Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 173, Issue 11, pp 2993–3013 | Cite as

Representing the past: memory traces and the causal theory of memory

  • Sarah RobinsEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to the Causal Theory of Memory (CTM), remembering a particular past event requires a causal connection between that event and its subsequent representation in memory, specifically, a connection sustained by a memory trace. The CTM is the default view of memory in contemporary philosophy, but debates persist over what the involved memory traces must be like. Martin and Deutscher (Philos Rev 75:161–196, 1966) argued that the CTM required memory traces to be structural analogues of past events. Bernecker (Memory: A philosophical study. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) and Michaelian (Philos Psychol 24:323–342, 2011), contemporary CTM proponents, reject structural analogues in favor of memory traces as distributed patterns of event features. The proposals are understood as distinct accounts of how memory traces represent past events. But there are two distinct questions one could ask about a trace’s representational features. One might ask how memory traces, qua mental representations, have their semantic properties. Or, what makes memory traces, qua mental representations of memories, distinct from other mental representations. Proponents of the CTM, both past and present, have failed to keep these two questions distinct. The result is a serious but unnoticed problem for the CTM in its current form. Distributed memory traces are incompatible with the CTM. Such traces do not provide a way to track the causal history of individual memories, as the CTM requires. If memory traces are distributed patterns of event features, as Bernecker and Michaelian each claim, then the CTM cannot be right.

Keywords

Causal theory of memory Remembering Memory traces Mental representation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Sven Bernecker, Carl F. Craver, John Heil, Muhammad Ali Khalidi, and the audience at a University of Kansas colloquium for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. Special thanks to Corey J. Maley for creation of the figures.

References

  1. Bennett, M., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Bernecker, S. (2010). Memory: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernecker, S., & Dretske, F. (2000). Knowledge: Readings in contemporary epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Broad, C. D. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. De Brigard, F. (2014). Is memory for remembering? Recollection as a form of episodic hypothetical thinking. Synthese, 191, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Debus, D. (2010). Accounting for epistemic relevance: A new problem for the causal theory of memory. American Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 17–29.Google Scholar
  7. Deutscher, M. (1989). Remembering “Remembering.”. In J. Heil (Ed.), Cause, mind, and reality (pp. 53–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice, H.P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 35 Supp., 121–152.Google Scholar
  9. Heil, J. (1981). Does cognitive psychology rest on a mistake? Mind, 90, 321–342.Google Scholar
  10. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laurence, J. R., & Perry, C. (1983). Hypnotically created memory among highly hypnotizable subjects. Science, 222, 523–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1980). Veridical hallucination and prosthetic vision. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Locke, D. (1971). Memory. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin, C. B., & Deutscher, M. (1966). Remembering. Philosophical Review, 75, 161–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mendelsohn, A., Chalamish, Y., Solomonovich, A., & Dudai, Y. (2008). Mesmerizing memories: Brain substrates of episodic memory suppression in posthypnotic amnesia. Neuron, 57, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Michaelian, K. (2011). Generative memory. Philosophical Psychology, 24, 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 259–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Rosen, D. A. (1975). An argument for the logical notion of a memory trace. Philosophy of Science, 42, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
  20. Shoemaker, S. (1970). Persons and their pasts. American Philosophical Quarterly, 7, 269–285.Google Scholar
  21. Smolensky, P. (1991). Connectionism and the language of thought. In B. Loewer & G. Rey (Eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics (pp. 201–227). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Sutton, J. (1998). Philosophy and Memory Traces: Descartes to Connectionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Von Eckardt, B. (1996). What is Cognitive Science?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wixted, A., Squire, L. R., Yoonhee, J., Papesh, M. H., Goldiner, S. D., Kuhn, J. R., et al. (2014). Sparse and distributed coding of episodic memory in neurons of the human hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 9621–9626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zemach, E. M. (1983). Memory: what it is, and what it cannot possibly be. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 44, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations