Nicolaus Anderson
Prof. S. Kranz
Intro to Psych
10/12/2010
The Effects of Possible Memory Leak
on Epistemological Arguments
The human mind and its understanding of truth, directed by the free will, is what determines human activity. So critical is this in relation to human activity and purpose that the subject ought not to be discussed without each of the two major components (or topics) being addressed. These components are the epistemological basis and the faith basis of understanding. The validity of the latter is dependent on the former, though in reality, people never consider it to be. Nevertheless, the relationship between epistemology and human understanding ought to be considered, and it will be now.
Epistemology determines the rules for laying the foundation of our worldview. “Epistemology, then, is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions concerning the nature, scope, and sources of knowledge.” (DeRose, “What is Epistemology”) Without it, any hope of knowing that what we believe is true about our world is lost. We cannot be certain (in fact, we will have no opinion on the matter) that the mind exists. Thus, there is no other way of knowing (or discovering if we can know) whether or not something is true in an absolute sense (that is, true independent of opinion). Does the brain as we know it exist? If it does not, then there is no such thing as memory loss and we need not worry. If the brain does exist, then memory loss can occur, which affects how we understand the very epistemological arguments that suggest there is a probability of the existence of the brain. But let me explain by having us consider the scenario of a debate.
When a person attempts to make a philosophical argument, the validity of the argument does not rely upon anything unique to the person making the argument. Wisdom can come from the little children. Understanding the argument is entirely different. Several factors come into play, the most important of which is time.
The factor of time is linked with all other factors. First, an argument, in order for it to be expressed in any particular human language must be communicated over time (You cannot hear a person speak an infinite number of words in a moment or read a line of text instantaneously). Because of this, a variety of things can happen that affect whether or not and how an argument is distorted.
Other than factors unique only to certain scenarios (that is, everything outside of a normal human), human memory can be blamed as the cause of the problem. Human memory decays over time (this is the second way by which time is linked with factors affecting understanding). This effect results in what is called “forgetting”. “The basic questions about forgetting concern what a person remembers at two different times. At one time, he can remember something easily and accurately; but at some later time, he is less able to remember the same thing.” (I.M.L. Hunter, “Memory”, p217) Fortunately, this rate cannot be instantaneous, assuming the constant nature of time; otherwise, you would have not remembered what I said and could not disagree with me. This is a memory paradox in which it is impossible to prove that we do not have instantaneous memory loss because we would forget what we are trying to prove; thus, we can only demonstrate that memory loss is not instantaneous. We cannot prove that this is true due to another problem: “Bertrand Russell's proposal that the earth came into existence only five minutes ago, but was created complete with all the evidence of great age (including our apparent "memories") that it actually contains.” (DeRose, “Responding”) But this paper only intends to address the issue of memory with the assumption that time has started some time ago, in which memory loss is the primary concern.
Two things can happen as a result of the fact that memory can be lost. First, the arguer can forget some element about their argument (what they are arguing in favor of, their terminology, or something else related to that). Second, the listener can forget some element of what is being said. It is accompanied by an equally disappointing issue that trying to remember the elements can result in false information being recovered: “there is, of course, the danger that the hard-won recall could be illusory. That is, the person may succeed in achieving a fabricated, rather than a faithful, characterization of the event”. (Hunter, “Memory”, p227) This dilemma (as well as the problem of different worldviews and definitions of terms (based on unique personal experiences as interpreted by the person's unique personality)) prevents us from making absolute proofs concerning real things. Consequently, proofs must be relative, that is, proven by the individual to their self. However, even this has its problems, as will now be explained.
Humans have the ability to argue with themselves in their minds. An argument can be made and then a counter argument is given. Each of these arguments might be made sequentially (one after another) or simultaneously, and both scenarios must be considered if the problem is to be understood. In the former, the person formulates an argument in his mind before formulating the response. There is a significant probability that the person will immediately begin to forget the elements of the argument (the elements being what they are arguing in favor of, the definitions of the terminology they are using, the concepts being applied, and so forth; same as in the situation where another person is the arguer). This is a sad consequence of memory decay. (As a side note, it is interesting to ponder whether such memory loss would even be considered as a possibility if no one ever forgot anything, even though there is a possibility of it.) The counter-argument response that a person formulates will thus be less suitable to oppose the first argument (since some element is different or missing). The second situation, in which the person makes arguments simultaneously, defies, to some degree, this memory decay problem. Nevertheless, it does not defy the principle that the elements can be forgotten even as the arguments are being forged, and thus the final argument may not correspond with the intention (purpose of the argument) based on the initial concepts. That is, the concept of things can change over time, and that change must be noted if we are to understand the validity of an argument.
The interpretation or view of the arguments can change the longer the argument resides in memory. Each argument formulated in the mind gives a conclusion, both of which, when the mind considers the other options as well as a general intuition of sorts, are assigned a value of validity, which can also be reinterpreted over time. An argument that appears to be counterintuitive one day may, over the course of time, appear to be more valid regardless of whether new evidence is presented in favor of it or in opposition to it (though the appearance of the former (evidence in favor of an argument) has perhaps the greatest probability of making an argument or conclusion appear to be valid). When the argument is used again, it is possible that it will not be the original argument much less have the same effect.
In short, memory change is the reason why truth in the mind is only relative to that mind and to no other, despite the fact that real truth is absolute (that is, unaffected by personal interpretation). This disturbing fact is the reason why it is impossible to prove anything in an absolute sense (that is, prove it without using presuppositions or assumptions). This transitions us into the next phase in the discussion about truth and the human mind, the faith basis, which, as you will see, is intertwined with the issue of epistemology and memory loss to such a great extent that the latter two had to be presented first.
A note to the reader:
The relationship between epistemology and human understanding extends far beyond just the simple relationship between memory and the arguments about epistemology. The subject encompasses the entire idea of knowledge itself. The problem of proving that we can even know something is the great question of epistemology, but only the element of “how we can begin to speak of knowing” addressed was the external issue: the fact that our knowledge is exterior to us (that is, in our brain).
Informative Works
The online article “What is Epistemology: A Brief Introduction to the topic” by Keith DeRose at was accessed Oct 9, 2010 and cited, as well as the author’s complementary article, “Responding to Skepticism”, located at . Considering the very informative content on this website with respect to the topic of epistemology, I encourage the reader to view both. The author makes note of the problem of not knowing one’s surroundings, but does not specifically note the possibility of the brain not existing.
“Memory” by I.M.L Hunter (Penguin Books Ltd., 1957) was informative on the subject of memory and was cited. It was used to confirm the commonly known idea that there is such a thing as memory loss and that memory recall can return false information.
The lack of sources was due to the very nature of the subject: everything is questionable. This reveals that many doors (possibilities in reality) might not be closed like we think. One of these I will explore in the next paper.
