Skip to main content

Memory as Triage: Facing Up to the Hard Question of Memory

Abstract

The Hard Question of memory is the following: how are memory representations stored and organized so as to be made available for retrieval in the appropriate circumstances and format? In this essay, I argue that philosophical theories of memory should engage with the Hard Question directly and seriously. I propose that declarative memory is a faculty performing a kind of cognitive triage: management of information for a variety of uses under significant computational constraints. In such triage, memory representations are preferentially selected and stabilized, but also systematically modified and integrated into generalized, model-like representational structures. Further, I propose a hybrid theory of remembering, which takes into account both the nature of the cognitive processes underlying remembering and the norms that govern representational success in relevant cognitive/epistemic contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Fine 2014; Sorensen 2018. All references to Plato are quoted from the Complete Works, edited by Cooper 1997.

  2. 2.

    See Ebert 1973, Fine 2014, Westbury and Dennett 2000, Chappell 2017 etc.

  3. 3.

    The intended contrast is with lost external objects, which may be encountered accidentally in the search (cf. Chappell 2017).

  4. 4.

    In this essay, I will sometimes use ‘recollection’ and ‘recall’ interchangeably. While there are important differences between these notions - they usually refer to two distinct kinds of remembering - these differences are not relevant for my purposes.

  5. 5.

    I will frequently use ‘item’ to refer to internal content-bearing memory representations. I borrow this terminology from the psychological literature.

  6. 6.

    cf. Dennett (2018a, p.3): “The general answer to the hard question... is ‘Almost anything can happen!’ Our conscious minds are amazingly free-wheeling, open-ended, protean, untrammeled, unconstrained, variable, unpredictable...Omni-representational.” Dennett, of course, focuses on consciousness. My Hard Question of memory is modeled on his Hard Question of consciousness.

  7. 7.

    The example is borrowed from Anderson 2007, pp.100–102

  8. 8.

    In this essay, I deal exclusively with declarative memory. On the standard accounts, declarative (or explicit) memory is a kind of long-term memory that involves the encoding, storage and retrieval of information and supports the remembering (typically: conscious recollection) of events, experiences and facts (Schacter and Tulving 1994; Eichenbaum 2004). It is to be contrasted with procedural memory - a kind of long-term memory that does not involve the manipulation of information/representations and is expressed through performance (Schacter and Tulving 1994). In the essay, I assume that declarative and procedural memory are different in kind. For skepticism about this view, see De Brigard (2019).

  9. 9.

    While the article includes Michaelian's (2016a) simulation theory of memory in the mainstream, I take this theory to be importantly different from the RF theories listed here.

  10. 10.

    e.g. Bernecker 2010, pp. 26–30. Incidentally, what makes a mental state occurrent turns out to be an exceptionally difficult question. For the fascinating details, see Bartlett 2018.

  11. 11.

    e.g. Bernecker 2008, Ch.8; Hopkins 2012

  12. 12.

    Consolidation is the process of transformation of, initially malleable, memory representations into a more stable, long-lasting form (see Dudai et al. 2015; Squire et al. 2015). See also section 3.3.

  13. 13.

    I will use ‘faculty’ and ‘capacity’ interchangeably.

  14. 14.

    The Causal Theory is not the only “remembering first” theory that makes errors of commission and omission of the relevant kind. Here I have chosen it primarily because it is the most developed, and intensively studied, theory. It is my belief that a similar analysis can be applied to other RF theories. While this certainly issues a promissory note, I provide many reasons in the main text, which suggest why we should expect to find similar problems with other relevantly similar theories.

  15. 15.

    More carefully: there may be a set of causally connected representations, which carry the relevant content from encoding to retrieval. See Martin and Deutscher 1966; Bernecker 2010. For causal theories that do not posit content-bearing memory traces, see Perrin 2018 and Werning 2020.

  16. 16.

    On these views, traces of distinct memories are not stored independently; rather they are superposed in the same set of neural connections. See, for example, McClelland and Rumelhart 1985, p.160: “We do not keep each trace in a separate place, but rather we superimpose them so that what...memory contains is a composite”. In the formation of such composites, some/many of the distinguishing details of the individual representations are lost. As a result, there are no traces with unique content-preserving causal histories. See Robins 2016 for details. Also see section 3.3.

  17. 17.

    In reconsolidation, previously stabilized memory representations are reactivated and return to a malleable state during new experiences (for details, see Nader and Einarsson 2010).

  18. 18.

    Two issues are worth underscoring here. First, this proposal is not uncontroversial in the (psychological) literature. As an anonymous referee rightly points out, other theorists have suggested different computational problems that memory systems must solve. The account offered in this section is a hypothesis, which integrates evidence from a variety of sources in an attempt to highlight some foundational problems in philosophical theories and contribute to the project of uncovering cognitive/memory kinds. Second, the characterization of the computational problem(s) may be seen as too broad. My response is three-fold. (a) It is arguable that the explanandum phenomenon (declarative memory) is itself very broad. This capacity will likely turn out to be supported by a set of widely distributed cognitive systems/mechanisms that contribute to the solutions of the highlighted relevance problems (b) The proposed account is intended as an opening salvo in the characterization of these systems. It does not aim to fully individuate them, a task which (as I say in the main text) necessitates investigation of their design principles, processes and representational formats. (c) Even at this level of generality, the proposal affords criticism of RF theories of the kind sketched in the previous section. I take this to be one of the main insights of the essay. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for bringing these issues to my attention.

  19. 19.

    See Brainerd et al. 1990; Anderson 2007; Stickgold and Walker 2013

  20. 20.

    ‘When’ is chosen for elegance here. In reality, as I have argued in the main text, there are a variety of computational costs/constraints. Time is only one of them. Please keep that in mind.

  21. 21.

    Note: for ease of exposition, I sometimes speak of ‘memories’ and not of memory ‘items’ or ‘representations’. Importantly, I do not consider memory items/representations to be actual memories. For a discussion of this distinction, and its relevance, see Dudai 2012

  22. 22.

    \( \overline{\mathrm{H}}' \) refers to the negation of the hypothesis that a particular memory will be needed.

  23. 23.

    This would require “follow[ing] people about their daily lives, keeping a complete record of when they use various facts” (Anderson and Milson 1989, p.705).

  24. 24.

    In the words of Schooler and Anderson (2017): “Sitting behind some of the most robust regularities in human memory, there are equally robust regularities in the environment” (p.270).

  25. 25.

    For the third important limitation - the assumption of immutability of memory ‘items’ - see below.

  26. 26.

    As an anonymous reviewer helpfully points out, the rational analysis approach has resources to accommodate differences in value between memory items. I agree. I nevertheless think that the task of accounting for the kinds of regularities outlined in the main text is yet to be carried out.

  27. 27.

    From ‘totally irrelevant’ (1) to ‘extremely relevant’ (5)

  28. 28.

    For a critical discussion of the limitations of the survival processing paradigm, see Kazanas and Altarriba 2015.

  29. 29.

    The causal theory, again, is a good exemplar. On CTM, the individuation of memory representations occurs upon the original experiencing of the relevant events. Memory then (passively) stores such representations, often from encoding to retrieval (for a good analysis, see Aronowitz 2019).

  30. 30.

    On the standard model, consolidation involves the re-organization and increase of the distribution and complexity of memory representations in neo-cortical regions (cf. Dudai et al.; Squire et al. 2015). There are now some important theoretical alternatives to the standard model, including multiple trace theory (Nadel et al. 2000), the transformation hypothesis (Winocur and Moscovitch 2011) as well as scene construction theory (Barry and Maguire 2019)

  31. 31.

    This result suggests that the improvement in the participants’ memory for the shared features is not due to the loss of information about the unique/distinguishing features.

  32. 32.

    The coding mechanisms also support ‘remapping’ in different contexts. See Ekstrom and Ranganath 2018.

  33. 33.

    Map-like representations embed structural knowledge about the domain in the (geometric) relationship between different states in the multi-dimensional cognitive spaces. The “geometric constraints on cognitive spaces”, then, allow inferences about never-experienced stimuli (Bellmund et al. 2018, p.1). This affords significant cognitive flexibility. See also Eichenbaum 2004.

  34. 34.

    Recently, some theorists have challenged the claim that memory (necessarily) involves storage, in any strong sense (see, e.g., De Brigard 2014; Hutto and Peeters 2018; Werning 2020). This development raises an interesting question: can the Hard Question be stated without referring to memory storage? While a detailed analysis is well beyond the scope of this essay, I think the answer is positive. The Hard Question, in its most general form - what happens between the original experience and the act of recall/recollection? - needs to be addressed even by theorists skeptical of the idea of storage. Indeed, both ‘minimalists’ (Werning 2020) and ‘enactivists’ (Hutto and Peeters 2018) have to tell some story about the processes/mechanisms that make appropriate recall/recollection possible. Of course, the stories put forward by these theories will probably be of a different kind than the one I offer here. I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for pointing me to this interesting question.

  35. 35.

    I take epistemically relevant processes to be processes which generate information relevant to a subject’s knowledge or beliefs. See Sequoiah-Grayson (2016).

  36. 36.

    e.g. Storing immutable memory representations, which are not integrated into models of the world, do not allow rememberers such flexible access. I take this to be one of the main lessons of this essay.

  37. 37.

    One concern is that the ease of compatibility is a result of the generality with which the computational problem is couched (see note 18). Even if that is the case, the point here is that the proposal affords criticism of RF theories that can be stated without commitment to any controversial view about the proper function of memory systems. I take this point to be independent of the endorsement of function pluralism. I am thankful to a referee for prompting me to add this clarification.

  38. 38.

    I take the prospects for such a theory to be dim. There are a variety of reasons for this, but one stands out. There are kinds of remembering errors - recognized as such in both folk and scientific psychology - which do not seem to involve the malfunctioning of memory systems. Some errors, like the ones elicited in the DRM or misinformation experimental paradigms, are indeed sometimes taken to be indicative of the systems’ proper function - what the systems are really doing (see, e.g., De Brigard 2014). Yet, there is a familiar epistemic sense in which these nevertheless are errors, a fact which memory scientists haven’t failed to recognize. As Craver (2020) points out in a recent essay, much of the science of memory has been framed by reference to conditions such as accuracy, with the role of remembering in (social) epistemic practices as “the touchstone against which our scientific measures must be calibrated” (p.275). Given this calibration, even the most fervent of revisionists have been reluctant to eliminate such conditions, despite the difficulties they’ve had developing a reductive account of remembering errors (see Michaelian 2016a, 2016b). I am indebted to an anonymous referee for prompting me to explore this issue, a detailed treatment of which is, of course, beyond the scope of this essay.

  39. 39.

    These points touch upon a lot of important but difficult questions, not the least important of which pertains to the prospects of the “method of cases” and the nature of conceptual analysis/engineering. More on these in a future paper.

References

  1. Alea, N., and S. Bluck. 2003. Why are you telling me that? A conceptual model of the social function of autobiographical memory. Memory 11 (2): 165–178.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J.R. 1990. The adaptive character of thought. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771730.

  3. Anderson, J.R. 2007. How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford University Press.

  4. Anderson, J.R., and R. Milson. 1989. Human memory: An adaptive perspective. Psychological Review 96 (4): 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, J.R., and L.J. Schooler. 1991. Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science 2 (6): 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00174.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Andonovski, N. 2020. Singularism about episodic memory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11: 335–365.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aronov, D., R. Nevers, and D.W. Tank. 2017. Mapping of a non-spatial dimension by the hippocampal–entorhinal circuit. Nature 543 (7647): 719–722.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aronowitz, S. 2019. Memory is a modeling system. Mind & Language 34 (4): 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aslan, A., and T. John. 2016. The development of adaptive memory: Young children show enhanced retention of animacy-related information. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 152: 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bar, M. 2009. The proactive brain: Memory for predictions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1521): 1235–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Baraly, K. T. A., Hot, P., Davidson, P. S., & Talmi, D. (2017). How emotional arousal enhances episodic memory. Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference, 295–324.

  12. Barry, D.N., and E.A. Maguire. 2019. Remote memory and the Hippocampus: A constructive critique. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23 (2): 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bartlett, G. 2018. Occurrent states. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48 (1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bartol Jr, T. M., Bromer, C., Kinney, J., Chirillo, M. A., Bourne, J. N., Harris, K. M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2015). Nanoconnectomic upper bound on the variability of synaptic plasticity. Elife, 4, e10778.

  15. Behrens, T.E.J., T.H. Muller, J.C.R. Whittington, S. Mark, A.B. Baram, K.L. Stachenfeld, and Z. Kurth-Nelson. 2018. What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron 100 (2): 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellmund, J. L., Gärdenfors, P., Moser, E. I., & Doeller, C. F. (2018). Navigating cognition: Spatial codes for human thinking. Science, 362(6415), eaat6766.

  17. Bernecker, S. (2008). The metaphysics of memory. Springer Science & Business Media.

  18. Bernecker, S. (2010). Memory: A Philosophical Study. (2010). Oxford University press.

  19. Block, N., and J. Fodor. 1972. What psychological states are not. Philosophical Review 81: 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boyer, P. (2009). What are memories for? Functions of recall in cognition and culture. Memory in mind and culture (3–28). Cambridge University Press.

  21. Brainerd, C.J., V.F. Reyna, and M.L. Howe. 1990. Children's cognitive triage: Optimal retrieval or effortful processing? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 49 (3): 428–447.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Harvard university press.

  23. Burns, J.G., J. Foucaud, and F. Mery. 2011. Costs of memory: Lessons from ‘mini’ brains. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1707): 923–929.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cairney, S.A., J.M. Sobczak, S. Lindsay, and M.G. Gaskell. 2017. Mechanisms of memory retrieval in slow-wave sleep. Sleep 40 (9).

  25. Campbell, S. 2006. Our faithfulness to the past: Reconstructing memory value. Philosophical Psychology 19 (3): 361–380.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chapman, H.A., K. Johannes, J.L. Poppenk, M. Moscovitch, and A.K. Anderson. 2013. Evidence for the differential salience of disgust and fear in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (4): 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chappell, S. G. (2017). Plato. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of memory (pp. 385-395). Routledge.

  28. Clark, A., R.A. Nash, G. Fincham, and G. Mazzoni. 2012. Creating non-believed memories for recent autobiographical events. PLoS One 7 (3): e32998.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohen, N. J. (1984). Preserved learning capacity in amnesia: Evidence for multiple memory systems. In L.R. Squire and N. butters. The Neuropsychology of Memory (pp. 83–103). New York: Guilford press.

  30. Constantinescu, A.O., J.X. O’Reilly, and T.E. Behrens. 2016. Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code. Science 352 (6292): 1464–1468.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper, J. (Ed.) 1997. Plato: Complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

  32. Craver, C. F. (2013). Functions and mechanisms: A perspectivalist view. In Functions: Selection and mechanisms (pp. 133–158). Springer, Dordrecht.

  33. Craver, C.F. 2020. Remembering: Epistemic and empirical. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11 (2): 261–281.

    Google Scholar 

  34. De Brigard, F. 2012. Predictive memory and the surprising gap. Frontiers in Psychology 3: 420.

    Google Scholar 

  35. De Brigard, F. 2014. Is memory for remembering? Recollection as a form of episodic hypothetical thinking. Synthese 191 (2): 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0247-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. De Brigard, F. (2018). Memory and the intentional stance. In Huebner, B. (Ed.).The philosophy of Daniel Dennett. Oxford University Press.

  37. De Brigard, F. 2019. Know-how, intellectualism, and memory systems. Philosophical Psychology 32 (5): 719–758.

    Google Scholar 

  38. De Brigard, F., K.K. Szpunar, and D.L. Schacter. 2013. Coming to grips with the past: Effect of repeated simulation on the perceived plausibility of episodic counterfactual thoughts. Psychological Science 24 (7): 1329–1334.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dennett, D. C. (1987a). Cognitive wheels: The frame problem in Al. In The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence.

  40. Dennett, D. C. (1987b). The intentional stance. MIT press.

  41. Dennett, D.C. 1991. Real patterns. The Journal of Philosophy 88 (1): 27–51.

  42. Dennett, D.C. 2018a. Facing up to the hard question of consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373 (1755): 20170342.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dennett, D.C. (2018b). Reflections on Felipe De Brigard. In Huebner, B. (Ed.).The philosophy of Daniel Dennett. Oxford University Press.

  44. Dudai, Y. 1997. How big is human memory, or on being just useful enough. Learning & Memory 3 (5): 341–365.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dudai, Y. 2012. The restless engram: Consolidations never end. Annual Review of Neuroscience 35: 227–247.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dudai, Y., A. Karni, and J. Born. 2015. The consolidation and transformation of memory. Neuron 88 (1): 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dunsmoor, J.E., and R. Paz. 2015. Fear generalization and anxiety: Behavioral and neural mechanisms. Biological Psychiatry 78 (5): 336–343.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ebert, T. (1973). Plato's theory of recollection reconsidered: An interpretation of Meno 80a-86c.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Eichenbaum, H. 2004. Hippocampus: Cognitive Processes and Neural Representations that UnderlieDeclarative Memory. Neuron 44 (1): 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ekstrom, A.D., and C. Ranganath. 2018. Space, time, and episodic memory: The hippocampus is all over the cognitive map. Hippocampus 28 (9): 680–687.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Fernandes, N. L., Pandeirada, J., Nairne, J. and Soares, S. C. (2016). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic value of contamination. Paper presented at the 57th annual meeting of the Psychonomic society, Boston, MS, USA.

  52. Fernández, J. (2018). The functional character of memory. In new directions in the philosophy of memory (pp. 52-72). Routledge.

  53. Fernández, J. (2019). Memory: A self-referential account. Oxford University Press, USA.

  54. Fine, G. (2014). The possibility of inquiry: Meno's paradox from Socrates to Sextus. OUP Oxford.

  55. Fischer, S., & Born, J. (2009). Anticipated reward enhances offline learning during sleep. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 35(6), 1586.

  56. Fodor, J.A. 1968. Psychological explanation. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT press.

  58. Fodor, J. A. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. The MIT Press.

  59. Garson, J. 2018. How to Be a Function Pluralist. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (4):1101–1122.

  60. Gershman, S. J. (2019). The rational analysis of memory. Available at: http://gershmanlab.webfactional.com/pubs/RationalAnalysisOfMemory.pdf

  61. Hafting, T., M. Fyhn, S. Molden, M.B. Moser, and E.I. Moser. 2005. Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature 436 (7052): 801–806.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hanert, A., F.D. Weber, A. Pedersen, J. Born, and T. Bartsch. 2017. Sleep in humans stabilizes pattern separation performance. Journal of Neuroscience 37 (50): 12238–12246.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hopkins, R. 2012. Factive pictorial experience: What's special about photographs? Nous 46 (4): 709–731.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hutto, D.D., and A. Peeters. 2018. The roots of remembering: Radically enactive recollecting. In New directions in the philosophy of memory, ed. K. Michaelian, D. Debus, and D. Perrin, 97–118. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Josselyn, S.A., and S. Tonegawa. 2020. Memory engrams: Recalling the past and imagining the future. Science 367 (6473): eaaw4325. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw4325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kazanas, S.A., and J. Altarriba. 2015. The survival advantage: Underlying mechanisms and extant limitations. Evolutionary Psychology 13 (2): 147470491501300204.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kensinger, E.A., and J.H. Ford. 2020. Retrieval of emotional events from memory. Annual Review of Psychology 71: 251–272.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Klein, S.B. 2013. Does optimal recall performance in the adaptive memory paradigm require the encoding context to encourage thoughts about the environment of evolutionary adaptation? Memory & Cognition 41 (1): 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Klein, S.B., L. Cosmides, J. Tooby, and S. Chance. 2002. Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions. Psychological Review 109: 306–329.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Klein, S.B., T.E. Robertson, and A.W. Delton. 2010. Facing the future: Memory as an evolved system for planning future acts. Memory & Cognition 38 (1): 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Koriat, A., and M. Goldsmith. 1996. Memory metaphors and the real-life/laboratory controversy: Correspondence versus storehouse conceptions of memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (2): 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kroneisen, M. and Makerud, S. E. (2016). The effects of item material on encoding strategies: Survival processing compared to the method of loci. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 1-13.

  73. Landmann, N., M. Kuhn, H. Piosczyk, B. Feige, C. Baglioni, K. Spiegelhalder, L. Frase, D. Riemann, A. Sterr, and C. Nissen. 2014. The reorganisation of memory during sleep. Sleep Medicine Reviews 18 (6): 531–541.

    Google Scholar 

  74. LeDoux, J.E. 2014. Coming to terms with fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (8): 2871–2878.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lewis, P.A., and S.J. Durrant. 2011. Overlapping memory replay during sleep builds cognitive schemata. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15 (8): 343–351.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Lin, Y. T. (2015). Memory for prediction error minimization: From depersonalization to the delusion of non-existence - a commentary on Philip Gerrans. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds). Open MIND: 15(C). Frankfurt am Main: MIND group. Doi: https://doi.org/10.15502/97839585707191.

  77. Lin, T., Fischer, H., Johnson, M. K., & Ebner, N. C. (2019). The effects of face attractiveness on face memory depend on both age of perceiver and age of face. Cognition and Emotion, 1–15.

  78. Lormand, E. (1996). The holorobophobe’s dilemma. In Pylyshyn, Z. (Ed. The robot’s dilemma revisited: The frame problem in artificial intelligence (61–88). Praeger.

  79. Machery, E. (2017). Philosophy within its proper bounds. Oxford University Press.

  80. Mahr, J. B., & Csibra, G. (2018). Why do we remember? The Communicative Function of Episodic Memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x17000012.

  81. Maren, S. 2001. Neurobiology of Pavlovian fear conditioning. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24 (1): 897–931.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Martin, C. B., & Deutscher, M. (1966). Remembering. The Philosophical Review, 75(2), 161–196. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183082.

  83. Marzi, T., and M.P. Viggiano. 2010. When memory meets beauty: Insights from event-related potentials. Biological Psychology 84 (2): 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Mattingly, I. G. (1975). The human aspects of speech. In J. F. Kavanagh, and J. E. Cutting (Eds.) The Role of speech in language (63–72). Cambridge University Press.

  85. McGaugh, J.L. 2000. Memory--a century of consolidation. Science 287 (5451): 248–251.

    Google Scholar 

  86. McGaugh, J.L. 2004. The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review Neuroscience 27: 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  87. McClelland, J.L., and D.E. Rumelhart. 1985. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114 (2): 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Michaelian, K. 2011. Generative memory. Philosophical Psychology 24 (3): 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.559623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Michaelian, K. (2016a). Mental Time Travel: Episodic Memory and Our Knowledge of the Personal Past the MIT press.

  90. Michaelian, K. 2016b. Confabulating, misremembering, relearning: The simulation theory of memory and unsuccessful remembering. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1857.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Michaelian, K., & Sutton, J. (2017). Memory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2017). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/memory/

  92. Moscovitch, M., R. Cabeza, G. Winocur, and L. Nadel. 2016. Episodic memory and beyond: The Hippocampus and Neocortex in transformation. Annual Review of Psychology 67: 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Murayama, K., and S. Kitagami. 2014. Consolidation power of extrinsic rewards: Reward cues enhance long-term memory for irrelevant past events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (1): 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Nadel, L., A. Samsonovich, L. Ryan, and M. Moscovitch. 2000. Multiple trace theory of human memory: computational, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological results. Hippocampus 10 (4): 352–368.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Nader, K., and E.Ö. Einarsson. 2010. Memory reconsolidation: An update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1191 (1): 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Nairne, J.S., S.R. Thompson, and J.N.S. Pandeirada. 2007. Adaptive memory: Survival processing enhances retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33 (2): 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Nairne, J.S., J.N. Pandeirada, and S.R. Thompson. 2008. Adaptive memory: The comparative value of survival processing. Psychological Science 19 (2): 176–180.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Fernandes. N. L. (2017) Adaptive memory. In John H. Byrne (Ed.) Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference (2nd Ed., Vol. 2). pp. 279–293. Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21060-2.

  99. Neisser, U. (1982). Memory: What are the important questions? In Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts (3–19). Worth Publishers.

  100. O’Keefe, J., and L. Nadel. 1978. The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Park, S. A., Miller, D. S., Nili, H., Ranganath, C., & Boorman, E. D. (2019). Map making: Constructing, combining, and navigating abstract cognitive maps. BioRxiv, 810051.

  102. Payne, J.D., and E.A. Kensinger. 2018. Stress, sleep, and the selective consolidation of emotional memories. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 19: 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Perrin, D. (2018). A case for procedural causality in episodic recollection. In New directions in the philosophy of memory (pp. 33-51). Routledge.

  104. Poo, M., M. Pignatelli, T.J. Ryan, S. Tonegawa, T. Bonhoeffer, K.C. Martin, A. Rudenko, L.-H. Tsai, R.W. Tsien, G. Fishell, C. Mullins, J.T. Gonçalves, M. Shtrahman, S.T. Johnston, F.H. Gage, Y. Dan, J. Long, G. Buzsáki, and C. Stevens. 2016. What is memory? The present state of the engram. BMC Biology 14 (1): 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0261-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Popp, E. Y., & Serra, M. J. (2016). Adaptive memory: Animacy enhances free recall but impairs cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000174.

  106. Quilty-Dunn, J., and E. Mandelbaum. 2018. Against dispositionalism: Belief in cognitive science. Philosophical Studies 175 (9): 2353–2372.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Rasch, B., and J. Born. 2013. About sleep's role in memory. Physiological Reviews 93 (2): 681–766.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Renoult, L., P.S. Davidson, D.J. Palombo, M. Moscovitch, and B. Levine. 2012. Personal semantics: At the crossroads of semantic episodic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (11): 550–558.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Renoult, L., A. Tanguay, M. Beaudry, P. Tavakoli, S. Rabipour, K. Campbell, M. Moscovitch, B. Levine, and P.S.R. Davidson. 2016. Personal semantics: Is it distinct from episodic and semantic memory? Neuropsychologia 83: 242–256.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Rey, G. 1994. Dennett's unrealistic psychology. Philosophical Topics 22 (1/2): 259–289.

    Google Scholar 

  111. van Rijn, E., C. Lucignoli, C. Izura, and M.T. Blagrove. 2017. Sleep-dependent memory consolidation is related to perceived value of learned material. Journal of Sleep Research 26 (3): 302–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Robertson, E.M. 2018. Memory instability as a gateway to generalization. PLoS Biology 16 (3): e2004633. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Robins, S. 2016. Representing the past: Memory traces and the causal theory of memory. Philosophical Studies 173 (11): 2993–3013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-016-0647-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Saletin, J.M., A.N. Goldstein, and M.P. Walker. 2011. The role of sleep in directed forgetting and remembering of human memories. Cerebral Cortex 21 (11): 2534–2541.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Samuels, R. 2010. Classical computationalism and the many problems of cognitive relevance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3): 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Sandry, J., D. Trafimow, M.J. Marks, and S. Rice. 2013. Adaptive memory: Evaluating alternative forms of fitness-relevant processing in the survival processing paradigm. PLoS One 8 (4): e60868.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Schacter, D. L. 2012. Adaptive constructive processes and the future of memory. American Psychologist, 67 (8), 603.

  118. Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.). 1994. Memory systems 1994. Cambridge: Bradford Books.

  119. Schapiro, A.C., E.A. McDevitt, L. Chen, K.A. Norman, S.C. Mednick, and T.T. Rogers. 2017. Sleep benefits memory for semantic category structure while preserving exemplar-specific information. Scientific Reports 7 (1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2017). The Hippocampus and memory integration: Building knowledge to navigate future decisions. In D. E. Hannula & M. C. Duff (Eds.), The Hippocampus from Cells to Systems: Structure, Connectivity, and Functional Contributions to Memory and Flexible Cognition (pp. 405–437). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50406-3_13.

  121. Schooler, L.J., and J.R. Anderson. 1997. The role of process in the rational analysis of memory. Cognitive Psychology 32 (3): 219–250.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Schooler, L., & Anderson, J. R. (2017). The adaptive nature of memory. Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference 265–278 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21042-0

  123. Schwartz, A. (2020). Simulationism and the function (s) of episodic memory. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1–19.

  124. Scoboria, A., G. Mazzoni, I. Kirsch, and M. Relyea. 2004. Plausibility and belief in autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 18 (7): 791–807.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Scoboria, A., D.L. Jackson, J. Talarico, M. Hanczakowski, L. Wysman, and G. Mazzoni. 2014. The role of belief in occurrence within autobiographical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (3): 1242–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Sequoiah-Grayson, S. (2016). Epistemic relevance and epistemic actions. In J. Michael Dunn on Information Based Logics (pp. 133–146). Springer, Cham.

  127. Sorensen, R. (2018). Epistemic Paradoxes. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2018). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/

  128. Squire, L.R., L. Genzel, J.T. Wixted, and R.G. Morris. 2015. Memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 7 (8): a021766.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Starita, F., Kroes, M. C., Davachi, L., Phelps, E. A., & Dunsmoor, J. E. (2019). Threat learning promotes generalization of episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

  130. Stickgold, R., and M.P. Walker. 2013. Sleep-dependent memory triage: Evolving generalization through selective processing. Nature Neuroscience 16 (2): 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Suhler, C. 2019. Why the method of cases Doesn’t work. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 10 (4): 825–847.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Sutton, J. (1998). Philosophy and memory traces: Descartes to connectionism. Cambridge University Press.

  133. Tamminen, J., J.D. Payne, R. Stickgold, E.J. Wamsley, and M.G. Gaskell. 2010. Sleep spindle activity is associated with the integration of new memories and existing knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience 30 (43): 14356–14360.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Tolman, E.C. 1948. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review 55 (4): 189–208.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Tonegawa, S., X. Liu, S. Ramirez, and R. Redondo. 2015. Memory engram cells have come of age. Neuron 87 (5): 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Trakas, M. 2019. How to distinguish memory representations? A historical and critical journey. Voluntas: Revista Internacional de Filosofia 10 (3): 53–86.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Treves, A., and E.T. Rolls. 1994. Computational analysis of the role of the hippocampus in memory. Hippocampus 4 (3): 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.450040319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. VanArsdall, J.E., J.S. Nairne, J.N.S. Pandeirada, and J.R. Blunt. 2013. Adaptive memory: Animacy processing produces mnemonic advantages. Experimental Psychology 60 (3): 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. VanArsdall, J.E., J.S. Nairne, J.N.S. Pandeirada, and M. Cogdill. 2015. Adaptive memory: Animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning. Memory 23 (5): 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.916304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Van Kesteren, M.T., D.J. Ruiter, G. Fernández, and R.N. Henson. 2012. How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends in Neurosciences 35 (4): 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Wagner, U., S. Gais, H. Haider, R. Verleger, and J. Born. 2004. Sleep inspires insight. Nature 427 (6972): 352–355.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Wamsley, E.J., M. Tucker, J.D. Payne, J.A. Benavides, and R. Stickgold. 2010. Dreaming of a learning task is associated with enhanced sleep-dependent memory consolidation. Current Biology 20 (9): 850–855.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Werning, M. (2020). Predicting the past from minimal traces: Episodic memory and its distinction from imagination and preservation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1–33.

  144. Westbury, C., & Dennett, D. C. (2000). Mining the past to construct the future: Memory and belief as forms of knowledge. Memory, brain, and belief, 11–32.

  145. Wilhelm, I., S. Diekelmann, I. Molzow, A. Ayoub, M. Mölle, and J. Born. 2011. Sleep selectively enhances memory expected to be of future relevance. Journal of Neuroscience 31 (5): 1563–1569.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Winocur, G., and M. Moscovitch. 2011. Memory transformation and systems consolidation. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 17: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Yonelinas, A.P., and M. Ritchey. 2015. The slow forgetting of emotional episodic memories: An emotional binding account. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (5): 259–267.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the Grenoble Centre for Philosophy of Memory for organizing the inaugural Essay Prize. For invaluable help with the manuscript, I am also grateful to Steven Gross, Ian Phillips, Palmer Gunderson, Maegan Kaczmarek, Katie Brophy, two anonymous referees, and to audiences at the Workshop on the Philosophy of Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroethics (Buenos Aires, 2019) and the Hammond Society at Johns Hopkins University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Andonovski.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andonovski, N. Memory as Triage: Facing Up to the Hard Question of Memory. Rev.Phil.Psych. 12, 227–256 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00514-5

Download citation