I'm not sure what the comment above means. I've always thought that time
was experienced, i.e., it seems to "drag" or "fly" depending on how we
experience (perceive?) it. Are you saying that memor affects how we
perceive/experience time?
Childhood memories retained by all the adults I have asked begin after the
acquisition of language. This is probably more than the truism that
demonstrating the possession of a memory amounts to telling a story about a
past experience.
Not true in my case. An example from my childhood will illustrate. At
about the age of eight, I asked my mother about "the flying red horse."
She asked what I meant. I said I had this image of big white walls (what I
would later describe as an "alcove" or three-sided enclosure) and on the
center wall was a big red flying horse that blinked on and off. She then
became visibly upset and said, "Freddie, you can't possibly remember that
-- you were only six months old." Subsequent discussion revealed that when
I was a baby we (my mother, father and I) lived in Des Moines, Iowa. The
apartment was on the third floor, directly across from a Mobil Oil station
(embedded in an alcove between two other buildings and backing up to a
third. The three brick walls defining the alcove were all painted white
and on the back or center wall was a huge flying red horse that blinked on
and off. It seems my mother and father would go out and leave me in my
crib next to the window. I remember that red horse, Bruce. It is burned
into my memory. My personal explanation is that I would use the side of my
crib to support myself and look out the window. That, like most other
aspects of a 60-year old recollection is largely imagination but that red
horse is not.
Those people that I know who are most emotionally reactive to present
experience retain more memories from childhood (and probably retain more
memories of subsequent experiences) than those who are less reactive.
How can there be any perception of time other than relative to a past that
is remembered or a future that is imagined?
Childhood memories retained by all the adults I have asked begin after the
acquisition of language.
Not true in my case. [...] I remember that red horse
There are sporadic exceptions to the generalization. A plausible
explanation is that this memory was still vivid 6-12 months later with the
development of symbolization (and the acquisition of language) and at that
time you made it a part of more durable memories. Turn it over: why do you
remember nothing else from your first 8-12 months? Why do you not remember
your crib? The color of the walls? Was the window through which you saw the
horse of single panes or divided by munions?
Those people that I know who are most emotionally reactive to present
experience retain more memories from childhood (and probably retain more
memories of subsequent experiences) than those who are less reactive.
Hmm. I'll buy that. But, so what?
It supports the prior suggestion that emotion is involved in memory.
>>The perception of time is an artifact of memory.
>
>I'm not sure what the comment above means.
How can there be any perception of time other than relative to a past that
is remembered or a future that is imagined?
Is it time or sequences of events that we experience. Or is this a quibble,
with time effectively "representing" aspects of this.
>>Childhood memories retained by all the adults I have asked begin after
the
>>acquisition of language.
>
>Not true in my case. [...] I remember that red horse
There are sporadic exceptions to the generalization. A plausible
explanation is that this memory was still vivid 6-12 months later with the
development of symbolization (and the acquisition of language) and at that
time you made it a part of more durable memories.
Bruce, what kinds of mechanism would make it ( transform it, move it,
whatever ) into "more durable" memories. Why would this happen?
>>Those people that I know who are most emotionally reactive to present
>>experience retain more memories from childhood (and probably retain more
>>memories of subsequent experiences) than those who are less reactive.
>
>Hmm. I'll buy that. But, so what?
It supports the prior suggestion that emotion is involved in memory.
Bill Curry had similair thoughts, though he spoke of "attention" rather then
emotion. Bruce Gregory also spoke of "attending to something ..." as an
important part of remembering and controlling.
How would you define "most emotionally reactive"? The amount of gain?
Marc Abrams (990810.0107) --
>what kinds of mechanism would make it ( transform it, move it,
>whatever ) into "more durable" memories. Why would this happen?
The "it" here, from context I've omitted, is an infant's memory of what
the
adult now knows was a big blinking red flying horse sign seen out a
window.
The mechanism is whatever happens when you pay attention to anything and
years later still remember it. ...
Bruce, I was not so much asking about the "mechanical" process as much as I
was asking about the "move" from one type or kind of memory to another. I
was asking you to speculate ( in the abscence of actually knowing, if that
were the case ) on why a move would need to take place.
I agree with, and like the metaphor of the story with regard to memory. each
level contributing it's own "chapter" to the "story". With that in place why
have two types of memory? The control process and the various modes Bill
proposed sounds like a good starting point for me.. Do you feel differently?
>How would you define "most emotionally reactive"? The amount of gain?
Good question. No, I think you can control a perception with high gain
without strong emotion, and I think strong emotion can interfere with good
So if they are "driven" by different "signals". Where do they ( i.e.
emotions )come from? Any well thought out speculation will do
control. Can you introspect and find out anything about what happens when
you fly off the handle?
Better question? I'm going to go back and look at my SD-MOL with Ken and
see if there is something there
what kinds of mechanism would make it ( transform it, move it,
whatever ) into "more durable" memories. Why would this happen?
The "it" here, from context I've omitted, is an infant's memory of what the
adult now knows was a big blinking red flying horse sign seen out a window.
The mechanism is whatever happens when you pay attention to anything and
years later still remember it. In this case, the thing attended to was a
presymbolic memory (acquired as an infant) of a vivid visual perception.
Little 1-year-old Freddy still retained this presymbolic memory a few
months after the child's family moved away from that house or apartment. He
was now capable of controlling categories and symbols and beginning to
control perceptions in ways that others recognize as using language. The
remembered visual image was reconstructed in memory in terms of a category
"horse" and symbols like the red visual image of a horse and of wings like
those of a bird. It's quite possible this reconstruction was partly
motivated, and was more memorable, just as the ad agency intended it to be,
because it was anomalous in terms of configuration and category perceptions
now being learned (bright red horse, horse with wings). In any case, it is
the latter memory that the 8-year-old Fred Nickols asked his mother about,
and that he can still recall as an adult as part of his recollection of
that conversation and her astonishment at his question. At each stage, the
earlier memory was reconstituted as part of a more elaborate construct.
That is the conjecture, spelled out in a bit more (conjectured) detail.
How would you define "most emotionally reactive"? The amount of gain?
Good question. No, I think you can control a perception with high gain
without strong emotion, and I think strong emotion can interfere with good
control. Can you introspect and find out anything about what happens when
you fly off the handle?
Thanks Bruce. Just wanted to know if you had anything else in mind. I read
the essay.
Marc.
···
[From Bruce Nevin (990810.1604)]
Marc Abrams (990810.1504) --
>So if they
[i.e. emotion vs. controlled perception?]
>are "driven" by different "signals". Where do they ( i.e.
>emotions )come from? Any well thought out speculation will do
I don't have anything to add beyond the observation that I made. I suggest
looking at Bill's essay "Emotion" in LCS II.
Bruce, I was not so much asking about the "mechanical" process as much as I
was asking about the "move" from one type or kind of memory to another. I
was asking you to speculate ( in the abscence of actually knowing, if that
were the case) on why a move would need to take place.
Marc,
Do you have IMP? Check RJR's analysis at p.119 of the elegant Kandel &
Schwartz (1982) study of Aplysia (pp.113-117). He infers that a high error
signal ["noxious stimulation"] was related to how long the creature
"remembered" a previous shock--all explained in terms of counteracting the
decline of transmitter agents to the motor neuron of the gill retractor.
I can't understand the necessity for two forms of memory either. Persistance
in memory seems to be more a function of retaining perceptions relating to high
error, or of repetitively recalling existing memories which can be real or
imagined. Each time we recall a memory we refresh it [and probably embellish
or alter it in subtle ways consistent with our evolving experiences].
Best,
Bill
···
--
William J. Curry
Capticom, Inc.
310.470.0027 until 8.20.99
capticom@olsusa.com
Do you have IMP? Check RJR's analysis at p.119 of the elegant Kandel &
Schwartz (1982) study of Aplysia (pp.113-117). He infers that a high
error
signal ["noxious stimulation"] was related to how long the creature
"remembered" a previous shock--all explained in terms of counteracting the
decline of transmitter agents to the motor neuron of the gill retractor.
Thanks for the reference.
I can't understand the necessity for two forms of memory either.
Persistance
in memory seems to be more a function of retaining perceptions relating to
high
error, or of repetitively recalling existing memories which can be real or
imagined.
I agree. We need to be able to test this.
Each time we recall a memory we refresh it [and probably embellish
or alter it in subtle ways consistent with our evolving experiences].
If we look at the control _process_ ( I keep on stressing process because it
infers other information modes besides control ) and Bruce Nevin's "story"
metaphor, with each level being a different chapter, I think you can begin
to see that _what_ we control for ( or what is in the control process )
plays a part in what we remember. The question then becomes, what part? This
also must be tested and I believe can be. In fact maybe it already has been.
Bruce G, corrected me about my undersatanding of the MIT Cog Science Book. I
thought it was from research done only at MIT. When in fact it's a lot of
articles by a bunch of folks ( a sort of one stop shop ) to help you
through he gobs of literature available. Thanks for the clarification Bruce.
Next stop Amazon.com
) into "more durable" memories. Why would this happen?