tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post5490120970541241188..comments2024-03-24T12:53:09.723-07:00Comments on Future and Cosmos: The Navigation Argument Against the Idea That Your Brain Stores All Your MemoriesMark Mahinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17230591038352645520noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5610509909390357755.post-45701128718565711832019-03-18T06:05:54.646-07:002019-03-18T06:05:54.646-07:00I was not convinced by your arguments. But this ar...I was not convinced by your arguments. But this argument did it: "Memory retrieval is even more mysterious than storage. When I ask if you know Alex Ritchie, the answer is immediately obvious to you, and there is no good theory to explain how memory retrieval can happen so quickly." <br /><br />And it seems to me that you actually didn't understand it. The power of the argument is that it is done on the negative. For positive arguments you can argue at any time that might be some special mechanisms in place for fast retrieval: i.e. since I walk everyday, there is a fast hardwired mechanism in the brain that fast retrieves walking specifically. But since that argument is on the negative, you need to search for the whole brain in order to know if you know any Alex Ritchie. And this would take whole minutes or hours. So since we know instantly that we don't know any Alex Ritchie, then it means that memories are not in the brain. It's an amazing argument. I will use it from now on in any debate about the place of memories.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239862653382475846noreply@blogger.com