C-268. Memory in the S-universe
Long term memory? Short term memory?
The next step’s Mind can register the previous step’s outcome. Especially for the step taker. And keep it in Mind as it turns to guiding this next step. “Long term” in the first instance; “short term” in the second instance. Short because it has to get out of the way for building the next “next step.”*
Long term memory is key to control systems, which are based on the outcomes of previous steps … to either prevent or replicate prior behavior. Short term memory is key to operating systems, which must – or ought to -- deal anew with the next step. So is mid-term memory, provisional re long-term investment, instrumental re extended Splicing.
Identity memory? Agency memory?
If we were fully programmed to take steps, then identity memory would be all we needed. (And visual memory more evolved than it has been, relative to verbal memory?) That’s pretty much the premise on which B-speak’s “naming” procedural tech “word” language is based. If further ID is required, then old names have been Topsy-like refurbished: by suffixes, adjectives, adverbs – or new ones added: as by prepositions**
For those observers studying bodies that do not possess multi-step capacity, to whom “nest step” is irrelevant, where “is as does” conveniently holds, confounding identity and agency may not seem so dire a threat to one’s operating system.***
But it’s a different matter when language must work with behavior, in bi-ness toward balance and CEM’s optimum functionality. Hence the potential value of R-words in the S-universe: they all speak the same language, of Forward from needed functionality through to functionality.
***
The field of “memory” would be better served by a procedural technology that sees what is talked about above conceptually (WITA) in a more productive theoretical manner, in a more disciplined way … a way that brings procedural tech to bear on procedural tech, to righten incomplete and inaccurate Grasp of conceptualized memory … to prepare the way for further technological advance of memory for what is called for (WICF).
Memory, especially with respect to WICF as needed functionality, suggests that we ought to do better if we were to see memory as a communication phenomenon, as a way from the next-step challenge and option of our place AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion to call back to the past – and forward for ideation to the future.
Then from this perspective we should be able to deal creatively with such problems as noise, storage, and transmission … that we now address tactically on an ad hoc basis (e.g. repeating what is said to you,, taking notes, building mnemonic structures).
***
* Memory, as communication, has the admirable quality of not hanging around after its work is done. Unless, of course, we undertake procedures to keep it around. Which we do, for better or worse. And for memory, that is probably a good idea – lest we fail to distinguish (B-ness) “forgetting” from (procedural tech) “failing to remember.”
** Although preposition use is incompletely developed. Verb particles are in common usage (e.g., “sort OUT”), but noun particles are not systematically employed (e.g. theory OF, FOR, ABOUT) despite their obvious pragmatic applicability to DIF’s => DIF’s.
*** Physicians test older patients for ID memory (“I’m going to give you three words”…). But what is the degree of correlation between identity memory and agency memory? What if agency memory gets more quotidian practice than identity memory does? How can procedural tech help one and/or the other?
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
The next step’s Mind can register the previous step’s outcome. Especially for the step taker. And keep it in Mind as it turns to guiding this next step. “Long term” in the first instance; “short term” in the second instance. Short because it has to get out of the way for building the next “next step.”*
Long term memory is key to control systems, which are based on the outcomes of previous steps … to either prevent or replicate prior behavior. Short term memory is key to operating systems, which must – or ought to -- deal anew with the next step. So is mid-term memory, provisional re long-term investment, instrumental re extended Splicing.
Identity memory? Agency memory?
If we were fully programmed to take steps, then identity memory would be all we needed. (And visual memory more evolved than it has been, relative to verbal memory?) That’s pretty much the premise on which B-speak’s “naming” procedural tech “word” language is based. If further ID is required, then old names have been Topsy-like refurbished: by suffixes, adjectives, adverbs – or new ones added: as by prepositions**
For those observers studying bodies that do not possess multi-step capacity, to whom “nest step” is irrelevant, where “is as does” conveniently holds, confounding identity and agency may not seem so dire a threat to one’s operating system.***
But it’s a different matter when language must work with behavior, in bi-ness toward balance and CEM’s optimum functionality. Hence the potential value of R-words in the S-universe: they all speak the same language, of Forward from needed functionality through to functionality.
The field of “memory” would be better served by a procedural technology that sees what is talked about above conceptually (WITA) in a more productive theoretical manner, in a more disciplined way … a way that brings procedural tech to bear on procedural tech, to righten incomplete and inaccurate Grasp of conceptualized memory … to prepare the way for further technological advance of memory for what is called for (WICF).
Memory, especially with respect to WICF as needed functionality, suggests that we ought to do better if we were to see memory as a communication phenomenon, as a way from the next-step challenge and option of our place AT, ON the Frontier of The Expansion to call back to the past – and forward for ideation to the future.
Then from this perspective we should be able to deal creatively with such problems as noise, storage, and transmission … that we now address tactically on an ad hoc basis (e.g. repeating what is said to you,, taking notes, building mnemonic structures).
* Memory, as communication, has the admirable quality of not hanging around after its work is done. Unless, of course, we undertake procedures to keep it around. Which we do, for better or worse. And for memory, that is probably a good idea – lest we fail to distinguish (B-ness) “forgetting” from (procedural tech) “failing to remember.”
** Although preposition use is incompletely developed. Verb particles are in common usage (e.g., “sort OUT”), but noun particles are not systematically employed (e.g. theory OF, FOR, ABOUT) despite their obvious pragmatic applicability to DIF’s => DIF’s.
*** Physicians test older patients for ID memory (“I’m going to give you three words”…). But what is the degree of correlation between identity memory and agency memory? What if agency memory gets more quotidian practice than identity memory does? How can procedural tech help one and/or the other?
(c) 2023 R. F. Carter
S