Chapter 9 of Norton Psychology - Essay Example

Fall NPR Chapter 9 Reading Daniel L. Schacter, Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past Reading 2: Daniel M. Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will Reaction Paper The two readings within chapter nine of The Norton Psychology Reader cover memory and cognition through evaluations of experiments. The main topic explored within these experiments is the how remembering and conscious will work. In the first reading, “Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past” Daniel Schacter talks about retrieval of information without being aware of using memory. When asked if this statement is true, Schacter replies that there is a way of remembering without realizing one is actively seeking information. The evidence that is provided to support his conclusion surrounds experiments based on amnesic patients. One experiment that provided a key finding to this topic, researched by Professor Lawrence Weiskrantz and Elizabeth Warrington, looked deeper into the memory of amnesic patients by asking them to study a list of common words then asked to choose those words from a different set of words presented later on. The distraction of the words presented later made it harder for the patient to remember the list of words they had previously studied. After this finding, they decided to ask the patients to finish fragments of words that were on the list studied. They found that the patient wrote down more words then expected from the study list but did not recall seeing those words before. They concluded that the patients were using implicit memory, a type of memory where there is no recollection of where the information came. This led to the finding of priming, which allows ones memory to soak in information when physically viewing a word to come up with the correct answer. Schacter concluded that this must happen independently of conscious memory with relation to semantic memory, memory for factual knowledge, instead of episodic memory, memory for personal experiences. One of the flaws that I see in these conclusions is that semantic memory does require a conscious effort when retrieving information, which amnesic patients do not have the ability to do. Another flaw that I see from the findings of Schacter is that when trying to prove a point there is no counter argument that can explain why people without amnesia or a head injury recall memories without effort. The second reading in the chapter was “The Illusion of Conscious Will” by Daniel M. Wegner. This reading Wegner talks about how the conscious will is an illusion with the brain creating electrical activity before a thought of a movement occurs. Kornhuber and Deecke presented the finding of readiness potential (RP), the activations of the brain before a voluntary movement, and movement potential, the movement of readiness potential to the localized area of the brain responsible for motor skills. The experiment that was performed in this reading was performed by Benjamin Libet, he asked patients to spontaneously move their finger without thinking of doing so. They were asked to sit in front of a moving clock and report where a dot was placed when they were consciously aware of wanting to perform the movement. From this experiment he found that voluntary movement happens in three stages, 1) the brain activates, 2) the patient becomes aware of the wanting to move their finger, and 3) the actual movement occurs. Posner and Snyder developed the idea of automatic processes and controlled (conscious) processes. Automatic processes have to do with actions that are uncontrollable and cannot be stopped until completed, such as pressing on the gas pedal when a light turns yellow; whereas a controlled process allows for more time for an action to be completed, such as typing at high speeds, as all the letters seem to join together creating a sequence. This lead to the idea of preconscious response in which a human begins to react to a stimulus before they are actually aware of wanting to do so. A few flaws that I see within these experiments are the measure of how you can really tell if someone is thinking about moving their finger. Another flaw that is relevant in this finding of conscious will is that if asked to do something, such as move a finger, then a person is consciously aware they will be moving their finger in the near future. Comparing these two readings to each other, it is evident that there is a small correlation between retrieval of information without actively knowing and conscious will being an illusion. Implicit memory is one of the main points that does create a correlation be the two, in regards to past experiences influence actions without any awareness. Being asked to move a finger spontaneously is a past memory, but someone would be aware of this past memory if they were not amnesic. The problem with the first reading is that it only includes studies with people who have amnesia or that have sever brain injuries not allowing them to remember events well. I do not believe that the writers agree with each other in respects to the main point of both readings. Schacter illustrates that there is a way to retrieve information from a past experience without being aware of it but he only explains his thesis through amnesic patients. This causes a conflict in respect to the second reading because Wegner explains that conscious will is an illusion and that you cannot voluntarily create an action unless the brain is activated. Wagner’s assertions that we choose our will seem to be factual even though this is treated as an opinion. In his argument “the experience of consciously willing an action is not a direct indication that the conscious thought has caused the action" (p.181), I believe the author is spot-on. This is because whereas some actions seem motivated by additional sources, it is only honest to state that a man’s conceives an idea and works it out. It is not something that accidentally happens to us but rather a decision made. This is not to say that the author is accurate in all his assertions regarding how the mind works as evidenced by the claims defining will Wegner errs in defining what comprises the will with the explanation being that the minds hardly wills and that feelings do not influence a decision. I feel the author errs in this area because as much a decision is made consciously, feelings do influence a decision. Nonetheless, this is not synonymous with saying all decisions are made by feelings or that all decisions are accidental; instead, a decision is made consciously but with the aid of the feelings Schater on the other hand claims that it is not really possible to understand the exact way a mind works. Worth noting here is that the author is not in any way admitting failure to understand at all how this part of the body functions. Instead, he states that there is no “universally agreed upon model of the mind/brain, and no universally agreed upon model of how memory works” (Schacter p.168). That is to say, there are various theories propagated but there is not one that has been agreed upon. After analyzing the text by Schacter, I am compelled to reason that the author could somehow right. If one compares the Wegner’s claims and this assertion by this author, it is clear there is not a specific way the human memory functions. Both authors however seem to agree on how the curiosity of people when it comes to new experiences. Schacter provides a scenario where psychologists provided a drawing to some people who showed great enthusiasm. This was despite the fact that it was just a flash with the drawing moved almost immediately. Many of the respondents expressed excitement at having seen the drawing but their memory could hardly remember the entire appearance (Schacter, p.175). The people were saying they liked the drawing more than ones they had seen before yet the drawing was not fully saved in the memory. Similarly, Wegner (p.183) cites the weakness of the memory as the reason one is not able to remember thing the very first time they are seen. The experiences of people epically ones that are pleasant are likely to be exciting and can be recorded in the mind in an easier way than the ones of pain. However, the painful memories take time to leave the mind. In addition, the encoding varies as evidenced in the Schacter’s text (p.174) whereby one is likely to have a dream but cannot remember it later. The author states that the best way to remember is to write it down and give it a title. From the two texts analyzed, it is easier to see how weak the mind and the memory are in terms of storing information. One thing the two texts have proved is that there has been no evidence on how the memory works. For instance, if remembering a dream that happened a few days back is harder than remembering some experiences that occurred many years back. Therefore, one can only conclude that the memory is a tricky part to comprehend and only thorough analysis could resolve the mystery. Read More