''Eminent neurophysiologist Karl Pribram proved that the memory of the human being is not localized in the brain at all. His experiments proved that the memory is distributed in space, not necessarily contiguous with the physical form, in a holograph-like manner. This means that there exist multitudinous copies of any memory object in the volume of the hologram.

The Pribram model of memory is like a hologram. When you cut a small piece out of a hologram and shine the proper light on it, a complete copy of the original hologram, albeit smaller, is observed. This understanding was completely at odds with the then prevailing views of consciousness, which had the view that memories resided at particular and exclusive locations within the physical brain. Due to this mistaken view, many experimenters subsequently made many attempts to disprove Pribram's results by means of cutting out various parts of the brains of laboratory rats which had been trained to run through mazes, thinking that if they cut out the correct part of the rat's brain, that it would lose its ability to negotiate the maze. Such results would support the old notions of localized memory. Attempts to disprove Pribram’s hypothesis by the method of cutting out and removing various brain segments all failed. '' R. N. Boyd PhD.

You might have noticed this is an excerpt from the thread i am making on Biofields. Now, i want to just talk about the thoughts on memory: As we have seen, we must overthrow all notions of darwinian memory, and invite some new, non-local theory into the mix.

What are your thoughts on this?

Reiku :m:

yes, the hashish smoker blavatsky said that memories are stored in astral light, which is just another word for that hologram... i should try some drugs, maybe i could become smart too

We know that certain parts of the brain govern emotions, certain functions of the body, and memories. We also know that if you damage part of the brain, it can sometimes rewire past the damage to still function.

If certain areas of the brain are damaged, people can lose their entire memories, or part of them which suggests that there are certain areas of the brain which contains our memories.

If memories, effectively electrical signals, could exist outside the brain, I think an EEG should detect them. A strong magnetic should field disrupt them, so as to effectively turn a person into an idiot.

-Refrains to comment due to the fact that memories are a terribly complex idea, with a unfathomable number of possibilities.-

How can we be sure?

I agree to some extent with kaneda, physical injury does sometimes affect specific memories, but there also might be more distributed information, if not in the brain, then perhaps in other areas of the body.

Of course there is 'Distribution', the brains neural pathways are constantly changing based upon stimuli and other external factors. This means that a 'remembered' piece of information doesn't always pass through the same pathways but adaptive alternatives. Now if it's proven that when information is retrieved that it's not just being connected to by a pathway but the actual memory becomes embodied within the pathway and neurons itself then it's likely that certain areas would store more information than first though, however the question is the size of these 'Memes', is a whole instance or just a fragment of a memory.

Kaneda mentions something which should be targeted, because if interpreted under the wrong light, one could find other ways to see memory other than being non-local to the physical brain, as he said:

''If certain areas of the brain are damaged, people can lose their entire memories, or part of them which suggests that there are certain areas of the brain which contains our memories.''

Which might suggest that memory must be a local phenomena, since brain damage can remove memory all together: But quantum mechanics can add something here; the memory is still there.
In quantum physics, we learn that information can never be destroyed. Under extreem conditions, the information can be mangled, but never lost. In much the same sense, one can say the same thing for the human mind. Even though some memory may never be attained again, does not make it unnatainable.
This would mean that whenever the observer is measuring something, or experiencing something, [the information] that [somehow] ''pops'' into existence through the will of the observer - it is being recorded in the vacuum, or has already been recorded by the vacuum, and what we are experiences are fields of memory. The fields required for this make scientists hasten, because we already have enough fields to deal with in science, and some of them haven't even been proven as yet... So do these theories make physics and consciousness more difficult?
Some would say yes. I don't think they do though, because how can something be more complicated than it already is? If nature designed matter and life, energy and information into such a configuration, then this was as simple as it could have been. This is also known as the principle of least action. Ground state universes abide by this rule.

Then spidergoat said:

''I agree to some extent with kaneda, physical injury does sometimes affect specific memories, but there also might be more distributed information, if not in the brain, then perhaps in other areas of the body.''

Mmmm... so we still need to answer: If the memory is non-locally stored, then how does matter still affect it?

The answer i think is that memory is both local and non-local.

Does the body make these little hologram memories in neurons? How does sensory stimuli trigger memories? Why are some memories more powerful than others? How do drugs work to inprove or decrease memory?

''Does the body make these little hologram memories in neurons?''

I believe so. Think of matter as a conduit for some holographic energy we associate as consciousness.

''How does sensory stimuli trigger memories? ''

This question is not fully answered for. A few years back, i designed two principles to make it easier to fully recognize neural-speeds... These neural speeds ''being SI 'Slow Influence,' and FI 'Fast Influence,' '' could deterine how fast we come to process memory. If this is true, then we are tuning into this universes possibilities: Though bottom line, we still don't know what causes memory. But we are starting to think that matter is only a conduit for something more profound.

''Why are some memories more powerful than others?''

I can answer this. This is because we are ''more aware,'' than at other times. If we ascribe a certain event with a lot of information, we are more aware that this was a definitate outcome, and we can remember it more vividly than other events.

''How do drugs work to inprove or decrease memory?''

Drugs seem to warp mind, and therefore it warps matter: Mind is matter is mind. Mind is also a bit more... Mind seems to encompass everything.

The brain is a machine to convert "memories" into useful form.
Where is the border between "simple" learned reflex and memory?

The brain is a synthesizer.
It uses small recorded triggers (so called memory) and synthezizes a complicated images (which are fake).

It uses small (recorded) bits and creates big scenery.

Its like synthesizer modulates just simple noise, and we think its the wind blowing. The ACTUAL wind is soooo complicated noise, we cant imagne.

Memory resides in remote server - collective server. Brain has small holographically packed keys to this universal memory resource. Something like that.

Thats my theory :)

Looking at how human body controls glucose level, heart beat, blood pressure, hormone level etc. one can say that nature is frugal and uses mathematical algorithm in the feedback and feed forward (Yogis) mechanism. Rather than line coding. Human automated system is much more precise where a large deviation occurs (not too large) between set point and the sensor input than most heating and ventilation systems.

In the same light why can not the brain use fractal mathematics to reconstitute memory from raw data redundantly stored in the brain?

Just a thought

Michael Talbot. Author. google it.