Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA20814 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:44:50 GMT Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:39:42 -0500 Subject: Re: ality Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <F176tgr3SU0hXCRQcqm0000417f@hotmail.com> Message-Id: <892BE38A-27C3-11D6-A517-003065B9A95A@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Friday, February 22, 2002, at 12:35 , Scott Chase wrote:
> Reconstruction, itself, might not be so bad a way of looking at memory
> retrieval processes. If I'm trying to recollect some long ago
> experience based on vague fragments that aren't cueing up to their full
> potential, its possible that I might add something that wasn't there to
> begin with, creating more than recreating the original experience.
> Someone asking leading questions could result in my totally garbling
> the recollection.
The whole question of 'false memories' tags onto this discussion, and
both buoys and distorts it. It is also a very complex issue, one
inhabiting the very nature of memory itself.
Memories may, at all times, always be a process of construction.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 19:02:21 GMT