How can I make a prospective memory task more difficult?

Isn't grounding all interactions (& our understanding of particular interaction) best done by better understanding the Memories AS (being) EXPERIENCE ITSELF? I see this as one of the 2 consistent common groundings for properly coming to an understanding of concepts we come to have as a being, and this includes the development of not just bare simple concepts, but even the development of contingent SETS of such concepts, AND it includes that which come of the developed and developing Memories which allows for abstract thinking -- abstract concepts and abstract processing. Let me elaborate on this first type of thing:

First, realize: By the definitions of the Memories (our basic types of memory, all rather well defined by EXISTING research already), there is no way not to see EXPERIENCE as the operation of the Memories themselves (and THAT is EXPERIENCE ITSELF, literally true BY THE DEFINITIONS in modern perspectives and research). AND, CONCEPTS MUST BE ALL BASED ON THIS. Thus as experiences "grow" and as application of our concepts (defined by interaction with environments: social and/or otherwise, linguistic and/or otherwise) become (to the extent that they can) more widely seen as relevant and applied, this simply occurs by way of the simple forms of associative learning (the definition of such FORMS something that can be well agreed on); NOTE: All this eventually will only suffice WITH the second set of required groundings "emerging" for prompting MAJOR developments in ontogeny (see below) -- those influencing attention and learnings A LOT. Yet simple associative learnings seem to partly work (for a lot of the more bit-by-bit development) given evidence OF the existence of concepts/representations/ways-of-looking in the first place (such as its there, at least at later levels of child development). _AND_ these very simple associative learnings are ALL that would needed at the major points in development, in addition to the base perceptual/attentional shifts (described below). In a sense, yet still, they will be THEN AND THERE all that's needed -- those simple learnings STILL being ALL of what's necessary to "put things together" even WHEN THE SECOND SET/TYPE OF MAJOR FACTOR IS FOUND AND SEEN (and as and when such shifts are occurring). Yet, so far (i.e. the above) would not provide a complete picture of human learning and development . AT BEST, the Memories as they are at any point and associative learnings are still just "half" the picture (as already has been indicated). BUT: What's the other "half", at least more specifically/functionally? :

These other major necessary factors are basically the capacities (or capacities within capacities, if you like) developing with very subtle innate guidances (which are not-unlikely and certainly possibly, at least for a time, quite situation-dependent); these, of course, leading to some of the most major developments of the Memories and HERE, of qualitatively new learnings (still combining with the "THE knowns" and with each other JUST THROUGH THE SIMPLE ASSOCIATIVE LEARNINGS). These innate guidances are at first just sensing more: THAT OF _THAT_ which is _THERE _IN_ any given concretely definable situation (where more adaptation is needed). This is reliant upon and given also the way our Memories have already developed (given our past learning, and earlier innate guidances, the products of which have become well-applied and consolidated (etc.) and all which yields "the time(s)" for some new types of learning) . And now (from the good processing and consolidation ; and discriminations here, perhaps just associative learning as dis-associations) giving us, in a sense, a new or greater capacity in working memory (through more efficient "chunks" and/or some situations-specific "trimming" of the old chunks, and both WITH CHANGES IN OUR _WAY_ OF CHUNKING (and realize: this may not preclude other adaptive reasons for an adaptive increase in the effective capacity of working memory (WM)). The details of the nature of the periodic innate guidances:

What is newly, or at least now truly sensed, sensed as "the-more": that is sensed (and at least glanced at, if not gazed-upon) in a situation or situations, will lead to new perception of at least something more in the scope of "what's there". This will rather quickly go to perceiving more and then to perceptual/attentional shifts (applying some of our past-developed categories and processing to the new "material" -- AND at such also-adaptive points offering more "material" to refine or moderate one's responses/interactions). Here, there will be more in WM , and thus provide more that can be "associated-with" via the simple forms of associative learnings (now, with some new content: new parts and likely new wholes). These developments might be quite situations-specific at least at first, but they may develop to be concepts of rather great scope -- observations and other research which may well be possible are the ONLY things that will clarify all this. All we can say is that this will be some sort of BASIC KEY species-typical cognitive developments (with their inceptions, as indicated) during ontogeny [(birth to 18 yr. old, minimally 5 MAJOR hierarchical levels or stages are historically seen (but with several modern theorists hypothesizing phases within each level); all this can be seen in the overviews of great classic theories, still the most prominent in textbooks of General and Developmental Psychology)]. This very outline of this sort of process has NO limits (except human limits) and it includes the abilities to know, have, and use abstractions, INCLUDING contingent abstractions (holding true in just only some sets of apparently similar circumstances; AND, eventually, with ontogeny and the development of sufficient abstract abilities, ALSO enabling the ability to think and classify across previously differently-seen [(i.e. seen as different)] circumstances -- putting such complexes together in a concept -- this sort of thing including the most sophisticated abstract concepts and processing there is) : in some ultimate ("final", "rock bottom") analysis this all is possible because of demonstrable development and changes in the Memories, WHICH CAN BE RESEARCHED (as other characteristic of the Memories HAVE BEEN researched to date); AND the inceptions of new MAJOR LEVELS (those being with the "perceptual shifts" ... ) can also be directly observed and researched, using the new eye tracking technology (and ancillary technologies) -- and this will greatly guide one to fruitful research on the Memories.

The reasons, likelihood, justifications, better assumptions involved in having this viewpoint and understanding, AND the qualitative changes that which are developed this way (basically starting with key, adaptive "perceptual shifts") is what I spend much of my 800 pages of writing on: 200 pages, written some decades ago, and some 600 pages, written just in the last three years -- a lot of this latter being the job I did not finish back in the late '80s (and I really had no reason to pursue until the development of new technologies, esp. eye tracking and related technologies, came into existence to allow for testing my hypotheses). I also have take great pains in these latter writings to contrast this perspective and approach as thoroughly and completely as I could with the status quo perspectives and approaches in General Psychology and Developmental Psychology . And, to show all the ways this [what I have dubbed] Ethogram Theory is better in so many, many ways, including in its basic foundations, clearly more empirical (as directly as possible) than any perspective and approach heretofore.

I both show in details what is wrong with the "old" and much more likely correct and useful -- and more than plausible (and Biologically consistent and plausible) -- through this new general view. (Again, I provide related testable hypotheses -- verifiable/falsifiable.)

You will be able to see this new approach as better empirically than any other. Related to this: the great benefit that the FIELD of study is ALL clearly and firmly based (grounded/founded) on just 2 "things": (1) directly observable KEY overt phenomena (behavior PATTERNS, here in Psychology ) and (2) on certain clear directly observable and present aspects of circumstances/situations (aka "the environment) active in KEY past developments and/or present now. This is simply the return to the original and intended definition of Psychology _AND_, frankly, is THE ONLY WAY TO BE BEST-EMPIRICAL. (Think about it: NO MISSING CONNECTIONS.)

READ: