Memories May Not Live in Neurons' Synapses
- Thread starter Ocean
- Start date
Hi Ocean, I decided to look up the original article referenced. It seems like the finding is more about how using the chemical propanolol to disrupt the synapses doesn't prevent a memory from being re-consolidated. The discussion theorizes that memories may be stored within the cell bodies of the neurons themselves instead of the synpases, which is a lot less sensational than what the presenter says about antennas and the like. I wish he would cite more sources for what he says since it sounds hokey otherwise. Did you end up looking any further into the things he presented, and if so did you find anything else interesting?
If the science of memory interests you, this is a more recent article with some good citations and info. I've attached a pdf of it as well (it's a beast, otherwise I'd share it in a quote below).
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
If the science of memory interests you, this is a more recent article with some good citations and info. I've attached a pdf of it as well (it's a beast, otherwise I'd share it in a quote below).
On the research of time past: the hunt for the substrate of memory
The search for memory is one of the oldest quests in written human history. For at least two millennia, we have tried to understand how we learn and remember. We have gradually converged on the brain and looked inside it to find the basis of knowledge, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
mbww
Jedi
That's just a supposition, based on this article paragraph:
"Alternatively, it could be encoded in modifications to the cell's DNA that alter how particular genes are expressed. Glanzman and others favor this reasoning..."
Which doesn't carry any validity, since nobody has been able to identify a localized memory center or locus in human cell or DNA. My understanding is that DNA doesn't store any memory either, they're just circuits. Therefore it's more plausible to think about synapses as antennas and conceive memory as non-localized, which is what to the Gaia video segment explains.
That's what theorizing is. The point is that the article cited doesn't actually say what the video says it does.
Yeah, the study of where memory is stored is still ongoing, which is why scientists write articles such as those linked above and also why they read them: to discuss the state of research to try and hash things out and maybe develop testable hypotheses. Contrast that with how the video claims that this is how it IS, when all they have to show for it doesn't actually say what they claim it does.
You may have your own understanding based on previous things you've read (by all means share it here if you think it helps to justify the video's points), but I that can lead us to subconsciously fill in the blanks of an essay or video, and prop up positions that aren't tenable when forced to stand on their own two legs.
Literally everything the video says about the shown article is false - for example "a growing body of scientific evidence now suggests we do not hold memory in the neurons of our bodies" (that's not what the article shown said, although it doesn't contradict the idea of information being stored outside our bodies, which I guess is what the presenter is leaning on), or "what these discoveries (which?) are showing us is that those neurons are not what contain the memory." "Engineers are actually now beginning to design the next generation of computer chips based precisely on this idea (of memory being stored in an information field)" (are there any press releases that could be linked to this? Or is this some top secret insider stuff we have to take their word on?) If you shared this on twitter or wherever, and someone who does their homework looks into the article cited and sees it doesn't say what the video says it does, what is he to think of the rest of the unsupported information, for example about information being stored in a field or matrix? People are fickle so my guess is the rest is likely to be dismissed out of hand. This is how misinformation and disinformation spreads, and how the signal is obscured.
This is similar to what David Ike's group did with the photos of Laura and Ark of the Denver Airport murals.
Re: DNA and memory storage. DNA stores information for encoding proteins and other functional RNA. Since it stores information in principle it could be a means for storing memory, which is defined in information theory as simply stored information. That is a hypothesis, but I don't think it can be falsified outright, at least based on what's been shared here so far. And if you can falsify it with solid evidence, maybe it's worth sending the authors an email?
mbww
Jedi
This article is the closest I found regarding you're asking:
The Holographic Nature of DNA, the Brain & the Universe – GatheredIn.One
mormonuniversalism.com
It basically goes along the 'holographic universe' model which is probably one the best models on how the reality is shaped, emphasizing the nonlocality principle.
On DNA, please don't confuse DNA/genetic material with storage devices - that function is at best analogous to what in computer science is called 'buffer' or 'volatile memory'. DNA of course does carry hereditary info - however, when it comes to where actual memory info is stored... it's more complicated than just copying genes, and there are multiple levels of memory and interaction:
Here's a quote, from a paper:
"[In biosystems]... Billions of cells must “know” about each other, if not about everything, then a lot, and moreover, instantly. Without the phenomenon of “wave information instantaneousness,” the giant multicellular continuum of higher biosystems is unable to fully co-ordinate metabolism, its physiological and other functions.
Intercellular diffusion of signaling substances and nerve processes are too inert for this. Even if we assume that sign-oriented electromagnetic fields with light speeds are involved in the intercellular transmission, which is sufficiently justified, even then, this is not enough. The mechanism of quantum non-locality is necessary, and it is applicable to the genetic apparatus, which can act as an instantly distributed quantum (wave) object, isomorphic to material chromosomes. Using non-locality, the genetic apparatus of higher biosystems create an amazing phenomenon: when in the moments of “collapsed” space-time,”here and there”, “first and then”, the biosystem works as a continuity, providing supercoherence, information over-redundancy, overinformation, connectedness and, as a result, integrity (survival). A manifestation of this, for example, is the ability to regenerate organs and tissues in lower organisms (hydra, worms, amphibians, lizards, crustaceans), an ability that has been largely lost by humans."
SCIRP Open Access
Scientific Research Publishing is an academic publisher with more than 200 open access journal in the areas of science, technology and medicine. It also publishes academic books and conference proceedings.m.scirp.org
So, again: non-locality. You wouldn't want your best life memories and life "learning" experiences stored on your laptop lost forever when the hard drive crashes, would you? There's a cloud for that.
As for the "next generation of computer chips based on memory being stored in an information field" we're not there yet, but rest assured there's research and it's very predictable that the next jump will be from the "physical cloud" where the information is stored now to a "quantum cloud", based at least initially - on immutable elements: math algorithms like hashes, or atomic structures. At least as backup and for resiliency purposes since Earth is very frail and you don't know when the next comet may hit...
