idea: If we had to experience sorrow or fear every time that we mentioned these emotions, no one would be willing to speak of them.
     From: Augustine (Confessions [c.398], X.14)
     A reaction: Remembering the death of a loved one can trigger fresh grief, but remembering their dangerous illness from which they recovered no longer contains the feeling of fear.
The theory of ideas, popular with philosophers, means past existence has to be proved [Reid]
     Full Idea: The theory concerning ideas, so generally received by philosophers, destroys all the authority of memory. …This theory made it necessary for them to find out arguments to prove the existence of external objects …and of things past.
     From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 6: Judgement [1785], 5)
     A reaction: Reid was a very articulate direct realist. He seems less aware than the rest of us of the problem of delusions and false memories. Our strong sense that immediate memories are reliable is certainly inexplicable.
Without memory we could have no concept of duration [Reid]
     Full Idea: It is impossible to show how we could acquire a notion of duration if we had no memory.
     From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory [1785], 1)
     A reaction: We would probably not have a notion of duration if we possessed a memory, but nothing ever changed. Maybe in Shoemaker's frozen worlds they retain memories, but nothing happens?
We all trust our distinct memories (but not our distinct imaginings) [Reid]
     Full Idea: Every man feels he must believe what he distinctly remembers, though he can give no other reason for his belief, but that he remembers the thing distinctly; whereas, when he merely distinctly imagines a thing, he has no belief in it upon that account.
     From: Thomas Reid (Essays on Intellectual Powers 3: Memory [1785], 1)
     A reaction: The word 'distinct' is doing some heavy work here. I fear that believing the memory is the only criterion we have for calling it distinct. As a boy I was persuaded to change my testimony about a car accident, and I realised I was not distinct about it.
We may be unable to remember, but we may never actually forget [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: It has yet to be proven that there is such a thing as forgetting; all we know is that the act of remembering is not within our power.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Dawn (Daybreak) [1881], 126)
     A reaction: There is some evidence for this. We forget innumerable people, but then find that we recognise them if we meet them many years later. Anecdotes report very ancient memories suddenly surfacing.
There is no proof that we forget things - only that we can't recall [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: That forgetting exists has never yet been demonstrated, but only that many things do not occur to us when we want them to.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1881-82 [1882], 12[1]123)
     A reaction: There is now quite a lot of evidence that there innumerable memories buried in that mind that we seem unable to directly recall. He is right that we can hardly demonstrate this negative fact.
Memory is essential, and is only possible by means of abbreviation signs [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Experience is only possible with the help of memory; memory is only possible by virtue of an abbreviation of an intellectual event as a sign.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Unpublished Notebooks 1885-86 [1886], 34[249])
     A reaction: My memory of a town is not formed as a sign, but as a bunch of miscellaneous fragments about it. I think mental files gives a better account of this than do 'signs'.
Forgetfulness is a strong positive ability, not mental laziness [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Forgetfulness is not just a vis inertiae, as superficial people believe, but is rather an active ability to suppress, positive in the strongest sense of the word.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (On the Genealogy of Morals [1887], II.§01)
     A reaction: It is unimpressive when people remember small slights and grievances for a long time - and even being owed small sums - so the ability to forget such things is admirable. But wilfully forgetting some things is obviously shameful.
The phenomena of memory are given in the present, but as being past [Husserl, by Bernet]
     Full Idea: In Husserl's phenomenology, the intentional object of a memory is the object of a past experience, which is intuitively given to me in the present, not, however, as being present but as being past.
     From: report of Edmund Husserl (Ideas: intro to pure phenomenology [1913]) by Rudolf Bernet - Husserl p.203
     A reaction: I certainly don't have to assess my mental events, and judge which are past, which are now, and which are future imaginings. I suppose Fodor would say they are memories because we find them in the memory-box. How else could it work?
Bergson showed that memory is not after the event, but coexists with it [Bergson, by Deleuze]
     Full Idea: Bergson has shown that memory is not an actual image which forms after the object has been perceived, but a virtual image coexisting with the actual perception of the object.
     From: report of Henri Bergson (Matter and Memory [1896]) by Gilles Deleuze - The Actual and the Virtual p.114
     A reaction: It strikes me as plausible to say that all conscious life is memory. Perceiving the present instant is only possible because it endures for a tiny moment.
It is possible the world came into existence five minutes ago, complete with false memories [Russell]
     Full Idea: There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past.
     From: Bertrand Russell (The Analysis of Mind [1921], p.159)
     A reaction: One of the great sceptical arguments! At a stroke it undermines forever any dreams that memories are totally certain. This is an extra scepticism, which arises if you decide that current experience IS totally certain.
Images are not memory, because they are present, and memories are of the past [Russell]
     Full Idea: An image cannot constitute a memory, because we notice that the image is in the present, whereas what is remembered is known to be in the past.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Problems of Philosophy [1912], Ch.11)
     A reaction: This sounds a bit glib, and maybe makes the mistake for which he criticises Berkeley, of confusing a thought and its content. The puzzle is how we know that some images represent the past, others the present, others predictions, and others fantasy.
We rely on memory for empirical beliefs because they mutually support one another [Lewis,CI]
     Full Idea: When the whole range of empirical beliefs is taken into account, all of them more or less dependent on memorial knowledge, we find that those which are most credible can be assured by their mutual support, or 'congruence'.
     From: C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946], 334), quoted by Erik J. Olsson - Against Coherence 3.1
     A reaction: Lewis may be over-confident about this, and is duly attacked by Olson, but it seems to me roughly correct. How do you assess whether some unusual element in your memory was a dream or a real experience?
If we doubt memories we cannot assess our doubt, or what is being doubted [Lewis,CI]
     Full Idea: To doubt our sense of past experience as founded in actuality, would be to lose any criterion by which either the doubt itself or what is doubted could be corroborated.
     From: C.I. Lewis (An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation [1946], 358), quoted by Erik J. Olsson - Against Coherence 3.3.1
     A reaction: Obviously scepticism about memory can come in degrees, but total rejection of short-term and clear memories looks like a non-starter. What could you put in its place? Hyper-rationalism? Even maths needs memory.
If you remember wrongly, then there must be some other criterion than your remembering [Wittgenstein]
     Full Idea: If you remember wrongly, then there must be some other criterion than your remembering. If you admit another test, then your memory itself is not the test.
     From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Lectures 1930-32 (student notes) [1931], C VII)
     A reaction: If I fear that I am remembering some private solitary event wrongly, there is no other criterion to turn to, so I'm stuck. Sometimes dubious memories are all we have.
Memory is mainly a guide for current performance [Searle]
     Full Idea: We should think of memory as a mechanism for generating current performance, including conscious thoughts and actions, on the basis of past experience.
     From: John Searle (The Rediscovery of the Mind [1992], Ch. 8.III)
     A reaction: This seems to be falling into the fallacy of causal and functional theories, which Searle normally dislikes. If memory serves to aid current performance, that doesn't say what memory IS, any more than a foot is defined by walking.
Memories are not just preserved, they are constantly reinferred [Harman]
     Full Idea: I favour the inferential view of memory over the preservation view. …One constantly reinfers old beliefs.
     From: Gilbert Harman (Thought [1973], 12.1)
     A reaction: This has a grain of truth, but seems a distortion. An image of the old home floats into my mind when I am thinking about something utterly unconnected. When we search memory we may be inferring and explaining, but the same applies to searching images.
If perception and memory are indirect, then two things stand between mind and reality [Dancy,J]
     Full Idea: If perception is indirect as well as memory, this means there are two direct objects of awareness between the remembering mind and the original object.
     From: Jonathan Dancy (Intro to Contemporary Epistemology [1985], 12.2)
Memories aren't directly about the past, because time-lags and illusions suggest representation [Dancy,J]
     Full Idea: Direct realism about memory believes the memory is the past. But the time-lag argument and various illusions are powerful here, suggesting indirect realism involving a memory image.
     From: Jonathan Dancy (Intro to Contemporary Epistemology [1985], 12.2)
I can remember plans about the future, and images aren't essential (2+3=5) [Dancy,J]
     Full Idea: Memory is not solely concerned with the past, let alone one's own past (I remember that I must be in London next week), and need not involve images (2+2=4).
     From: Jonathan Dancy (Intro to Contemporary Epistemology [1985], 12.3)
     A reaction: I can hardly remember the future, so I presume I am remembering my past commitment to go to London, even if I visualise the future with me in London. The non-necessity of images seems right. I can remember the Mona Lisa without a precise image.
Phenomenalism about memory denies the past, or reduces it to present experience [Dancy,J]
     Full Idea: Eliminative phenomenalism about memory holds that there is no such thing as the past, just certain present experiences; reductive phenomenalism holds that there is a past, but it is no more than a complex of those present experiences.
     From: Jonathan Dancy (Intro to Contemporary Epistemology [1985], 12.4)
The ancient Memorists said virtually all types of thinking could be done simply by memory [Sorabji]
     Full Idea: The ancient medical Memorists said that ordinary thinking, inferring, reflecting, believing, assuming, examining, generalising and knowing can all be done simply on the basis of memory.
     From: Richard Sorabji (Rationality [1996], 'Inference')
     A reaction: The think there is a plausible theory that all neurons do is remember, and are mainly distinguished by the duration of their memories. We might explain these modes of thinking in terms of various combinations of the fast and the slow.
Stoics say true memory needs reflection and assent, but animals only have perceptual recognition [Sorabji]
     Full Idea: Stoics say memory proper involves reflection and assent. Animal memory, by contrast, is not memory proper, but mere perceptual recognition. The horse remembers the road when he is on it, but not when he is in the stable.
     From: Richard Sorabji (Rationality [1996], 'Other')
     A reaction: An interesting distinction. Do I remember something if I can never recall it, and yet recognise it when it reappears, such as a person I knew long ago? 'Memory' is ambiguous, between lodged in the mind, and recallable. Unfair to horses, this.
I might remember someone I can't recall or image, by recognising them on meeting [Audi,R]
     Full Idea: If I can neither recall nor image Jane I can still remember her, for on seeing her I might recognise her, and might remember, and even recall, our last meeting.
     From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], II p.66)
     A reaction: Hm. I can hardly claim to remember her if I have no concept of her, and don't recall our last meeting. If seeing her triggers recognition, I would say that I NOW remember her, but I didn't before. Memory is more conscious than Audi claims.
To remember something is to know it [Audi,R]
     Full Idea: Remembering something is so entails knowing that it is so.
     From: Robert Audi (Epistemology: contemporary introduction [1998], II p.68)
     A reaction: Clearly I can say I "remember" x, but be wrong. Presumably we then say that I didn't really remember, which requires success, like "I know". It is true (as with "know") that as soon as I say that the something is false, I can't claim to remember it.
Is memory stored in protein sequences, neurons, synapses, or synapse-strengths? [Pinker]
     Full Idea: Are memories stored in protein sequences, in new neurons or synapses, or in changes in the strength of existing synapses?
     From: Steven Pinker (The Blank Slate [2002], Ch.5)
     A reaction: This seems to be a neat summary of current neuroscientific thinking about memory. If you are thinking that memory couldn't possibly be so physical, don't forget the mind-boggling number of events involved in each tiny memory. See Idea 6668.
There seems to be no dividing line between a memory and a thought [Carter,R]
     Full Idea: It has become clear from research that there is no clear dividing line between a memory and a thought.
     From: Rita Carter (Mapping the Mind [1998], p.308)
     A reaction: This always struck me as an obvious criticism of Descartes, when he claimed that memory was not an essential part of the 'thinking thing'. How can you think or understand without memory of the different phases of your thoughts? No memory, no mind!
There are memories of facts, memories of practical skills, and autobiographical memory [Lowe]
     Full Idea: Memory of facts is quite different from memory of practical skills, and both are quite distinct from what is sometimes called personal or autobiographical memory.
     From: E.J. Lowe (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2000], Ch.10)
     A reaction: If we accept David Marshall's proposal (Idea 6668), then all of the mind is memory, of many different types, and so the above analysis will be much too simple.
You can acquire new knowledge by exploring memories [Bernecker/Dretske]
     Full Idea: You can first come to know by remembering, as in learning how many windows there were in your childhood home by imagining a tour.
     From: Bernecker / Dretske (Knowledge:Readings in Cont.Epist [2000], Pt.V Int)
Memories often conform to a theory, rather than being neutral [Gelman]
     Full Idea: Memory is notorious for conforming to theory (rather than memory being a neutral source of information).
     From: Susan A. Gelman (The Essential Child [2003], 09 'Theory')
     A reaction: This observation by a psychologist is music to sceptics about objectivity. Memory is so fundamental to our basic epistemology that it could even be the nature of thought itself.