Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:43:56.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doing without metarepresentation: Scenario construction explains the epistemic generativity and privileged status of episodic memory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2018

Markus Werning  and
Sen Cheng
Markus Werning
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Ruhr University Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany. markus.werning@rub.dehttp://www.rub.de/phil-lang/
Sen Cheng
Affiliation:
Institute for Neural Computation, Ruhr University Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany. sen.cheng@rub.dehttps://www.ini.rub.de/research/groups/computational_neuroscience/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Episodic memories are distinct from semantic memories in that they are epistemically generative and privileged. Whereas Mahr & Csibra (M&C) develop a metarepresentational account of epistemic vigilance, we propose an explanation that builds on our notion of scenario construction: The way an event of the past is presented in episodic memory recall explains the epistemic generativity and privilegedness of episodic memory.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cheng, S. & Werning, M. (2013) Composition and replay of mnemonic sequences? The contributions of REM and slow-wave sleep to episodic memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(6):610–11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13001234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, S. & Werning, M. (2016) What is episodic memory if it is a natural kind? Synthese 193(5):1345–85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0628-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, S., Werning, M. & Suddendorf, T. (2016) Dissociating memory traces and scenario construction in mental time travel. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 60:82–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.11.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, A. I. (1986) Epistemology and cognition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. P. (2009) Systematicity redux. Synthese 170:251–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9582-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, U. & Harsch, N. (1992) Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In: Affect and accuracy in recall, ed. Winograd, E. & Neisser, U., pp. 9–31. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664069.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. & Hanna, R. (2012) A minimalist approach to the development of episodic memory. Mind and Language 27(1):29–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01434.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talarico, J. M. & Rubin, D. C. (2003) Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science 14(5):455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werning, M. (2005) Right and wrong reasons for compositionality. In: The compositionality of meaning and content, vol. I, ed. Werning, M., Machery, E. & Schurz, G., pp. 285–309. Ontos Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werning, M. & Cheng, S. (2017) Taxonomy and unity of memory. In: Routledge handbook of philosophy of memory, ed. Bernecker, S. & Michaelian, K., pp. 7–20. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar