Tag Archives: memory

Misjudging criteria

Most people think of memory as the ‘past’ and judge it by how well it preserves the past. But that is not its function. Memory is material to be used in the ‘present’ and the ‘future’. What happened in the past is not important except to help understand the present and predict/plan the future. Bits of memory out of historical context are the ingredients of imagination. With more context they are the tools we use to identify things in the present and understand their dangers and opportunities. We need to know if we are encountering the old or the new. We need to remember whether someone is trustworthy when we deal with them. When we look at what we remember, how and how long we remember it, and how closely we keep it to the original memory, we should think of what is the point of all of it.

What seems a fault with memory – that memories are not fixed but can change or be lost altogether – is only a side effect of their being modified to stay relevant and useful. We need memories that help us perceive the present and model the future and that is the real criteria, not absolute accuracy. The criteria for a well constructed memory system are biological evolutionary survival ones.

Colour vision is not about accurately perceiving the frequencies of light coming into the eye. It is not about the light; it is about the surface that reflected the light and how it can be identified. There is no use in saying that our vision is not giving us accurate colour, because accurate colour would interfere with accurate characterization of surfaces and identification of objects. The many optical illusions are not faults in the system – they are due to the ways that the visual system protects the stability of our vision so that things do not appear to change colour or size.

Language is not about meaning or logic; it is about communication. People worry about changes in the meaning of words and the use of grammatical forms. Well, here is what happens generation after generation: if people have difficulty communicating, they will change their language. If their way of life changes, if they move to a different region, if the people they are talking to change, then they will change their language. Our language is not the result of biological evolution so much as cultural evolution. But the same idea applies and the criteria have to do with communication. Is language logical? It may seem so from within that language but talk to anyone learning it as a new language and see the illogical, arbitrary quirks in it. There are languages that count negatives and there must be an odd number to be negative. There are languages that have to have all or no words carry a negative marking. Both types of negation seem logical to the speakers. Is language a good communication tool? Without doubt it is better than anything else we have ever tried to invent. No artificial language has ever made a dent on a natural language no matter how clear was the meaning or logical the grammar of the new language.

When we look at biological and even social systems it is important to consider what is their real, primary reason for existence. We have a tendency to misjudge the criteria and need to watch out for this trap.



A theory of the evolution of consciousness

In a recent article (citation below) Vandekerckhove, Bulnes and Panksepp put forward a theory of how consciousness has changed with the evolution of the brain. They envisage three types or stages of awareness: anoetic (without knowledge), noetic (with knowledge), and autonoetic (with meta-knowledge). The theory has each type building on the previous, both during evolution and during childhood development. They even postulate that the process may go backwards during the deepening of dementia.

Looking at each stage:

Anoetic: awake with a flow of awareness of here and now (not past and future), of the self (core self) in the world with phenomenal quality (qualia) of multimodal sensory-perceptional and body experiences, and affective feeling (emotional and homeostatic). It depends on subcortical neural networks, thalamic sensory relay nuclei, basal ganglia, and especially, midline mesencephalic and diencephalic attentional and affective systems .

Noetic: added to the anoetic flow is semantic memory (but not necessarily using language) and learning. This gives knowledge (implicit and explicit) of specific facts about the self and the world, including facts about the past (but not the feeling of being in the past). It depends on basal ganglia (amygdala, nucleus accumbers etc.), the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, temporal lobes.

Autonoetic: added to noetic awareness is episodic memory and the ability to deal with thoughts, images, fantasies, expectations, memories in ‘the mind’s eye’ and to be aware of one’s awareness. The memory is explicit and in context. The self is biographical. Introspection is possible. It depends on most of the cortex.

I like the idea of the progressive change in consciousness with the evolution of the brain but I have great difficulty with the divisions. It seems to me that there are no postulated mechanisms here. For example, how do we form a semantic memory? I have always pictured this as a by-product of the episodic memory. As episodes pile up illustrating a particular ‘fact’ of the world, this can become a prediction that is separately ‘indexed’ from the episodes that gave rise to it. But without episodes and without semantic-type symbols, how is a factual memory formed? It is in essence an inductive process of forming predictive rules on the basis of experience – so you need the experiences and those are events, the sort that are stored in episodic memory. So, I do not find the problem has been ‘cut at the joints’, but it is such a nice start at studying the evolution of consciousness.

The abstract:

Based on an interdisciplinary perspective, we discuss how primary-process, anoetic forms of consciousness emerge into higher forms of awareness such as knowledge-based episodic knowing and self-aware forms of higher-order consciousness like autonoetic awareness. Anoetic consciousness is defined as the rudimentary state of affective, homeostatic, and sensory-perceptual mental experiences. It can be considered as the autonomic flow of primary-process phenomenal experiences that reflects a fundamental form of first-person “self-experience,” a vastly underestimated primary form of phenomenal consciousness. We argue that this anoetic form of evolutionarily refined consciousness

constitutes a critical antecedent that is foundational for all forms of knowledge acquisition via learning and memory, giving rise to a knowledge-based, or noetic, consciousness as well as higher forms of “awareness” or “knowing consciousness” that permits “time- travel” in the brain-mind. We summarize the conceptual advantages of such a multi-tiered neuroevolutionary approach to psychological issues, namely from genetically controlled primary (affective) and secondary (learning and memory), to higher tertiary (developmentally emergent) brain-mind processes, along with suggestions about how affective experiences become more cognitive and object-oriented, allowing the developmental creation of more subtle higher mental processes such as episodic memory which allows the possibility of autonoetic consciousness, namely looking forward and backward at one’s life and its possibilities within the “mind’s eye.”


M. Vandekerckhove, L.C. Bulnes, & J. Panksepp (2014). The emergence of primary anoetic consciousness in episodic memory Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7 : 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00210