Précis of memory: a philosophical study

Sven Bernecker 0 0 S. Bernecker (&) Department of Philosophy, University of California , Irvine, CA 92697-4555, USA The book presents a comprehensive and coherent account of the epistemology and metaphysics of memory. It introduces a new taxonomy of memory, defends the contingent dependence of memory on personal identity, argues that memory is logically independent of knowledge and that memory is a generative source of justification, sets forth a new version of the causal theory of memory, develops an externalist account of memory content, and proposes an account of memorial authenticity. Philosophers typically impose a tripartite division on kinds of memory: practical, propositional, and experiential memory. Practical memory is remembering how to do something. Propositional memory is remembering that p, where 'p' stands for a veridical proposition. Experiential memory is remembering from the first-person perspective an event one has personally experienced. The problem with this taxonomy is that there is no way of drawing a sharp and intuitively compelling distinction between experiential and propositional memory. In lieu of the tripartite classification scheme, Chapter 1 proposes a classification in terms of the grammatical objects of the verb 'to remember'. Given this approach, there are four main kinds of remembering: one can remember persons or things, properties, events, and propositions (facts). The book concentrates on propositional memory, whereby I mean any substituent of the schema 'S remembers that p', irrespective of whether 'p' refers to something one has personally experienced, and irrespective of whether the memory content consists merely of p or whether it also includes images or qualitative experiences. Propositional memory of one's own mental states I call introversive memory. All other kinds of propositional memories are extroversive memories. To cut the topic to a manageable size, the book is mainly concerned with propositional memories that - are both conscious and explicit and are memory-related to past episodes of propositional awareness. Chapter 2 discusses the relation between memory and personal identity. Whether a memory presupposes personal identity crucially depends on whether its content involves an indexical reference to the rememberer. When the content refers to the rememberer, the veridicality constraint on memory demands that the rememberer is numerically the same as the one who had the original representation. But when the remembered content doesnt involve an indexical reference to the rememberer its truth value isnt affected by whether personal identity is preserved. In this case it is possible for the bearer of the memory state to be different from the bearer of the original representation. Of what kind is the dependence of memories with reflexive content on personal identity? If memories entailed personal identity, memory couldnt be used to define personal identity. But the standard view has it that personal identity consists in psychological connectedness and continuity, where memories are an important ingredient of psychological connectedness and continuity. Following Parfit and Shoemaker, I propose to solve this problem by arguing that the dependence of memories on personal identity is of a contingent rather than a logical kind. This thesis is defended against objections from constitutive holism, the causal theory of memory, and the immunity to error through misidentification. Chapter 3 takes issue with the widely held view that to remember something is to know it, where this knowledge was previously acquired and preserved. It is argued that memory is not knowledge-entailing, for sometimes, though hitting the mark of truth, memory succeeds in an epistemically defective way. Unlike knowledge, memory doesnt entail justification (however construed). It is not necessary for propositional memory that the proposition be justifiably believed when it was originally acquired or that it be justifiably believed when it is recalled. Not only can you remember something you didnt justifiably believe in the past but also you may acquire in the meantime some convincing yet misleading evidence that destroys the epistemic status of the once-genuine justified belief that one still remembers. What passes into memory may be merely a representation or belief, not knowledge. (Representation, the way I use the term, refers to any kind of cognitive pro-attitude towards a proposition.) Just as memory doesnt entail justification it doesnt entail belief. Not only can you remember that p without believing that you remember p, but you can remember that p without believing that which you remember, namely p. Though memory doesnt entail justification and knowledge, memories can, of course, be justified and can qualify as knowledge. And so the question arises whether memory is merely a preservative source of justification and knowledge or whether it may also function as a generative source. I argue for moderate generativism, that is, the view that, though memory is a generative source of justification, it cannot bring about new elements of justification. The only way for memory to function as a generative source of justification is by removing defeaters and thereby unleashing the justificatory potential that was already present at the time the belief was initially entertained. If the original belief had no justificatory potential because, say, it was gettierized, memory cant turn it into a justified belief. Memory generates justification only by lifting justificatory elements that were previously rebutted or undermined by defeating evidence. Remembering something is different from learning it anew. Any theory of memory must devise a condition that ensures that the memory content is retained rather than relearned. To remember something, ones present representation must be suitably related to the corresponding past representation. The interpretations of the memory connection fall into three categories: the evidential, simple, and causal retention theory. Chapter 4 weighs up these three interpretations and argues for the causal retention theory: to remember that p ones present representation must stand in an appropriate causal relation to ones past representation that p*, where p is identical with, or sufficiently similar to, p*. The main advantage of the causal theory over the non-causal competitors is that it does a better job of explaining the truth of commonsensical statements of the form If S hadnt represented at t1 that p*, he wouldnt represented at t2 that p. Chapter 5 argues that a distinction needs to be made between the causal dependence of a memory on a past representation and the causal dependence of a memory on that which retains the past representation B the memory trace. The causal dependence of a memory on a trace is best characterized in terms of INUS conditions: the trace must be at least an insufficient but non-redundant factor of an u (...truncated)