On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:32:06 +0200, "Christian Stapfer"
<chstapfer at nospam.bluewin.ch> wrote:
>Jac.m.a.m. Oppers wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:23:15 +0200, "Christian Stapfer"
>> <chstapfer at nospam.bluewin.ch> wrote:
>>>> >jste wrote:
>> >> Encyclopædia Britannica
>> >> Memory is one of the most widely studied cognitive functions,
>> >> and a number of different aspects of memory are recognized.
>> >> The labels short-term memory, primary memory, and working
>> >> memory refer to the temporary storage of information that
>> >> is necessary for the performance of many cognitive tasks.
>> >> In order to understand this sentence, for example, a reader
>> >> must maintain the first half of the sentence in working
>> >> memory while reading the second half. This working memory
>> >> has been graphically described as the memory one uses to
>> >> hold a telephone number in mind after looking it up in a
>> >> directory and while dialing. The capacity of working memory
>> >> is limited, and it decays if not rehearsed.
>> >> Simple but adequate I think
>> >From reading "Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition"
>> >(Walter Kintsch, 1998) I get the impression that the
>> >above definition is not 'adequate', and that a truly
>> >adequate definition of 'working memory' is not likely
>> >to be all that simple.
>> > Neither the traditionally assumed severe capacity
>> >limits (7 +/- 2), nor the idea of moving content from
>> >long-term memory to short-term ('working') memory and
>> >back, seem to be generally valid.
>> > Kintsch uses the terms 'short-term working memory'
>> >(ST-WM) and 'long-term working memory' (LT-WM), as well
>> >as the idea of 'retrieval structures' in order to theorize
>> >the role of 'working memory' in text understanding.
>> >Christian Stapfer
>>>> I understand. And, to elaborate, of course, the viewpoint of
>> biobehavioral selectionism, I get the impression, memory is being
>> pictured by implicitly present build-in cooks of the month, agents,
>> to graphically describe its use in a lot of research articles filling
>> textbooks. So, I prefer to define your *current sensitivities* for SR-
>> relations and SS-complexes to be your "working memory", simply
>> summarized as *you* being "in charge". That is all.
>>If this is intended as a parody of my posting, or, perhaps,
>a criticism of it, I simply don't get the point you want to
>make. - Maybe there is no point?
The second time I read my posting I did notice it is also possible to
consider it as a *true* parody upon the *elaboration* of *the point of
view* present within the previous two or three postings. Of course,
that was not my original intention. First, it is a well-known
criticism of the point of view present in the previous two or three
postings. Just take a look at the elaboration of complicated pictures,
during time, all trying to represent human memory, in textbooks. And,
yes, some of them include executive managers with lots of incoming and
Other accurately elaborated criticisms of biobehavioral selectionists
(the point of view in my posting) upon the inferred-process approach
(the point of view in the previous two or three postings) can be found
within Donahoe & Palmer (1994). It will support the point of view in
my posting and only the point of view in the previous two or three
postings as long as they have an *existential* basis within the
*central* nervous system.
jac.oppers at philips.com (replaces jac at natlab.research.philips.com)