Re: Perception, Memory, Knowledge, Imagination and Cognition

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 23:21:42 GMT

  • Next message: Joe Dees: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id XAA08105 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 23:27:25 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Perception, Memory, Knowledge, Imagination and Cognition
    Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 18:21:42 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 23:21:42.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[350EB9E0:01C1AB77]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Francesca S. Alcorn" <>
    >Subject: Re: Perception, Memory, Knowledge, Imagination and Cognition
    >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:44:28 -0500
    >Joe said:
    >> All of the other mental modalities have their source in
    >>perception. Memory comes directly from perception, knowledge is the
    >>subcless of former memories that have been narratively compressed or
    >>abstractly represented, imagination is comprised of perceptions and
    >>memories deconstructed and components of them recombined, and
    >>cognition is the deconstruction and recombination of components of
    >>perception and knowledge.
    >> Memory is restricted to the reproduction to some degree of a
    >>segment of past perception, complete with a spatiotemporal
    >>perspective; thus memory is diachronic and positional. On the other
    >>hand, knowledge of an informational datum would not entail that we
    >>be capable of reproducing the experience of learning it; thus
    >>knowledge may be considered synchronic and apositional. Imagination
    >>and cognition extrapolate possibilities from the actualities grasped
    >>in perception and retained in (for imagination) memory and (for
    >>cognition) knowledge. However, imagination is restricted to a
    >>generation of possible perceptions from particular spatiotemporal
    >>perspectives and is diachronic and positional; cognition is
    >>synchronic and apositional.
    >Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that cognition
    >has *some* spatial elements to it. I think more three-dimensionally
    >and my husband is a linear thinker. I've always seen this as a
    >left-brain/right-brain thing. Or maybe space is the best analogy
    >that we can find to describe a connective pattern.
    >Dispensing with the spatiotemporal lends itself to the concept of
    >abstraction. I had never thought of that before.
    >> Although they are all to some degree autonomous with respect to
    >>perception (knowledge and cognition more so than memory and
    >>imagination, due to the fact that the former two have dispensed with
    >>spatiotemporal context), they are all directly or ind!
    >>irectly grounded in perception, and recurse to inform it.
    >>Forgetting needs to be mentioned also. If we consider memory to be
    >>an imprinted representation of presented experience, a perceptual
    >>text, if you will, and subsequent experience to be continually
    >>inscribing upon the same neural parchment, the minor details and
    >>routine experiences would become obliterated first; thus broad
    >>outlines and the unusual would be remembered longer. Finally, the
    >>experiential, that is, spatiotemporal and object-perceptual context
    >>in which the information was received would be destroyed, and thbat
    >>which remains would no longer be memory, but knowledge. Cognition
    >>deconstructs and recombines these nerratized and abstracted
    >>remainders, as imagination deconstructs and recombines memory images
    >>(of all percpetual media, not just visual) and perceptions.
    >I have wondered about the process of memory decay. I could never
    >reconcile it with Penrose (the canadian surgeon) who stimulated
    >certain portions of a person's brain during neurosurgery and got them
    >to reproduce quite mundane memories.
    Are you sure you're not thinking of Wilder Penfield? Daniel Schacter has him
    as a Canadian neurosurgeon in his _Searching for Memory:the Brain,the Mind
    and the Past_. Penrose is another chap altogether if I'm not mistaken, but I
    could very well be mistaken.
    >I think he might have been the
    >originator of "engram" and the concept of holistic memory, but don't
    >hold me to that.
    I'm not familar with Penfield (?) enough to know all of what he was about,
    but the engram concept for a memory trace goes back AFAIK to a German
    biologist named Richard Semon (1859-1918), though it is commonly attributed
    to Karl Lashley. Daniel Schacter is the expert on Semon. His book _Forgotten
    Ideas, Neglected Pioneers: Richard Semon and the Story of Memory_ is a
    worthy read.

    There was some holographic or hologram dude who came around after Lashley,
    but I can't remember who off the top of my head.
    >Are you suggesting that these "nerratized and abstracted remainders"
    >might be somehow related to memes?

    MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

    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 01 2002 - 23:35:59 GMT