Quote:
Originally Posted by Guado
First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.
|
Short term memory last about 7 seconds. I question your background in psychology if you have any at all. Clearly psychological functions aren't an area of your expertise. Short term memory is often called "working memory." From working memory our hippocampus takes it and begins to encode it. There is a next part, called the medium term memory, and then long. Issues that effect the hippocampus normally effect medium and long term, but each case is different. Most common would be a massive vitamin B deficiency often found in alcoholics. I see the error I made in referring to "no long term memory." My original version of the post named the disease, but I felt like it was going to warrant too much explaining. I meant to say it like this, "unable to create new long term memories." With that in mind, you may be able to make sense of the comments I made. Clearly a person with no long term memory would certainly be an oddity.
Next, you are saying I am working off an assumption. However, free will is also an assumption. So the best you can do is give both ideas the same amount of merit. However, you have gone out of your way to say it's foolish, though you may argue that isn't what you said, it's simply the tone. I'm not sure what more I can say on the idea. Both ideas are assumptions. One theory is more fruitful, more parsimonious, answers more questions... so empirically speaking it is more useful. I know it does not make it true.
I think you missed the part of my posts where I said, "I have faith in my assertions, oh no, faith, now it sounds like I am part of the problem."
I understand my position and my limitations. However, I am willing to explain it, and give examples of FALSIFIABILITY more-so than a creationist view. Falsifiability is paramount to a theory. Though, I know currently we lack the sophistication to carry out a procedure with enough control to show what I wish to show.
Then ya said this "Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!"
My extreme example of what? I left it open ended. I said if we put someone in a situation where they had to make a choice I predicted they would make the same choice over and over if they could not add to their history. So just to spell it out to you, it could be innocuous and simple. Three playing cards laying face down. We ask him to pick one. He picks the middle one. We replicate the situation to the perfect degree and ask him once his history is control for, and ask him again. If he does again and again and again... what does that mean? The level of control required is the only thing that is extreme. For me to say that I can create an environment in which he will absorb his environment the same way over and over sure is questionable. Let's imagine he is about to make his choice. He looks at me, he looks at the cards, he looks at me again, then chooses. Then the next time, he looks at me and then the cards and picks without looking at me again. Suddenly I realize a portion of the control has been lost.
(Now I understand your comments were made based on my poor explanation of "no long term memory" instead of "unable to create any more long term memories." So you may have not meant all of that, or perhaps your responses will remain the same.)
If you wanted to point out the obvious flaws with this, you could have chosen this route instead of saying silly things like "tea cake or DEATH." I understand how almost impossible it is. However, I feel it is the best route to take.
"The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to." -- Well, much like you are holding it against me. PROVE IT. You are critiquing me for my lack of a provable example, so I must hold the same to you. In the end, we are left with the consensus that they are both currently assumptions. One is a more useful theory, one isn't. That much could be up to debate. However, simply ignoring the idea doesn't do anyone any favors.