Abstract
Most theories and models of memory are based on two assumptions that
contain theoretical problems. These problems are reflected in the memory-trace
paradox, which consists in believing that the past is contained in the memory
trace, and in the fallacy of the homunculus, which consists in assuming the existence
of an unconscious intentional subject. We will discuss these and present an
alternative hypothesis concerning the relationship between memory, consciousness
and temporality. This holds that consciousness is not a unitary dimension,
but is the set of distinct and original modes to address the object. Among the
modes of consciousness, a distinction is made between Knowing Consciousness
(KC) and Temporal Consciousness (TC). KC describes the mode of addressing
the object in order to know it. TC describes the mode of consciousness that
temporalizes its object according the subordinate structures of temporality, the
past, the present and the future. Finally it is shown how the hypothesis accounts
for a variety of memory disorders and phenomena while avoiding the memory-
trace paradox and the fallacy of the homunculus.