Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

David Longley David at
Wed Feb 11 08:44:46 EST 2004

In article <BC4F9A03.100C4%fred.mailhot at>, Fred Mailhot 
<fred.mailhot at> writes
>On 2/11/04 3:11 AM, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at> wrote:
>> EO: Oh, memory is not of the past, great, then
>> perhaps it is of future? Trust me, this is non-sense.
>> GS: I remember that I have to give a lecture later today. If I said "I
>> remembered that I gave a lecture today." you would say that I am
>> "remembering the past event." By the same token if I say "I remember that I
>> have to give a lecture later today." we must say that I am remembering a
>> future event. That is certainly how the language game is played. Trust me.
>Bzzzt!! Incommensurability in action...
>Glen & Eray are using "memory" differently above, and so the argument is

As I have said elsewhere - remembering (that) is an intensional context.

David Longley

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list