Talk:Memory: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Relationship to recovered memory article: new section) |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
There is a controversial draft article [[recovered memory]], which does talk about memory mechanisms and how trauma may interfere with memory processing. I'm afraid it blurs among memory, normal memory processing, abnormal memory processing, retrograde amnesia, and the treatment of memory disorders. Should some of its neuroscience text move here, or should there be a set of articles dealing with some of these ideas in a logical flow? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | There is a controversial draft article [[recovered memory]], which does talk about memory mechanisms and how trauma may interfere with memory processing. I'm afraid it blurs among memory, normal memory processing, abnormal memory processing, retrograde amnesia, and the treatment of memory disorders. Should some of its neuroscience text move here, or should there be a set of articles dealing with some of these ideas in a logical flow? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Definition == | |||
I find the first definition, "In its most general sense, a memory is the trace of some past event by which that past event can subsequently be reconstrued," to be an overgeneralization, but I don't know how to fix it. According to this definition, an archaeological dig or a history text is a memory, but I'm not aware that anyone refers to such things as "memories." I think the point is supposed to be to remove "in the brain" from the definition. It seems theoretically tendentious to me simply to assume that we can find some sensible definition according to which brain memories and computer memories are both "memories" in the same sense. No doubt this question has been deeply explored by specialists... | |||
I'm inclined to think that we should simply specify that this is about cognitive memories and leave [[memory (computers)]] as a separate subject and article, albeit with interesting relationships. | |||
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Interesting point. We talk sometimes of materials as having a memory, for example when under heat, a moulded material will recover a former shape. In neuroscience we talk of single neurons having a "memory" meaning the enduring changes in its properties that result from prior experience. Colloquially, people talk of photographs as memories - i.e. memories as the things remembered. In this context perhaps we can say "In neuroscience" rather than "In its most general sense"? [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
::"In neuroscience"--fair enough. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 04:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:49, 18 July 2011
Relationship to recovered memory article
There is a controversial draft article recovered memory, which does talk about memory mechanisms and how trauma may interfere with memory processing. I'm afraid it blurs among memory, normal memory processing, abnormal memory processing, retrograde amnesia, and the treatment of memory disorders. Should some of its neuroscience text move here, or should there be a set of articles dealing with some of these ideas in a logical flow? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Definition
I find the first definition, "In its most general sense, a memory is the trace of some past event by which that past event can subsequently be reconstrued," to be an overgeneralization, but I don't know how to fix it. According to this definition, an archaeological dig or a history text is a memory, but I'm not aware that anyone refers to such things as "memories." I think the point is supposed to be to remove "in the brain" from the definition. It seems theoretically tendentious to me simply to assume that we can find some sensible definition according to which brain memories and computer memories are both "memories" in the same sense. No doubt this question has been deeply explored by specialists...
I'm inclined to think that we should simply specify that this is about cognitive memories and leave memory (computers) as a separate subject and article, albeit with interesting relationships.
--Larry Sanger 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting point. We talk sometimes of materials as having a memory, for example when under heat, a moulded material will recover a former shape. In neuroscience we talk of single neurons having a "memory" meaning the enduring changes in its properties that result from prior experience. Colloquially, people talk of photographs as memories - i.e. memories as the things remembered. In this context perhaps we can say "In neuroscience" rather than "In its most general sense"? Gareth Leng 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- "In neuroscience"--fair enough. --Larry Sanger 04:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)