Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
MemoryA Philosophical Study$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Sven Bernecker

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199577569

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577569.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 21 October 2019

In Defense of the Causal Theory of Memory

In Defense of the Causal Theory of Memory

Chapter:
(p.104) 4 In Defense of the Causal Theory of Memory
Source:
Memory
Author(s):

Sven Bernecker (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577569.003.0005

The interpretations of the memory connection proposed in the literature fall into three categories: the evidential retention theory, the simple retention theory, and the causal retention theory. This chapter weighs up these three accounts and argues for the causal retention theory. The main problem with the evidentialist approach is its commitment to the epistemic theory of memory. The main problem with the simple retention theory is that it appears informative only as long as one refrains from asking what is involved in the process of retaining of a representation. When this question is raised, proponents of this approach must concede that they don't have a positive story to tell. The causal theory of memory states that for a present representation to qualify as a memory it must be suitably causally connected to a corresponding past representation. The causal theory of memory is defended against three objections: the argument from the contingency of causation, the argument from the nomologicality of causation, and the argument from temporal forgetting. There are two things that speak in favor of the causal theory of memory. First, unlike the causal theory, the evidential retention theory and the simple retention theory are afflicted with serious problems. Second, the causal theory of memory can best explain the truth of commonsensical counterfactual statements of the form: if the subject hadn't represented a particular proposition in the past he wouldn't represent it now.

Keywords:   evidential retention theory, simple retention theory, causal retention theory, contingency of causation, nomologicality of causation, temporal forgetting, counterfactual dependence

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .