0
   

Can mind states be memorised ?

 
 
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:04 am
"I'll never forget the strong emotions I felt at that Wagner opera",
is a "legitimate" describtion of a past auditive and vizual experience.
My sense- perceptions are entirely physical and thus, the material component of this experience ,is stored in my brain in a physically explainable way .
But, what about the emotions I felt and I "never forget" ?
In a non-physicalist model, these emotions are not material and as such they cannot be stored in my brain .Then, how I can memorise my , non-cerebral, emotions ?
More general, how all these "mind states" can be memorised ?
For instance, how do I remember my own believes or,for that,
a computer algorithm or a geometric property demonstration ?
Thus my question is :
Which ,if any, of the current mind/body models could explain the memorization of what is called "mind states" ?
Thanks,
Pedestrian
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,606 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by pedestrian
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:18 am
@pedestrian,
You need to be specific with respect to the philosophical import of your question. Are you advocating psycho-physical parallelism?....reductionism ?...Wittgensteinian analysis of the usage of the words "memory" and "mind" ? ...etc.

If you do not come up with an understanding of the philosophical functionality of the question, you are in danger of ending up merely with nebulous destruction of "common-sense" usage, by a misguided quest for "scientism". (ref: Haack)
0 Replies
 
fresco
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2011 02:41 am
@pedestrian,
Welcome to A2K by the way ! Very Happy

Note also that " standard scientific explanation" takes the characteristics of " an observer" to be axiomatic, but you are questioning such axioms thereby making the quest for "explanation" problematic.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 06:04 pm
@fresco,
Would you agree that while "the observer" is axiomatic in Science, in Philosophy it is problematical? I think that in Mysticism it is at the heart of inquiry.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2011 01:51 am
@JLNobody,
Yes to that. Note the two directions "observation" goes in mysticism: either (1) dissipation of "self" or (2) transcendence of to "higher self".
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2011 10:38 am
@pedestrian,
pedestrian wrote:

Thus my question is :
Which ,if any, of the current mind/body models could explain the memorization of what is called "mind states" ?

I’d say that ‘mind states’ haven’t been explained, they remain a mystery.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2011 10:49 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

pedestrian wrote:

Thus my question is :
Which ,if any, of the current mind/body models could explain the memorization of what is called "mind states" ?

I’d say that ‘mind states’ haven’t been explained, they remain a mystery.

Memory is a mystery. But the fact that you remember a mind state is empirical evidence that it nevertheless takes place...mysteriously!
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Jul, 2011 11:16 am
@pedestrian,
There are problems with the physicalist, non-physicalist and dualistic models. If I had to bet on an outcome I’d say it will remain a mystery that will never be resolved.
pedestrian
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jul, 2011 10:48 pm
@igm,
Re: igm

What will be for you an "outcome" ?
And how you'll decide this outcome has ,indeed, no problems ?
(A "no problems" theory, the Newton mechanics, had no problems for two centuries , and then it started to have a lot of troubles !
The "output" were two new theories ,relativistic mechanics and
quantum mechanics .No mystery here but, probably, they will appear .
As for our senses , our ideas are self-correcting !)
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jul, 2011 05:03 am
@pedestrian,
pedestrian wrote:

Re: igm

What will be for you an "outcome" ?
And how you'll decide this outcome has ,indeed, no problems ?
(A "no problems" theory, the Newton mechanics, had no problems for two centuries , and then it started to have a lot of troubles !
The "output" were two new theories ,relativistic mechanics and
quantum mechanics .No mystery here but, probably, they will appear .
As for our senses , our ideas are self-correcting !)


There won't be a final outcome. There won't be any outcome that doesn't have problems. There will be practical temporary change due to new approximate outcomes.
0 Replies
 
Speakpigeon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2011 09:15 am
@pedestrian,
In a non-physicalist model you are not constrained to store your memories anywhere so having no storage facility is not a problem.

In effect, you can devise all sort of possibilities since you are only constrained, if at all, by logic.

I didn't know that auditive and visual experiences were 'physical'. I'm sure we all believe there is something we call the physical world and that we all believe that it is usually the cause of auditive and visual experiences. However, any subjective experience is just that, a subjective experience. What we think the cause of it is, is properly a belief.

The merit of the physical model is that it fits better to the facts of our experience, except perhaps when it comes to explain why we have subjective experience at all, which is indeed a problem.
EB
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

"Sacrifice for change is effect. - Discussion by jufa
Nonsense is nonsense no matter who states it - Discussion by Alan McDougall
The Hive Mind of Humanity? - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Journey into alternate realities (Excerpt only?) - Discussion by Alan McDougall
A Warning from Gia Mother Earth to mortal mankind - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Augmenting Human Sensory Perceptions? - Discussion by Alan McDougall
The Unstable Divide - Question by binman303
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can mind states be memorised ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2021 at 11:58:34