Bennett and Hacker: Village Idiots or Philosophers?

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 12 07:05:11 EST 2004


Why take the language at face value in one instance, and not in the other?
If "I remembered that I gave a lecture" is to "recall an event," why isn't
"I remember that I have to give a lecture today" a matter of "recalling an
event?" The answer appears to be that you don't like what the actual usage
says about your assumption-ridden definition that is constructed out of the
dogma that the sort of behavior change we call "learning" is a matter of
"storing events."

There is no question that both phrases depend, in part, on some events in
the speaker's past, but this does not mean that anything is stored. It
certainly means that an "event's" location in a sentence cannot be used to
support the claim that something is stored, because in one locution the
event is in the past, in the other, similarly constructed locution, the
event is in the future. Such is the conceptual muddle that results when one
goes beyond the actual observation but does not recognize that one has done
so.

Our language game admits both locutions - such is the complexity of the wide
range of behavioral phenomena that are said to be "remembering," or to
"involve memory" or "memories."

"AlphaOmega2004" <OmegaZero2003 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4700fa4cb46ba050ca2c215744975996 at news.teranews.com...
>
> "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
> 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.
>
> No - you are wrong (what else is new...)
>
> The second case is a memory of a past event also - that of the initial
> *knowing_that* you are to give a lecture today.  You obviously knew of
that
> *before* you remembered that you had to give a lecture in the future!!
>
>
> >
> > "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
> explain
> > the
> > > > 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
> >
> >
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list