Which is why it's a good thing only one person donated. Don;t want her seeing how really popular I am. Or maybe I should. Hrm... I can't do it if you don't donate. Send me a blowjob today!
Anyhoo, CogSci here has a reasonable amount of stuff that ties in to memory, but relatively little that actually deals with what memory is. Of course, there's the usual two-stage model dealing with propositional and declarative memory (that's short-term and long-term respectively), but I can't be the only person to have noticed what I like to call a "glaring fucking hole" right in the middle there: There's a missing layer. Bear in mind that this is coming from the relation of learning and memory, especially the quote:
Learning is the process by which relatively permanent changes occur in behavioral potential as a result of experience. Memory is the relatively permanent record of the experience that underlies learning
There's a bit missing. See, there is what amounts to declarative storage of lessons learned from past experience, but there is also the record of that experience stored in a more literal form. An example: I can remember events I have learned from (as an example, I remember quite vividly the first and last time I touched an electric fence) and yet as a totally separate memory instantiation, I can remember the lesson learned with no connectivity (for instance, I learned not to touch electric fences). Surely there is a fairly major divide, there. I no longer associate the two events, like I no longer associate the few vague memories I have of learning to speak with my knowledge of grammar and language. So the behavioral rules that are placed in memory are placed in a part of memory, and the experiences that lead to the comprehension of those rules goes in another area. I'd guess that the latter has a faster rate of decay than the former, but a) I have no idea, b) I can't be fucked to do all the testing, and c) there's a high possibility I'm talking out of my arse.