Memory is ephemeral; like the wind, rain and all other immeasurabilities of human experience. Yep, Measure that. Or talk to Allan Combs. He might know now. Or not.

这篇文章揭示了一些哲学思想流派的循环。我记得几年前读过洛克的《人类理解论》。我记得有两卷，总共1200多页。这可能是有史以来最长的一篇文章，但这不是重点。洛克是一个博学多才，极其啰嗦的人。尽管不断重复，但他的字里行间透露出他对修辞的热爱。我还在想这是怎么回事。
做Onederful, MJA——快乐，肯，约翰和劳拉。Love you all,
Newman.

The circularity in Locke was something immediately pounced on by his near contemporaries (e.g., T. Reid): Memory assumes a self and vice versa. In part, quasi-memory was proposed (several hundred years later -- Shoemaker, 1970?) as a way of reining in the tautology of Locke's connectivity scheme. I discuss this issue at some length with Shaun Nichols (a philosopher from U Arizona) in a paper in Mind (2012), and come to the tentative conclusion that the tautology can be overcome by the potential reality (we have a patient who illustrates this "potential reality") of quasi-memory. However, another issue with the connectivity of memory argument (e.g., gaps and nontransitivity in the record of recollection) still is a problem that neither Locke nor subsequent adherents can successfully counter. That was a part (perhaps too well-hidden) of my talk on the radio show. That is, some amnesics have no recollective ability, yet still maintain a clear a sense of self (synchronic and diachronic). This, of course, is because the self is a multiplicity -- thus certain memory-based aspects (e.g., my personal narrative) can be impaired without obliterating other (memory and non-memory) aspects of self.

I suppose I might understand some of what has been set forth here, although words such as nontransitivity, synchronic and diachronic are not in my usual vocabulary. I do get synchronicity because I have read and get (mostly) Yung and VonFranz.We were examining memory and self-ness, though, so I'll offer a couple of elementary thoughts, at the risk of being too simplistic. First, there is self, or, self-ness. This state emanates from birth, through youth; socialization and experience,gain and loss, aging, and ultimately, death. Later, or sometimes sooner, we are faced with memory. Or, more poignantly, the loss of memory---inasmuch as loss of memory causes more problems than retention of memory. So, here it is, in mostly-plain English: When we lose memory, do we also lose our self-ness? No. We may lose our memory, but, those who are with us do not forget what we have done. Or, f they do, it may not have mattered much. That does not negate the selves that we were.

我在广播节目中提出的一个观点是记忆和自我是相关的，但两者并不完全依赖。我举了几个例子，有些人失去了情景记忆，但仍然保持着强烈的自我意识。你最好看看我(2014)在线发表的在线论文《相同与自我》(sameeness and the self)。

要“真实地”讲述过去发生的事情，就需要一个人知道真实发生了什么(这是评估一个人对过去假定知识真实性的标准)。但是，这将假定一个人已经知道真实发生了什么(或能够获得这种比较的“事实”)，这使得“没有人能够真正地说出(过去发生了什么?)”这一论点成为一种规定或一种通告。
很抱歉在此发表哲学演讲(正如h·g·纽曼在上述所述)，但我假设，由于这是一个哲学演讲论坛，观众会对本质/内容上的哲学讨论感兴趣。中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播

I do not wish to ignite any other firestorms. But, here it is, like it or not: which came first, philosophy or psychology? Answer: I am pretty sure it was philosophy---we learned to think about thinking (philosophy) before learning to wonder WHY we were thinking about thinking (psychology). This seems logical enough, unless there are those who would complexify (sic?) the notion. This blog has prided itself on questioning everything except the intelligence of its readers and contributors. I think this has mostly been the case. Interdisciplinarism is fraught with disagreement and outright animosity. I prefer to enjoy the discourse, the opportunity to learn, without getting into personal differences. Yes, and sometimes, I don't spell so well either. Sometimes, yule have that...
Newman (add mediator to my profile, if you THINK it appropriate---I do this stuff everyday...)

I think the idea of "self" is more intertwined with the idea of "the other", whether animate or inanimate, than it is with memory. The concept of self is crystallized by contrast with, and through separation from, the concept of the other. Once crystallized, it acts as the basis of future memory material, namely the registration of activities by one agent and their subsequent recall and recognition through that agent. One needs a sense of self to have memory rather than memory to have a sense of self. Memory acts as a reinforcer of the idea of self rather than be its progenitor.
Probably Alzheimer and Schizophrenia are better investigated as troubles in the concept of self and other, and that translate into partial or total loss of memory, rather than as troubles of memory.

Memory is a complex thing. There is not a unitary "memory" but rather a multiplicity of types that align under the taxonomy of "memory". Having looked at the particular memory losses in both patient groups mentioned (DAT and Schizophrenia) we find different aspects of memory impairment conjoined with different pathologies of self. Thus, there is a relation between aspects of self and aspects of memory.
Some aspects of memory have no apparent self-referentiality (e.g., procedural): others have different degrees of connection (semantic and episodic, for example) to different components of self-knowledge.
It is hard to say whether memory presupposes a self or vice versa (this pertains only to those types of memory that enable self-knowledge). This, of course, is the circularity of the Lockean connectivity argument for personal diachronicity (self as a temporal continuant). But one thing seems empirically clear -- aspects of self (the content of our self-knowledge) are mediated by memory and could not exist for awareness prior to memory (save for some synchronistic sense, whose existence was fleeting with the passage of the moment).
I do think contrastive considerations (self vs other) come into play in one's self-definition, but there is more to self than contrast. Moreover, a contrast presupposes contrasting parties, so absent a well-formed knowledge of one's self-characteristics, there is no self to contrast with other. there is a sense of self (e.g., I am I), but it serves poorly as a basis for making meaningful contrastive assertions.
Finally, the self absent a form of consciousness (self awareness?) is a content searching for a comprehender. Thus, (ala James, 1890), one needs both a self-as-known and self-as-knower. Or, in Fichtean term, no subject without object, no object sans subject. I discuss this at great length in my book of 2014.

这篇文章和随之而来的评论很有启发性。也许我可以考虑回学校……好吧，我考虑过——不过我想我不会。剩下的时间太少了，还有太多其他更重要的/关键的/重要的/(选择一件或多件)事情要做。我的历史感是说，无论我们生活在哪里，我们都得到了我们应得的;我们忍受什么样的政府(或被动地或激烈地反对);我们信奉哪种有神论?或者我们所接受的文化/社会学特质。就像我的医生告诉我的(关于我的健康问题):这一切都是相关的。鸡和鸡蛋?所有这些早期的历史都是丰富的辩论素材，但是，达尔文告诉我们，我们超越了这种思想实验和无用的修辞。 We all have our biases and/or disciplinary allegiances. Accordingly, I submit that we are all affected by historionic effect: so simple in its complexity, yet complex in its simplicity. Paradox is a huge, mostly unrecognized aspect of the human condition.
HGN.

Technically, philosophy was an established discipline in university settings well prior to psychology (which only emerged as a separate discipline @ 1869).
但就不那么制度化的思维方式而言，我认为这两者并不是明显可分离的。是的，早在赫西奥德残缺的记录中就有哲学家，但他们记录的哲学内容往往是(或应该是)心理学关注的问题。
Even "more modern" philosophizing of Locke, Hume, Reid, Helmholtz and many others was psychology in its essence (though not lab-based empiricism).
But as a science, psychology necessarily follows philosophy -- since there were not scientific stirrings until, at the earliest, @ 1300, and things were not in "full swing" until about the 1700s.
In addition, it is hard to know "chicken and egg". Did folk wonder about the phenomenology of self and then develop formal ways of approaching that mental experience, or did formal ways emerge first and then get applied to personal phenomenology (which I would consider psychological musing). Hard, if not impossible to know. Similar chicken/egg issue surrounds the question of whether we initially became interested (for evolutionarily adaptive reasons) in the minds of others and then turned those insights on ourselves, or vice versa.

不要回学校。讲座常常(以微妙的方式)告诉你该怎么思考。
Read, read and read some more. There always is time (e.g., late at night prior to sleep). You choose what you want to know and which way(s) you want to go.
It may take time to get "up and running" with terminology and form(s) of argumentation-- but it will "click in", and once it does, things will start to "flow". You will start to see things you formerly took so-for-granted that you would not have noticed unless you tripped over them (and even then...)

How refreshing Nature is.
When it comes to truth,or the absolute, rather than 3 R's, I would suggest studying nature, Michelangelo pointed me this Way.
A simple walk along a river can reveal everything, even One self.
Try it and see, =

My thanks to all who have offered their insights, to myself and each other, regarding the premise of this post. My thanks also to the the creators and perpetuators of Philosophy Talk, which remains tops in my estimation, in this genre of knowledge sharing and creative multilogue. To Mr. Klein I will say: I do read. A lot. Which is why creative discourse attracts me to this forum. As a fellow-musician friend of mine used to say: "we all have our own album to do." I respect all viewpoints, including those whose foci I do not share. I'm pretty content with my own view of the world and pretty certain of the validity of that view. I will, therefore, turn my attention to other notions set forth on this blog. Hope your book does well.
Newman.

"Rather than 'a stipulation or circular' Mr. Klien (sic), I would call it simply a fact"
不幸的是，我不知道你在说什么。我想我们的谈话已经够深入了。

我不知道你的反应是什么。我的建议是，与其“考虑重返校园”，不如让你(以及任何人)阅读自己满意的书籍，这似乎让你感到些许不安。我只是对一个看似质疑的问题表达了自己的观点。我并不想暗示——在任何“暗示”意义上——你没有读过——因此我认为没有必要回应——也就是说，你已经读过了。
What is the part about "content in and certain of your views" in reference to? Are there some specifics about my view of the relation between self and memory you would like to contest?
抱歉，但这让我很困惑。

Yes, memory is a complex thing.. Sell your book and more, if you can. Academics is a wonderful avenue to publication. You are not confused and neither am I. Be fully aware that science changes and watch your back.Remember that there are two kinds of people: those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don't.
Anymore questions?
If so, consult your academic associates. They MUST have better answers than I. I hope so, anyway...

"Anymore questions" (from HGN).
如果你指的是关于广播节目内容的严肃的、话题性的问题，那么我还没有从你那里看到任何我可以提供答案的问题。我当然也没能从你的帖子中找到与对话相关的答案。
至于你那看似轻蔑的评论，说我的同事“肯定有更好的答案(比你;(a)我不知道，(b)我不能说，因为你没有提供任何用于比较的目的。
My comments here are not -- as you imply -- to sell books; I comment because I was invited to discuss the content of the book by the hosts. I expect intelligent conversation on topic -- not an apparent free-flow of non sequiturs.
顺便说一下，如果你听过我在电台上的演讲，或者读过让你着迷的书，你可能会意识到，我认为科学有用，但作为一种世界观，它过于教条和限制。
I kindly suggest you stick with your original stated intent and move on to other discussions.

Heh,heh, and, yawn, Mr. Klein. It has been fun, what.

?