How you lie affects what you remember

We investigated how telling different types of lies may impact memory. Participants studied pictures of objects, and later lied and told the truth about these and new objects once or multiple times by describing them or by denying they had seen them. Forty-eight hours later, participants were tested on their source memory. Results revealed that participants had good memory for having falsely described a never-seen object, but relatively poor memory for having falsely denied seeing a studied object. These results suggest that telling certain types of lies may make a person more likely to forget having lied. In addition, repeated truthful denials of having seen a picture paradoxically increased false memories for having seen it. Thus, telling the truth does not always prevent the possibility of memory distortion.     

You are not what you feel you are

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences -     

You never know where you are going until you know where you have been: Disorganized search after stroke

Disorders in spatial exploration can be expressed in a disorganized fashion of target cancellation. There is debate regarding whether disorganized search is related to stroke in general, to right brain damage or to unilateral spatial neglect (USN) in particular. In this study, 280 stroke patients and 37 healthy control subjects performed a computerized shape cancellation test. We investigated the number of perseverations and several outcome measures regarding disorganized search: Consistency of search direction (best r), distance between consecutive cancelled targets and intersections with paths between previous cancelled targets. We compared performance between patients with left and right brain damage (L, R) and with and without USN (USN+, USN?), resulting in four subgroups: LUSN?, RUSN?, LUSN+, and RUSN+. Higher numbers of intersections were found for the left brain‐ and right brain‐damaged patients with USN and for the right brain‐damaged patients without USN, compared to healthy control subjects. Furthermore, right brain‐damaged patients with USN showed a higher number of intersections compared to right brain‐damaged patients without USN and compared to left brain‐damaged patients with USN. To conclude, disorganized search was most strongly related to the neglect syndrome, and patients with more severe USN were even more impaired.     

What you get out of memory depends on the question you ask

Following study, participants received 2 tests. The 1st was a recognition test; the 2nd was designed to tap recollection. The objective was to examine performance on Test 1 conditional on Test 2 performance. In Experiment 1, contrary to process dissociation assumptions, exclusion errors better predicted subsequent recollection than did inclusion errors. In Experiments 2 and 3, with alternate questions posed on Test 2, words having high estimates of recollection with one question had high estimates of familiarity with the other question. Results supported the following: (a) the 2-test procedure has considerable potential for elucidating the relationship between recollection and familiarity; (b) there is substantial evidence for dependency between such processes when estimates are obtained using the process dissociation and remember-know procedures; and (c) order of information access appears to depend on the question posed to the memory system.     

神要用我——在安徽神学院院长朱少堂牧师追思礼拜上的证道

经文:诗:23提后1:9—12亲爱的主内弟兄姊妹,亲爱的朋友们,下午好!今天我们在这里举行纪念神学院院长朱老牧师的追思礼拜,庆贺他在地上为神劳碌做工、荣神益人的一生。也许大家对我很陌生,但是我在这里证道也并非偶然,我和朱老牧师有五十六年的交情,他是我的父亲。     

Whichever way you choose to categorize,working memory helps you learn

There has been growing interest in the relationship between the capacity of a person's working memory and their ability to learn to categorize stimuli. While there is evidence that working memory capacity (WMC) is related to the speed of category learning, it is unknown whether WMC predicts which strategies people use when there are multiple possible solutions to a categorization problem. To explore the relationship between WMC, category learning, and categorization strategy use, 173 participants completed two categorization tasks and a battery of WMC tasks. WMC predicted the speed of category learning, but it did not predict which strategies participants chose to perform categorization. Thus, WMC does not predict which categorization strategies people use but it predicts how well they will use the strategy they select.     

Jesus loves you!

According to orthodox semantics, a given sentence as used at a given situation expresses at most one content. In the last decade, this view has been challenged with several objections. Many of them have been addressed in the literature. But one has gone almost unheeded. It stems from sentences that are used to address several people individually, like ‘Jesus loves you!’ as uttered by a priest at a sermon. Cappelen (Philos Perspect 22(1):23–46, 2008), Egan (Synthese 166(2):251–279, 2009), López de Sa (Erkenntnis 79(1):241–253, 2014), and MacFarlane (Assessment sensitivity: relative truth and its applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014, ch. 4) claim that, to account for such cases, one has to adopt a pluralist semantics, according to which the sentences in question express more than one content. In this paper, I shall counter this objection. Exploiting different so far underappreciated features of singular and plural ‘you,’ I argue, orthodox semantics can very well account for the cases in question.     

Getting what you want

Philosophical Studies - It is commonly accepted that if an agent wants p, then she has a desire that is satisfied in exactly the worlds where p is true. Call this the ‘Satisfaction-is-Truth...