It's been some time since I posted this subject and I find it interesting that after some 100 viewings there has been no responses. Is this because the subject is simply too hot to handle or is there some other reason?

As a psychologist memory is one of those areas which I spent a great deal of time studying during my student period. I recall many hours of debate on the structures, schema's and memory exercises which sometimes divided and sometimes united groups within the debate. Yet it would seem many people here have little to say on the subject.

How our memory works determines its reliability and the choices we make in the present and future. We do not rewrite the book each time we experience a new event, rather we use our present experience to augment our past experiences and memories to make future decisions. If human memory could be accessed like a hard drive on a computer or video than the question about memory would have a straightforward answer. However we know that memory does not work this way. Current theory would suggest that memory is made up of a variety of senses and spread throughout the cerebral cortex, and that any of our senses, smell, sight, sound taste or touch can trigger memories. Equally our memories can change and can easily be corrupted by time and by events. Even the way we interpret our own memories can deviate from the hard facts.

Of course this area of psychology raises questions about therapy in general, particularly for those coming from the Freudian view. It also raises questions about the nature of therapy, it's role in society and it's goal for the individual.

I don't believe this is a esoteric subject which only satisfies the academic, but I believe we should all be asking questions about the body of evidence in which our vocation is emerged.