Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:37:06.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Argument For The Logical Notion of A Memory Trace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Deborah A. Rosen
Deborah A. Rosen*
Affiliation:
The University of New Orleans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the past decade there has been a very effective campaign against any explanation of remembering whose basic concept is that of a causally mediating trace. This paper attempts to provide such an explanation by presenting an explicit deductive argument for the existence of the memory trace. The conclusion is shown to follow from reasonable, empirical assumptions of which the most interesting is a spatio-temporal contiguity thesis. Set-theoretic techniques are used to provide a framework of analysis and probabilistic definitions of some causal notions, as that of a causal chain, are presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am indebted to Patrick Suppes whose criticisms and helpful suggestions contributed much to the development of this essay. I should also like to thank Norton Nelkin for criticisms of an earlier draft.

References

REFERENCES

Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by McKeon, R. New York: Random House, 1966.Google Scholar
Goldberg, B. “The Correspondence Hypothesis.” Philosophical Review 87 (1968): 438–454.10.2307/2183010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomulicki, B. R. “The Development and Present Status of the Trace Theory of Memory.” British Journal of Psychology (Monograph Supplements) 29 (1953).Google Scholar
Good, I. J. “A Causal Calculus II.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12 (1961): 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. Psychology. New York: Holdt, 1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magoun, H. W. The Waking Brain. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1965.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. Knowledge and Certainty. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.Google Scholar
Malcolm, N. “Memory and Representation.” Noûs 4 (1970): 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. B. and Deutscher, M. “Remembering.” Philosophical Review 75 (1966): 161–196.10.2307/2183082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, J. C. A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. (3rd ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 1892.Google Scholar
McCleary, R. A. “Learning: Neurophysiological Aspects.” In The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Vol. 9. Edited by Sills, D. L. New York: Macmillan, 1968.Google Scholar
Munsat, S. The Concept of Memory. New York: Random House, 1967.Google Scholar
Penfield, W. and Roberts, L. Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. “Persons and Their Pasts.” American Philosophical Quarterly 7 (1971): 269–285.Google Scholar
Squires, R. “Memory Unchained.” Philosophical Review 78 (1969): 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1970.Google Scholar
Wickelgren, W. A. and Norman, D. A. “Strength Models and Serial Position in Short-Term Recognition Memory.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 3 (1966): 316–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickelgren, W. A. “The Long and Short of Memory.” Psychological Bulletin 80 (1973): 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar