Abstract

This paper responds to Hirai’s attempt to provide a simulationist interpretation of Bergson’s theory of memory (BTM). Hirai argues that BTM and the simulation theory of memory (STM) give converging answers to two key questions—regarding the constructive character of remembering and the continuity of memory and imagination—and that, while they do not agree with respect to a third question—regarding the necessity of a certain sort of causation for remembering—they also do not disagree with respect to it. The paper argues that, while Hirai is right to suggest that BTM and STM agree with respect to construction, he is wrong to suggest that they do not disagree with respect to causation, and he is likewise wrong to suggest that they agree with respect to continuity. It therefore concludes that a properly simulationist interpretation of BTM is unlikely to be viable.