Possibly someone more erudite in the field can help me.
When thinking about memeory It occured to me that there are possibly two difernt types.
let me explain:

There is a memory of things that still exist and a memory of things that no longer exist.

For example:
I write the word "Memory" on a white board. I leave it on the board with out erasing it. For the next 7 days I recall what I have written with out seeing the white board. When I come back to the white board I erase the word and now I remember the word I wrote but it now is non-existant in the material world.

The question is:
Do we have a definition of the distinction between the two forms of memory, material and non material?
Any help would be appreciated ;)

locked

Possibly someone more erudite in the field can help me.
When thinking about memeory It occured to me that there are possibly two difernt types.
let me explain:

There is a memory of things that still exist and a memory of things that no longer exist.

For example:
I write the word "Memory" on a white board. I leave it on the board with out erasing it. For the next 7 days I recall what I have written with out seeing the white board. When I come back to the white board I erase the word and now I remember the word I wrote but it now is non-existant in the material world.

The question is:
Do we have a definition of the distinction between the two forms of memory, material and non material?
Any help would be appreciated ;)

Hello, Quantum Quack,

No, they are precisely the same thing. It doesn't matter at all if the object/whatever still exists, the brain handles it in the same way as any other memory.

However, there ARE two different types of memory. Short-term and long term. Short-term is usefull for things like looking a phone number and remembering it long enough to call. If it's an important number and one that is used fairly frequently, the thoughts will be reinforced and moved into long-term memory.

But for the particular thing you are asking about, there's no difference chemically, electrically or physiologically in any manner.

Hello, Quantum Quack,

No, they are precisely the same thing. It doesn't matter at all if the object/whatever still exists, the brain handles it in the same way as any other memory.

However, there ARE two different types of memory. Short-term and long term. Short-term is usefull for things like looking a phone number and remembering it long enough to call. If it's an important number and one that is used fairly frequently, the thoughts will be reinforced and moved into long-term memory.

But for the particular thing you are asking about, there's no difference chemically, electrically or physiologically in any manner.

Thanks Light.
I didn't think there would be. Not in common use any way. Possibly in some obscure psychology department at some equally obscure university there may be a distinction drawn, but who knows.

QQ, your question, and postulated subdivision of memory, is appropriate on a philosophical level.
You might extend the subdivision to consider:

Imaginary recollections. e.g. You imagine you have written the word memory on the whiteboard, then you imagine erasing it seven days later. Or you could write it on the white board and imagine erasing it.
Mistaken recollections: You thought you had written (and later erased) the word, but had not in fact done so.

I am sure you can think of similar divisions. It is a useful exercise that demonstrates the innate ability of humans to classify, and the fact that classification systems are not equally useful.

Do we have a definition of the distinction between the two forms of memory, material and non material?

I'd think there's two types as you suggest as well as a few others. The two I'm refering to is short term and long term memories. We tend to forget about things that we no longer see, hear or need as time goes by and only hold in our long term memories things which affecyed us deeply or that we wanted to remember. The short term would be from day to day, things we normally are required to remember in order to live, work and play.

QQ, your question, and postulated subdivision of memory, is appropriate on a philosophical level.
You might extend the subdivision to consider:

Imaginary recollections. e.g. You imagine you have written the word memory on the whiteboard, then you imagine erasing it seven days later. Or you could write it on the white board and imagine erasing it.
Mistaken recollections: You thought you had written (and later erased) the word, but had not in fact done so.

I am sure you can think of similar divisions. It is a useful exercise that demonstrates the innate ability of humans to classify, and the fact that classification systems are not equally useful.
Interesting perspective.....thanks.

I'd think there's two types as you suggest as well as a few others. The two I'm refering to is short term and long term memories. We tend to forget about things that we no longer see, hear or need as time goes by and only hold in our long term memories things which affecyed us deeply or that we wanted to remember. The short term would be from day to day, things we normally are required to remember in order to live, work and play.
Yes I agree there would be many different subdivisions of the topic.

I am exploring the subtle differences between "reinforcable" memory [ of things that continue to exist ] and "non-reinforcable" memory [ of things that no longer exist.]

Possibly someone more erudite in the field can help me.
When thinking about memeory It occured to me that there are possibly two difernt types.
let me explain:

There is a memory of things that still exist and a memory of things that no longer exist.

For example:
I write the word "Memory" on a white board. I leave it on the board with out erasing it. For the next 7 days I recall what I have written with out seeing the white board. When I come back to the white board I erase the word and now I remember the word I wrote but it now is non-existant in the material world.

The question is:
Do we have a definition of the distinction between the two forms of memory, material and non material?
Any help would be appreciated ;)


As other people posting have been saying, there are (within Psychology) a number of different types of memory. In addition to long and short term, there are recognised periods for visual memory (usually a few seconds) and auditory memory (6-8 seconds as I recall (no pun intended)) also arguably "muscle memory".

Of more direct relevance to your point is the issue that memories are not thought to vanish - they just can't always be accessed. Three examples:-

1 - People can often guess that they know the answer to something, even though they can't remember that they know the answer.

2 - As people reach extreme age they seem to be able to access childhood memories much more easily than they can say in middle age.

3 - Memory can de tampered with an affected by subsequent events, so that memories are reconstructed rather than actually remembered.

So you could well have a memory for something that never existed even though you remember it did!"

Hope this helps with your musings.

As other people posting have been saying, there are (within Psychology) a number of different types of memory. In addition to long and short term, there are recognised periods for visual memory (usually a few seconds) and auditory memory (6-8 seconds as I recall (no pun intended)) also arguably "muscle memory".

Of more direct relevance to your point is the issue that memories are not thought to vanish - they just can't always be accessed. Three examples:-

1 - People can often guess that they know the answer to something, even though they can't remember that they know the answer.

2 - As people reach extreme age they seem to be able to access childhood memories much more easily than they can say in middle age.

3 - Memory can de tampered with an affected by subsequent events, so that memories are reconstructed rather than actually remembered.

So you could well have a memory for something that never existed even though you remember it did!"

Hope this helps with your musings.
thanks for that!!
It is true I may have inadvertantly asked my question implying that the two forms were exclusive and that no other forms of memory existed. I certainly didn't intend to exclude the various other foms of memory.
I merely wanted to concentrate on this particular from of memory and ask whether conventional thought sees a distinction between the memory of something that does no longer exists and that which continues to exist.
For example a house that still exists and a house that has been demolished and replaced with a park.

Does science consider there to be any distinction and if so what is this distinction labeled or called?

thanks for that!!
It is true I may have inadvertantly asked my question implying that the two forms were exclusive and that no other forms of memory existed. I certainly didn't intend to exclude the various other foms of memory.
I merely wanted to concentrate on this particular from of memory and ask whether conventional thought sees a distinction between the memory of something that does no longer exists and that which continues to exist.
For example a house that still exists and a house that has been demolished and replaced with a park.

Does science consider there to be any distinction and if so what is this distinction labeled or called?

An old commercial comes immediately to mind: "Is it live, or is it Memorex?" :)

And actually that is more fitting in this discussion than it might first appear.

But to directly answer your question, no. A memory is a memory is a memory. It can be recent, from long ago (and you may not even KNOW if the object still exists), reconstruced, innacuarate, or induced.

Once recorded in the neural pathways it becomes just like any other memory. Just like a recording on tape is the same as any other recoding. And both (mental/ tape) are subject to degradation over time. The analogy is really quite accurate. :)

I am exploring the subtle differences between "reinforcable" memory [ of things that continue to exist ] and "non-reinforcable" memory [ of things that no longer exist.]

The way I see it, all memory is "reinforceable". It's what's doing the reinforcing that's in question. Is it's source emotional or "wishful" rather than representative of recent stimulous?

What about memory reinforced through abstractions? Does 2 + 2 still = 4? My hair was really red when I was a kid. That's reinforced just by thinking it and not particularly emotional.

So I don't see memories in the same way. They can decay (with no emotional glue to keep it pertient) or be reinforced. If they are reinforced, how so, and does it affect the fundamental structure? Your question seems to fall in here and as such the determination between enforceable and reinforcable seems to be somewhat out of sync with understanding the system. All are really either.

I do think I might see what you're trying to get at though in terms of speaking with someone about why they're hanging on to some element of their past. Maybe that's way off.

Maybe I should just ask: In what way do you see that making the determination between the two might help you or someone else understand something?

thanks for that!!
It is true I may have inadvertantly asked my question implying that the two forms were exclusive and that no other forms of memory existed. I certainly didn't intend to exclude the various other foms of memory.
I merely wanted to concentrate on this particular from of memory and ask whether conventional thought sees a distinction between the memory of something that does no longer exists and that which continues to exist.
For example a house that still exists and a house that has been demolished and replaced with a park.

Does science consider there to be any distinction and if so what is this distinction labeled or called?

I'm not aware of any distinction. But some work has been done looking at how people recognise objects, which is sort of linked to memory. For instance a penguin is seen as less of a bird than say a sparrow (It is less close to the stereotype we hold in our heads of birds). Taking that idea forward, it might be that the memory of something that no longer exists becomes associated not directly with the real object (which can continually be re-updated), but with a stereotype of the house that existed. As I say - I'm not aware of any distinction, but the more I reflect on it the more I can see that how we might access and construct that memory might change. This will have me mulling for the rest of the week!

An old commercial comes immediately to mind: "Is it live, or is it Memorex?" :)

And actually that is more fitting in this discussion than it might first appear.

But to directly answer your question, no. A memory is a memory is a memory. It can be recent, from long ago (and you may not even KNOW if the object still exists), reconstruced, innacuarate, or induced.

Once recorded in the neural pathways it becomes just like any other memory. Just like a recording on tape is the same as any other recoding. And both (mental/ tape) are subject to degradation over time. The analogy is really quite accurate. :)

I'm not convinced that "A memory is a memory is a memory". Studies of crash witnesses (for instance) have shown how they will remember different car speeds if asked "how fast was the car going" Vs say "how much over the speed limit was the car going". Memories are constructed and reconstructed and rebuilt as people remember what "must have been". Perhaps the "real" memory is their somewhere, but if it can't be accessed, is it real? (wrong board for that discussion!). Incidentally John Irving's latest book - "When I find you" has this as an ongoing theme - it's a long long read, and not from a scientific perspective - but examines the issues really well.

I'm not convinced that "A memory is a memory is a memory". Studies of crash witnesses (for instance) have shown how they will remember different car speeds if asked "how fast was the car going" Vs say "how much over the speed limit was the car going". Memories are constructed and reconstructed and rebuilt as people remember what "must have been". Perhaps the "real" memory is their somewhere, but if it can't be accessed, is it real? (wrong board for that discussion!). Incidentally John Irving's latest book - "When I find you" has this as an ongoing theme - it's a long long read, and not from a scientific perspective - but examines the issues really well.

Easy, now - I never said a memory had to be "real." :) In fact, I pointed out that it can be reconstructed and innacurate.

And memory will often give varying results when someone is asked to give some estimate of some factor - speed is a good example - that was never precisely determined in the first place.