The Evolution
30
And similarly, if A, B, and Z have not occurred together, then
there is no way A can have formed a whole-to-whole link with BZ, nor B
a whole-to-whole link with AZ, and so a Type II intersection of Z is
an impossibility (to see this example clearly, imagine A as "hospital,"
B as "blade," and BZ as the particular form of "blade" "scalpel"; for a
whole-to-whole link to be established between "hospital" (A) and "scalpel"
(B and Z) requires that at some time all three occur together.)
And lastly, if A, B, and Z have not occurred together, then the
whole AB cannot have formed a whole-to-whole link with Z, which means
that Z may not be yielded by a Type IV interaction (to see this example
clearly imagine A as the word horse, B as the word shoe, and Z as the
concept "horseshoe"; for horseshoe (A and B) to form a whole-to-whole
link with concept "horseshoe" (Z) requires that all three at some time
occur together.)
It follows from all of the above that two concepts A and B cannot
be expected to cooperate in yielding a third concept Z by a Type I or
Type II intersection, or a Type IV interaction, unless at some time in
the experience of the memory in question A, B, and Z have all occurred
together. This requirement, which must be met if Type I, Type II, or
Type IV processing is to be a possibility, will be termed the
requirement of contiguous occurrence.
The obvious advantage of the above principle is that it is an aid
in distinguishing Type III intersections from Type I and Type II inter-
sections. Thus if it is known that in a particular memory "Florida