PS - with that fuzzy thinking of yours, I pity your students.
"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0e98bdc36aeb89b597a4d9a6b4be326 at news.teranews.com...
> 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
> 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.
>> "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo at bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> news:fa69ae35.0402110159.5a3eee8f at posting.google.com...> > "AlphaOmega2004" <OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<2b87008a9fd70789cb534988f584011a at news.teranews.com>...
> > > I think the conceptual error these guys make is that one cannot
> > > psychological terminology by reference to neuropsychological concepts.
> > >
> > > These are *all* bona fide *ways* of conceptualizing a space that is
> > > multi-dimensional in the broadest sense. TO think one can divorce the
> > > psychological from the neuropsychological is non sense.
> > >
> > The problem with these authors is that they have published the book in
> > 2003, while it seems to me it should have been published around 1930s
> > or 1940s when Wittgenstein was worshipped by many. Ah, still the
> > church of Wittgenstein thrives I guess, and I pity that I'm not a
> > priest and true believer (in God) from time to time. Anyway, you get
> > the idea. If it weren't for an absolute conviction in the truth of
> > what Wittgenstein said and his followers, there wouldn't be such a
> > book. That's an important point.
> > Note also that the authors have written some serious non-sense. In
> > particular, this one:
> > "It is wrong, *conceptually* wrong, to suppose that memory is always
> > of the past, or to think that memories can be *stored* in the brain in
> > the form of the strength of synaptic connections (Kandel, Squire,
> > Bennett)."
> > As a computer scientist, I know very well what "memory" is, and *that*
> > our intuitive notion of "memory" coincides with the technical term of
> > memory, *and* furthermore that it also corresponds to "memory" in
> > neural associative memory models, etc. That is to say, there is *no*
> > conceptual mistake. And I also direct your attention to the stupid
> > blurb about "the past". Oh, memory is not of the past, great, then
> > perhaps it is of future? Trust me, this is non-sense. I agree with the
> > authors in that a good philosopher must be able to distinguish sense
> > from non-sense, but so must a scientist and from both perspectives
> > their statement is pure non-sense.
> > That's why I think they sounded more like village idiots than
> > philosophers when they said such things. They say even sillier things
> > about computationalism as Pierre demonstrated, you can knock down
> > their arguments with a single analogy.
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Eray Ozkural