15th Nov, 2018
Ulm University
Question
Asked 31st Oct, 2018
Why did the evolved "we" even BOTHER to have the elaborate (& working & proven) Memory systems we have -YOU MUST answer that; where are the Memories??
Among the strongest findings in all of Psychology are on the Memories (the Memory systems and their inter-workings), yet you do not address them AT ALL (_AND_ are wrongly contrary to these findings). There is no chance of you finding any key observable (pivotal) evidence related to a view such as yours -- making your view, again, scientifically unacceptable (see "The Poverty of Embodied Cognition", --
-- also easy to find the FULL TEXT).
It is clear that you are a 'victim' of very inappropriate dualism: here (for one just thing, particularly): the idea of "memory as a separate thing" (just an aspect OF experience).
MOREOVER: I have also clearly shown in my writings that your beliefs are based on central ("founding") 'assumptions'; THESE ARE UNPROVEN AND LIKELY FALSE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS (read ME and learn).
As one first step to properly seeing your "idea system", just realize that by the definitions (found through research) on/of the Memories (those operating together): They comprise OUR EXPERIENCE ITSELF.
This nonsense of yours and some others has got to stop.
Similar questions and discussions
How can you take or recommend a view or approach that will NEVER have any direct evidence?
How can you take or recommend a view or approach that will NEVER have any direct evidence?
Embodiment has NO direct evidence for it (OR any direct evidence even clearly related to it) **, and never will: it is worse than bad science: it is not even science: see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303890892_The_poverty_of_embodied_cognition
Article The poverty of embodied cognition (full text at: link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1 Add the https:// yourself, so RG does not hijack the link AND DIRECT YOU TO JUST THE ABSTRACT)
See also my Comments below the Project "declaration" (seen in the very top of this post).
** FOOTNOTE: This is to such an extent, that "embodiment 'theory'" or "enactivism" will technically NEVER be able to present an acceptable [scientific] hypothesis. Good approaches do a LOT of clear hypothesizing.
Related Publications
I introduce the seven papers in this special issue, by Andy Clark, Jérôme Dokic, Richard Menary, Jenann Ismael, Sue Campbell, Doris McIlwain, and Mark Rowlands. This paper explains the motivation for an alliance between the sciences of memory and the extended mind hypothesis. It examines in turn the role of worldly, social, and internalized forms o...