"Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:827392f328e78fdce5b5a99bc7df94f0 at news.teranews.com...
> Why take the language at face value in one instance, and not in the other?
I take the language for what it means *in context*.
> 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?"
It is! That is my point - they are both remembereces of some past
event/state!
>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.
I understand - but that was not my point in this instance.
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
