Theorem

Post Reply New Topic

Yes - those completely mute people have it better. Why? Because they are recognised by the vast majority of the population as disabled, they can get away with it. The average socially successful person is required to be a very good conversationalist and key to that is listening to people - saving what they say and details about them so you can use them again. It also requires we permanently have certain things remembered, the rules of conversation if you like. There are some really good books explaining how conversation works out there, you might want to try Leil Lowndes as an example.

Out of curiousity, have you read an academic paper and seen how they draw conclusions? Psychology I would say borders on academically corrupt in all honesty, yes there are some good works out there but there is a mass of papers which are based on false assumptions. Just look at some of the theories on Autism which have been endorsed by some Psychologists.
[/quote]
Your entire theory is that one of these made up by intellectual lightweight things is core to autism. Please keep in mind, memory is not a real biological thing.
[/quote]
Memory is a real biological thing - physical things directly effect it.

Are you talking to me or Alba, because the comments you appear to replying to were posted by Alba. If you two want to meet, you certainly do not need my permission so I am a bit confused as to who you intend to direct these particular comments to.
[/quote]
I am talking to all who think that aspies cannot succeed socially - meet me or even better someone like me. I am certainly not the only one of us who has a very good social life. Politics and education are two places that are good to look.

It means that most of these studies are drawing a conclusion whilst not looking at the whole spectrum.

Yet we have such a problem intuitively grasping what seems to come naturally. You are not in the TOM camp, where people are born with the magical ability to socialise in a certain way. That seems a lot less plausible than what I am suggesting.

Not done a good job of it might be more the point.

Welcome to psychology, where the average research paper is full of metaphors like that. Asides at some point I am going to have to use metaphor, unless you expect me to make the thread even less accessible than it already is. Wiring is a good metaphor, especially given the current thinking of memory in terms of connections and pathways.

Its very simple really - what I am saying is that for whatever reason society is structured around a majority in such a way its initiative to them.

The fact is there are entirely mute people who are more socially adept than many of us.

I did not make any reference to how well they have it Kangoogle. I directly commented on their competency, not the reception and reaction of others, but on their innate skills.

The majority of people are not relying on memory to inform the majority of their social performance/cognition. They'd be as poor at it as we all are if they were. You very probably over-estimate the importance of verbal interaction, and underestimate the importance of non-verbal communication for social performance/cognition.


I've read many academic papers and much academic literature and the point still remains that memory is a made up concept, and that you view these kinds of things as being made up by intellectual lightweights but this does not stop you believing this one particular concept, and only stops you believing those that do not fit with you theory (a theory based entirely on the reality of a made up concept that according to you comes from intellectual lightweights).

This is often referred to as "cherry picking". Your decision to believe memory is real but other things are not is not based on the source or quality of the field of academia concerned, but entirely on which of these things is needed for your theory and which contradicts it. That is very poor (academic and reasoning) form indeed.


No, it is not. Memory is a conceptual construct intended to help us think about and communicate about things unknown. We are only now starting to get anywhere in regards to directly observing neuro-processes and what we have observed proves that memory is not a particular process, nor occurs in a particular region of the brain. It is not a real organic thing, rather it is our conceptualization and categorization of observable outcomes as we perceive them indirectly.

This is probably a conversation you should hold with Alba then since it is Alba who asserts we cannot achieve socially. I will admit to limitations but I would not be so hasty and unclear as to posit general social failure as inevitable.


What studies? I referred to anecdotes offered by WP members, not studies.

Besides which, as I already asked, why would we assume that the diagnosed are not representative of the whole in this particular regard? What makes you think the diagnosed are an invalid sample for the purpose of deriving this information?

So it would appear, and memory is not intuition.
I am rather mystified as to what aspect of the above fails to indicate to you that memory is not the central causal issue in autism.

There is nothing magical about TOM.

I suspect what you find plausible is largely influenced by what you and do not know. Whatever would magic have to do with TOM? Do you really believe that someone has suggested the mechanism for TOM processes/development is magic? I'm no expert (and find the concept of only limited utility) but I know enough to know no one is suggesting magic as an entailed mechanism (in the formation and use of TOM as TOM is conceptualized).

Kangoogle, what on earth is your intention in insulting someone who has not been rude to you (despite your repeated and uncalled for nastiness)? What exactly makes me deserving of such treatment in your mind? That I do not agree with you? Is it literally evil of me or in your view an act of aggression to not fall down struck dumb with belief in whatever you care to assert?

What exactly do you hope to achieve with, and why do you think I deserve to be on the receiving end of, childish school-yard barbs?

I am aware of the proliferation of such metaphors, hence my advice to you that you need to be very cautious around metaphors and analogies and in particular avoid conflating them with what they attempt to convey a sense of. You could easily afford to skip the effort if analogies and metaphors of this kind were rarely employed.

However good wiring might be as a metaphor/analogical paradigm in some contexts, the overall statement on which I was commenting is meaningless. There comes a point when mixing up indirect metaphors and analogies in concert with others, becomes so disconnected with the physical reality these things can be useful tools in thinking and communicating about, that all utility and coherency is lost, and the statement I was commenting on is on the wrong side of that point.


It is true that if a society functions in a manner that is not sufficiently compatible with human "species-typical" qualities then its not going to be around long, but that's not really what I interpret your above comment as communicating. Besides which it seems tangential to the issue of whether or not memory is core to autism, which is why I see the argument as none too coherent.

A case could be made--that it would be to our benefit to determine as quickly as possible--precisely what constitutes autistic neuro-diversity. We are always talking about it, but it would seem no one knows what it clearly consists of. For many of us, neuro-diversity must obviously address differences in information processing. Ask yourselves: How many times do humans engage in thinking where we can be certain no memory processes are involved in that thinking? Perhaps the first place we should be looking for neuro-differences is in memory function.

As for intuition ostensibly by-passing memory processing, this may well be true.....and [thanks to pandd] is the strongest critique--so far--of the "Memory Central to Autism" theorem. If there are other ways to bypass memory in the processing of information--besides intuition--these processes have yet to be elucidated and their functions addressed. It still needs to be explained exactly how intuition by-passes memory, if indeed it does..

I have a kind of habitual way of observing and making sense of things which is apparently rare in NTs but not that uncommon in spectrumites. It enables me to function primarily through using "intuition" [although my definition of the word may differ from common usage]. For several hours last night I tried to find an example of how my intuition would completely bypass memory usage, and I could find no such example. In every instance, it seems, I use observational data--mostly nonverbal--which is briefly processed into my ST memory. While it is in ST memory, it may correlate with some elements in LT memory. Then voila--out of seemingly nowhere, comes an insight or intuition for which there is no logical explanation. Of course this is all sheer speculation....the point being I haven't yet discovered a way to process information without using some element of memory to do so....and if anyone has successfully explained how, it eluded my comprehension. When pandd tries to point out how to think and process information without memory usage, it doesn't make any sense to me. Even feeling seems to rely on memory....of course, not as heavily as thought... Is intuition a feeling or a thought? A combination of both?

We also need to consider conscious versus unconscious. It is not entirely clear to me that ST memory processing would ALWAYS be conscious or self-aware. It could begin as conscious and then get hidden under a flood of data, where it is forgotten on a conscious level of awareness.

For those desiring to shoot down the memory theorem, please try to do so in a constructive way....preferably by proposing an alternate explanation for neurodiversity. When mentioning "other processes" that may be involved, kindly state specifically what these processes are and how they might conceivably by-pass or eliminate memory function.. or invalidate the theorem.

We know that there is physical evidence to support the "intense world" theory, and that the "intense world" theory is premised on actual physical biological happenings rather than a conceptualization as to what might be going on inside a black box.
If time is of the essence, how is mucking around with concepts while ignoring actual physical processes going to save any (time) for us?

No it is not. My thinking is quite fine thanks; it is my non-thinking that is problematic.

Non-autistic people do not think their way through social performance; they would be as poor at it as we are if they did.

I am quite certain it is true. It is more efficient for the brain to not overshare information redundantly among processes, and it fits with the evidence from non-autistics (their accounts as to how they "know" what they know socially often includes full admissions that they do not know how they know; obviously they are not working it out through explicit thinking, and the working out is not something they can remember - memory is just not involved).

Memory is not an actual process, it simply refers to how the elements of neuro-processing that function to generate a perception of self-awareness, are given access to (limited) information. The large majority of information the brain processes is simply not accessible to our self-aware perception. "Bi-passing" memory is not an exception, it is the rule to which memory functions are other self-knowing functions/processes are the exception.

An example of this is when your brain works out that the thing you are touching is hot (utilizing information arriving from the senses), you are unaware of all but the end product - the sensation of hotness (as it is perceived in by your perception of self-awareness). You did not think or remember your way into knowing it is hot, the working out is all done before you are aware there is anything to work out.

Most neuro-data-handling/information processing occurs in this way, the thinking, remembering sense of self functions/processes only ever receive a tiny fraction of the information/data your brain works with/over.

"Bi-pass" is actually not a very accurate way to describe what is going on in my view, but I used it because having given much consideration I felt it would probably communicate the essence of the point I was trying to make (and it seems to have done that).

In my view it is more a matter of most information not going to memory, and so it would be better (now the point has been conveyed) to refer to information handled by memory as detoured (as opposed to considering information not passed to memory as bi-passing memory).

Most information is not needed by and therefore not redundantly shared with "self-awareness" perception processes.


Intuition refers to things you know without have thought about them or having worked them out self-awarely. So if you use short term memory to work something out, then the product of this thinking is (by definition of intuition) not intuition.


I would suggest intuition predominately arrives as a "feeling", although this may not be easy to ascertain as feelings trigger thoughts and the two seem to co-occur to our self-aware perception.

Short term memory is a concept that describes how information might be made available to consciousness. The notion of it containing any information we cannot be self aware of is contrary to the entire concept. You still seem to be reckoning with short term memory as though it were something other than a conceptualization.


This is not a reasonable expectation. I can know very well that babies are not created by magical pixie fairies even if I were ignorant of how babies are created. If someone has a theory that magical pixie fairies create babies, it is not up to me to prove there is no magic or fairies (much less magical pixie fairies), or that babies are created some other way. It is up to the person with the theory to note that I do not believe magic exists and overcome that objection with evidence. The onus of proof is on the proposer, not on those the proposer seeks to convince.



As I have pointed out to you the intuition is no less vague in identifying actual processes than memory. I do not know how to better convey to you that memory is exactly the same class of vague, non-identifying description as is intuition. Why should I be any clearer as to what actual physical processes are being described than you? I am not the one claiming to have a theory.

pandd,

What you've been saying is starting to get through, not that I agree with it, nor do I feel you've made your point particularly well, but that could be due to my ineptitude rather than your approach. If you are going to say memory plays a minor role in the performing of various brain or neuro "processes"...it seems to me you should clearly state what these processes are, so they can be discussed and researched. It would appear you have only a vague understanding of these processes you keep mentioning, or you haven't a clue what they are. You say the burden isn't on you to say what they are, but if you refuse to do so, further discussion is really pointless.

We are coming at this from opposite POVs. I can't find any thought process that doesn't involve memory, and you feel a mental process is an anomaly if it does involve memory. That being the case, we maybe should agree to disagree. I couldn't get through life without intuition, and for me, it seems to always have a memory component to it. When we say for NTs social skills are intuitive, I think we mean they are comfortable with the routines, or that developing skills is natural and easy. I'm not sure "intuitive" is the right word. But it gets the idea across when comparing with autistics that none of this is easy or natural [hence counter-intuitive] for us.

Also, I googled "Intense World" theory. It seems to be an explanation of autistic sensory issues. Thanks for mentioning it. Sensory issues are huge... probably the central organizing principle most of us would use to explain autism.....but, for me anyway, our sensory issues aren't as pivotal as memory for explaining neuro-differences processing information. Though they would reasonably play a rather major role in any theory describing or explaining autism.

From my pov, sensory issues largely determine, and thus prioritize, the content of our ST memory within the context of a social situation. They generally overpower any other consideration because when we are bothered by sensory issues, we can't focus our attention on anything else. So, in an attempt to deal with them, I think we process them through our ST memories.

Regarding social skills, I don't think everything is "intuitive" for NTs. Even if it were, from my pov, there would be a memory component involved. Social skills may be a great deal easier for NTs, but they have to work at it too....as Kangoogle stated, regarding conversational skills. In order to be a hit socially...when conversing with a person, you need to remember the main point they were making and a few of the details...then make a reasonably appropriate response in a given timeframe. If your ST memory is overloaded with sense data and you are miserable, there is no way you concentrate enough to remember these things...or if you do, you may think so slowly as to not respond in a timely manner.

AS is a communication impairment, so it is plausibly a problem arising from both ends of the conversation. It probably does not help that the subject matter is innately difficult to discuss.

Alba, I have done so just as clearly as you have done so.

Memory describes "unknown stuff going on inside our heads". Your theory is "unknown stuff going on inside our head causes and/or is core/central to autism".

So in essence you are suggesting that if I say unknown processes whose results we categorize together conceptually play a minor role in the sum total of unknown processes going on in the brain, I need to state clearly what those unknown processes your are not referring to are so they can be discussed and researched, yet none of this indicates to you why your theory about unknown brain processes (which you refer to as "memory" and "ST memory" and "LT memory" etc) cannot be easily discussed, and probably has limited, if any, utility for further research.

I'm not really sure what I could possibly say at this point to make the non-reality of memory as a biological organ or process any clearer. Memory is no less vague than intuition. It is that simple.
Alba, it would appear you have only a vague understanding of what the concept "memory" (and related concepts) you keep mentioning refers to, and you cannot or will not name the processes involved, I suspect because you have not a clue what they are, yet I am still valiantly attempting discussion with you, and it does not appear to have been entirely pointless (and no doubt your own equally valiant efforts play some part in this non-pointlessness).

The point you are trying to make about how I am describing actual physical processes using an outcome perception orientated "proxy" describer (intuition) is exactly the point I am making about memory. Can you explain why you think my use of intuition is any less precise and clear than your use of memory?

Can you explain why a (hypothetical) "theory" along the lines of "intuition dysfunction is core to autism" is not as (structurally and descriptively) precise, full and comprehensive as your own theory, keeping in mind that memory is not a real thing and no more identifies actual physical processes than does the word intuition?

What do you mean by thinking? Do you refer to processes that you are not immediately and directly aware of, such as your brain's processing of incoming data and output of data needed to maintain involuntary physical functions? If so, that is not what most people mean by thought or thinking.

Thinking refers traditionally to a sub-set of brain processes; if by thinking you mean the kinds of things traditionally referred to by this word, then there is plenty of stuff going on in our brains that does not entail thinking. It should be noted that the entire utility of "think/thought" as a concept/word is that it enables us to consider and to talk about a sub-set of brain functions distinct from all the other brain functions.

When I say "X is intuitive" in this context, I mean that X can occur without any explicit thinking or willful attempt to achieve X (although I do not intend the scope to include all and anything that can occur without explicit thinking or intent, rather that only such things are included).

I was once in a group of people asked to look at a picture of a person (head shot only) and describe what kind of ice cream they like.
I found this task impossible.

One person present could not only have ideas about the kind of ice cream the pictured person might eat, they even had notions about the kind of utensil the pictured person would use to eat the ice cream.

They could not explain why this person looked like someone who would eat ice cream with that particular utensil. They did not "think" this up or "remember" that this person looks like the kind of person who would eat with that utensil (although once they felt they looked like that kind of person, they could give reasons why that kind of person might use that particular utensil). Their brain gave them feelings about this person and they then elaborated on those feelings with thoughts that included eating utensils.

They could explain how they got from their feeling about the person to the eating utensil, but could not explain a thing about origins of the feeling that they were elaborating on. I would refer to that feeling as an "intuition" and as "intuitive".

Intense world theory has the germs of a comprehensive explanation, memory does not, not least of all because memory fails to describe a single physical process.

The fact is, there are brain processes that are going on in your brain without your willful awareness , and your self-awareness/thinking/memory/what-have-you are reliant on those processes. These are the processes that are being referenced in the intense brain theory and if the theory is correct, then we could predict (using intense world theory) any and every effect you might choose to describe as memory related, and additionally all those pesky things (like sensory issues) that memory cannot explain.


That being the case, the cause of short term memory anomalies would be the prior sensory anomaly, therefore short term memory is not core or causal because it is simply a down stream flow on effect of the earlier anomalies that are effecting the prioritizing.

If this is true it invalidates your theory. You see either memory is causing all else, and therefore explains the sensory processing, or the sensory processing is more core and causal than memory, and there goes the theory.

And this is one of my huge objections. There are factors that would impact on memory that are not explained by memory. Ergo memory is not central or core, or causal. It's merely one of the myriad of things effected.


It does not have to be.
Non-willful/non-thinking processes take up much of the hard yakka work and that leaves their willful/thinking processes free to get on with those things that do need their actual aware attention.

We do not get the same assistance from non-aware neuro-processes and are scrambling to do things with our thinking that we should not need thinking for, nor which the thinking/self-aware brain processes are well suited to parse over in the time limits imposed during social interaction/performance. We are trying to enter the formula1 driving a tractor. There is nothing wrong with our tractor, but it is not a formula1 racing car by any stretch of the imagination.

I would not expect that memory is going to necessarily be unaffected, but there is a very obvious difference (in my view) between "memory is core to autism" and "memory is implicated in some way or other in autism".

They can work at these things to improve them, as can we. But that does not change the fact that much of the foundation skills are learned simply by being exposed to appropriate stimulus, involuntarily, and without their awareness or their need to think, recall things....etc.


Being a hit socially is frankly irrelevant. Many people can run but few can win a gold medal at an Olympic event with their running prowess. Having AS does not mean you cannot be a hit socially, and not being a hit socially is much more common than having AS.

Conversation is only a limited set of what goes on socially. Before you open your mouth, you are socially judged, even in circumstances where no on expects you to say anything.
You could say all the right things and give all the right answers right on time, and still trigger adverse reactions (as a result of non-verbal behavior, such as your eye movements) so problems or issues making real-time conversation is not a particularly good way to explain things.


Indeed, therefore to substantiate that memory is central one thing you need to prove it that it is not being overwhelmed, or that it is being overwhelmed by itself, independent of some other process going awry. I see no indication that you can substantiate this and I doubt it is something that will ever be demonstrated as true.


I think you overestimate the amount of thinking entailed in basic social competency.

Yes. This is the chief weakness of Kangoogle's theorem. Nevertheless I don't agree. [sigh, it is difficult to argue against though and I think Kangoogle also will have difficulty arguing against it]

Sensory input wouldn't logically be seen as more essential than memory in the processing of information for any human brain. Although I am more intuitive than logical and can't be certain memory is actually more key to information processing than sense input, it is unlikely I shall be persuaded otherwise....unless of course I get a flash of insight corroborating your position.

You finally did mention some processes that might not involve memory like autonomic neurological functioning [have to reread your post to be sure..]...breathing, heart rate, endocrine etc. But these processes wouldn't technically fall within the domain of information processing or thinking per se. Any discussion of this nature i.e., the thread, should preferably agree from the get-go that we are attempting to explain neuro-differences in information processing, as simply and elegantly as possible. The benefits of doing so being more or less obvious. [?]


Yes there are.


As stated above...Memory is required for information processing i.e., it plays a primary role. Sense data plays a secondary role <that's my position and I'm sticking with it for the time being anyway>


Again.. well-stated valid point with which I disagree. (sigh..)
Hypothesis #1: the primary difference between NTs and spectrumites is in information processing.
Hypothesis #2 [or whatever this theorem is]: as memory is essential to information processing in both NTs and spectrumites, let's take a look at how memory could be causing information to be processed differently in autistics, from the way it is processed in NTs.

Again, my prob with your pov is that you fail to see how--memory would not simply be implicated in some incidental, random or minor way--rather memory would of necessity play the most major role in the processing of information in any human brain.

It is unlikely further discussion is apt to reconcile our viewpoints or cause one of us to back down. However, this discussion has been a pleasure, and I wish to thank you for the opportunity. I feel strongly the autistic community as a whole ought not waste more time in ascertaining the exact nature of autistic neuro-differences....This thread and your valuable commentary have brought us miles closer to that goal. What is needed however is light-speed progress in the right direction. Unfortunately that remains far off in the distance. Witness lack of interest in the thread.......

It's fairly obvious [to me] that sensory issues as well as memory are key in explaining any comprehensive neuro-differences in the way spectrumites process information. It may not be critical which takes precedence over the other in explaining autisticly neurodiverse processing of information.

First of all, it is not a theorem but a hypothesis, since you would require empirical support for your assertion. Second of all, you have not presented any empirical evidence to support the statement.

I have a great-nephew who is profoundly autistic. Memory has nothing to do with his problem.

ruveyn

I suggest people test out my theorem. All of you who don't believe me, try this. Its mind blowing and actually works:
http://www.warez-bb.org/viewtopic.php?t ... highlight=
The book that goes along with it I have uploaded here (you need to use the CD's though really):
http://uploading.com/files/SJRRN7R9/The ... s.pdf.html

I am yet to see any proof that sensory input is actually physically any different to NT's. If it were then it would be very easy to diagnose Autism.

Logically, given the variation of people on the spectrum - it should be something very simple. Unless they have made a complete and utter balls up and there are loads of subconditions, but to be honest it seems less likely.

Doubling the number of things involved in Autism decreases the plausibility by an order of magnitude.

I have more evidence for it than the average psychologist uses to back up whatever nonsense they come up with for years. For one - it actually fits. I was originally going to include the sensory stuff, well until I found a way around it. Should I say I used to have the sensory problems, times change

You do have to be quite creative with the hypnosis to do it, but it can be done.

So society makes even less sense to him. Though rather than just saying I am wrong - why don't you tell us all your theory...

Sure it would. If you have no sensory input, what is there to remember? Memory processes cannot occur if there is no input, and memory will be effected by any scrambling of the input. Sequentially, memory occurs after sensory processing, and what memory is working with is the outcome from sensory processing.

How can you accurately and properly remember what you never received accurate data for? If you audio processing goes bunk and you cannot properly interpret what is being said to then store as a memory, how then can you store it as a memory in any form other than an incorrect interpretation? Very obviously memory is completely reliant on the initial processing of information as it arrives from the senses. I am mystified as to how this could be a point of dispute. Cause proceeds effect and sensory processing necessarily happens before there can be anything to remember.

Yes they would fall in the domain of information processing and I agree they would not be thinking (which is my point; not all information processing is thinking).

It might be quite conceptually different to you, but the processes entailed are simply chemical/electrical processes. Just as a computer works with binary code regardless how it looks to an end user who sees many letters, colours and bits and bobs on their computer screen, to the brain the processes are all electro-chemical exchange.

This again is an issue of recognizing the difference between concepts about the outcomes as we observe and think about, and the reality of the physical processes that we are attempting to think about and describe. What is the absolute biological basis for calling some information processed by the brain "information" but for not calling other information processed by the brain "information"?

Just because we conceptualize these types of information as being different from an outside the black box perspective, it does not necessarily follow that these things are distinct in their actual physical reality within the black box.


The point is that thinking is only a sub set of the information processing going in the brain. The kinds of information processing that tells your heart to beat shares at least one quality with the processes producing "intuition", and that is that the processes are not willfully directed and are generally not something we are aware of from moment to moment as we are aware of our thinking.

If the brain can process information without us directing it to, then it can process information without us directing it to. You might conceptualize the information processed as different, but what is the biological basis of this conceptualization?

Stating does not make it so. I have already given examples of information processing occurring without thinking being involved. You choose to state that the information processing is not information processing, but stating it, does not make it so.

There is scientific evidence that those who cannot form new "memories" can learn and deploy new skills.

There is evidence that people can process visual information and act on that information where the ability to know what they see and to sense (self-awarely) what they see is completely absent.

The only conclusion we can reach is that entirely independent of thinking or remembering, the brain is processing the information reliably and usefully.


In your view you can remember what you have not ever sensed? How is your memory getting the information?

I find this a very mystifying belief on your part and I am very curious as to how your you have concluded that your (or anyone's) brain can possibly work with information it has not received. How do brains manage to defy the time space continuum to allow causes to proceed effects? I do not understand how you are reaching this conclusion given it is known that sensory processing takes place before any other process (in the brain) can access the information processed/produced.

Are you genuinely suggesting that you can remember what was said even before the information arriving from your physical ear is processed by your brain? That seems odd to me.

It is also not consistent with empirical evidence of people's sense processing being cut off entirely from their awareness and memory functions, yet still working and processing information that can be utilized to allow the effected person to navigate physically around obstacles (in the instance where the "cut off" sensory processing is of visual information).


The problem is firstly not all information processing requires memory at all.

Secondly we cannot look at memory because it is a concept (rather than a physical thing). We cannot look at the part of the brain where memory occurs (entailed processes are not restricted to one part of the brain), the physical cells involved are not exclusive or all the same so we cannot go looking there.

So far as I can see none of this is useful for research or descriptive of what is actually going on, so I cannot see the utility or purpose of it.

Your own explanation is simply that information processing is the theory but since something (memory - whatever that actually is) is entailed in many aspects of information processing, let's call it that (without any particular reason to pick memory out, other than it is a catchy word or something...?)

I disagree that this is the issue. My concern is that if I accept memory is central then things are left unexplained (social learning starts up before memory is functional, memory cannot explain hyer-hypo sensitivity, delays in hearing processing, or acuity of vision), and further I have no notion as to what it would mean for memory to be central because memory is not a biological entity, or a particular known set of processes.

When you say memory you are not necessarily talking about any particular processes or any particular physical correlation between individual processes. In essence what you are saying is without physical/biological meaning. If the only correlation between all the things we include in the concept of memory is conceptual, then how can memory explain biological reality?

I have enjoyed it also, add my own thanks (to you) and chuck in a "you're welcome" to boot.


Mmm, I had not even considered interest levels, now I'm curious, so I will check out the stat "counter" when I am on the main index page.


There might be some deviation in POV as to the interest in the actual processes concerned. I for one am very curious about what on earth is neurologically (physically) going on, more so than any conceptualization for social/political purposes.

I struggle to understand why innate worth and value would be based on anything other than the capacity of a human to have positive and negative experiences in the form of internal mental states. It does seem to me that this is not the measure the bulk of humanity are using so I find concepts that are intended to influence such things (how the average person conceives of and measures the value of another) very challenging and difficult to get my head around.

If your approach is more about this ideological end (and influencing the way the average person valuates and values other humans), then our approach and what we consider significant (and what we understand in so far as my understanding in this "influencing how others perceive others" area is limited) is going to be quite different.