Comments on: neurons for memory http://verens.com/2005/06/23/neurons-for-memory/ klog - Kae's Log Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:49:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kae Verens http://verens.com/2005/06/23/neurons-for-memory/#comment-289 Kae Verens Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:56:23 +0000 http://verens.com/archives/2005/06/23/neurons-for-memory/#comment-289 interesting, but not realistic. If you remember two cars, for instance, you do not actually remember the exact details of each car. All you remember is that there were two cars, some facts about what a "car" is, and some points where the two instances of car memory differ from the idea of a car. By the fact that you already know what a car is, you will then be able to describe both of them and be fairly accurate. No memory is absolutely perfect, and if it was, then your idea might be more realistic. The sheer bandwidth involved in remembering everything in perfect detail would quickly overcome even the strongest brain. The brain works by abstracting out a lot of the detail that it is exposed to. In most cases, for example, it is enough to remember the gist of a conversation to be able to recreate it with words that are close to what was actually said. In that case, you do not need to remember the actual sound of the words being said, or the various pauses and vocal ticks that the speakers used, but when remembering it, your brain will recreate something which approximates that. The fact that you can think and remember more than a few months of events is proof that the brain does not work the way you suggest it does. There is no need to drag superstition into it. interesting, but not realistic.

If you remember two cars, for instance, you do not actually remember the exact details of each car. All you remember is that there were two cars, some facts about what a “car” is, and some points where the two instances of car memory differ from the idea of a car. By the fact that you already know what a car is, you will then be able to describe both of them and be fairly accurate.

No memory is absolutely perfect, and if it was, then your idea might be more realistic. The sheer bandwidth involved in remembering everything in perfect detail would quickly overcome even the strongest brain.

The brain works by abstracting out a lot of the detail that it is exposed to. In most cases, for example, it is enough to remember the gist of a conversation to be able to recreate it with words that are close to what was actually said. In that case, you do not need to remember the actual sound of the words being said, or the various pauses and vocal ticks that the speakers used, but when remembering it, your brain will recreate something which approximates that.

The fact that you can think and remember more than a few months of events is proof that the brain does not work the way you suggest it does. There is no need to drag superstition into it.

]]> By: Trev http://verens.com/2005/06/23/neurons-for-memory/#comment-288 Trev Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:40:40 +0000 http://verens.com/archives/2005/06/23/neurons-for-memory/#comment-288 Well its an interesting theory you have. But I have to say that you have neglected to define what a single thought is. If you convert all of the mass of the brain into pure energy via e=mc2 as an optimal case of pure energy (which it is not), then start reducing the full colour pictures stored along with sound and sensations of direction, muscle tension, position, motion,internal and external temperatures, etc into memory needed for storage in terms of energy requirements, you will find that from an energy point of view in pure physics it is not possible to store more than a couple of months worth of memory in the brain. Then given the fact that any given moment of an individuals life is available for the individual to recall either at will or under hypnosis (and I do mean each and every perceptic is available for recall) and is never lost or recorded over, we therefore have to deduce that thought is not confined to the regions of the brain and its neurons. Let alone the fact that somewhere there needs to be an awareness of awareness unit performing these functions seperating us from animals that operate on a purley stimulus -response basis. Now we have entered the realms of philosophy. Well its an interesting theory you have. But I have to say that you have neglected to define what a single thought is. If you convert all of the mass of the brain into pure energy via e=mc2 as an optimal case of pure energy (which it is not), then start reducing the full colour pictures stored along with sound and sensations of direction, muscle tension, position, motion,internal and external temperatures, etc into memory needed for storage in terms of energy requirements, you will find that from an energy point of view in pure physics it is not possible to store more than a couple of months worth of memory in the brain. Then given the fact that any given moment of an individuals life is available for the individual to recall either at will or under hypnosis (and I do mean each and every perceptic is available for recall) and is never lost or recorded over, we therefore have to deduce that thought is not confined to the regions of the brain and its neurons. Let alone the fact that somewhere there needs to be an awareness of awareness unit performing these functions seperating us from animals that operate on a purley stimulus -response basis. Now we have entered the realms of philosophy.

]]>