Memory

Sometimes I loose my PIN, but always when I’m standing before the cash machine, I remember it. This code not only exists in digits in my memory, but in the movements of typing as well. I can memorize how I have to move my fingers and if I do so I feel: yes, that’s correct!

If I know how to move my fingers, from this I can deduct what my PIN is. En vice versa: if I know my PIN, I type it and then I experience how I have to move my fingers, as I did when I first had to type in a new code. The information, PIN, is retrievable from my memory in more than one way: visual or motoric. But how is the PIN represented in my head? Visual? Then I can deduct the movements. But if I forgot the visual code, then my motoric memory still is available. And even more memories are possible. I could explain to you my PIN is built up by the keys: left up, right up, right down, left down. Exactly forming a square. This is easier to memorize than  1 3 9 7.

Apparently there is a multiple representation of the code. There is a visual representation stored in memory, a motoric representation and perhaps others as well. The action that retrieves the PIN from the memory can do with one representation, but can also use more than one.

This shows that the representation of the outer world is formed by the actions needed to get out this information. Thus the information in memory is part of this action. See for instance the motoric memory. Actions we often have performed we can perform again, which shows we remember them in a motoric way. Not a verbal way. Ask a soccer player how he manages to keep the ball up and you get a very uncomplete answer. However the motoric memory does form a representation of the outer world, as we saw in the PIN example.

Memory cannot be seen apart from the process of retrieving data. However we tend to think that way: we imagine memory as being a bin, and a skill to read it. Like a computer: if my hard disk has been broken, I cannot read the memory anymore, but unmistakably the information still is there and can be read by a specialist. Or like a book: if I should turn blind, I cannot read a book anymore, but the information in the book still is there.

Memory would be useless without the actions using the stored information, memory cannot be seen apart from those actions. My conclusion is: those actions are the memory. The memory is not a static file, but the memory consists of stored actions.

Dutch version / Nederlandse versie 

Statements

People have ideas en behaviour that sometimes may seem illogical and contradictory. Logical models can’t successfully explain these. Could a system, existing only of a stack of statements, explain illogical inconsistent behaviour?
Let’s look at the nature of statements. What are statements? How do they work? How do they interact?
If you try to convince somebody, you use arguments. Arguments are statements. The more statements you use, the bigger chance you have on successfully convincing the other to your point of view. Convincing someone is harder if someone previously had some counter arguments. You'll notice that existing statements won't get away. Sometimes you can confront someone with an inconsistency in his statements. Apparently statements can be contradictory, inconsistent. This is not what you'd expect in a logical model. People are not always aware of their inconsistencies. If you confront them, then a new truth arises caused by a new statement doing something with the old statements. Old statements do not disappear, but there impact can be diminished by new added statements.
You notice a new argument has much more impact than repeating old ones. This raises the question whether a statement can exist multiple times. Repeating statements has some effect. Does this mean the statements exist multiple times? Or do we have a number of arguments not exactly equal? A child may remember he has to watch out when crossing a street and he also remembers his mother told him ten times. Does the statement exists ten times? Or are there only two statements? 1. Watch out when crossing. 2. My mother told me this ten times.
Summing up statements (or arguments) have the following properties:
1. They stick. Once in the head they can not be deleted.
2. Within a system (or model) statements can be inconsistent.
3. To resolve an inconsistency one or more new arguments are necessary.
4. A new statement generally has more impact then the repeat of an existing statement.
5. It's still an open question, whether a statement can exist multiple times.

Dutch version / Nederlandse versie