Its an amazing piece of work- a hundred billion tiny units packed tight and finely orchestrated to work in the space the size of a small watermelon. The human brain.

We’ve all heard the clichés- its the most complex form of functional matter on the planet, the secret behind Handel’s "Messiah" and Beethoven’s Fifth, that magical organ that landed its captive on the moon. Been there and done but think about it- in a tissue sample the size of a grain of sand there are already some 100 thousand neurons, two million axons (long data channels), and a billion some odd synapses all ‘talking’ to each other at birth. In a slice the size of a slimy buger there are some 50 thousand more neurons and millions more in axons. Insanities.

An entry in some highbrow science journal would read something like this:

"The radioactive phosphorous content of the rat’s cerebrum decreases to one half per cubed mm in the period of two weeks"

But behind the jargon, do you really know what this means? This means that the phosphorous in that rat’s brain today is not the same as that of two weeks ago- these conscious atoms milling about in the brain are getting thrown out and replaced and yet the new phosphorous atoms of now can remember everything that happened 20 years ago despite not having been there.

Almost miraculously the brain can stop, rewind, rehash, and throw out billions and billions of atoms all talking to each other over a lifetime without the slightest hint of a break in what we call our mind or individuality.
Cliché or not, when I think of this I’m just as amazed as I was long ago when right before my eyes, with the teeniest electrical spark, a slice of cardiac tissue came alive on a petri dish.
Imagine a pork chop wriggling to life on your plate without the pig.

And when you consider the complexity, you obsess about how things know where to go in what reads like a madhouse. Where is memory located? Laughter? Depression? Religion? Music or math? Tap my knee and it jerks- the pathways are fairly easy to trace back through the spinal cord, up somatosensory pathways to the cortical mantle and all the way back down motor pathways to the muscles that would have me kicking you in the groin. But all those abstractions of love, God, individuality- all those hypothetical goodies that go into memory- where does the brain put them? I also fell in this habit of wondering where and how but the answer is simple: we don’t know.

Yet where is the show "Baywatch" located? Is it the glowing phosphor on the screen? Is it the electromagnetic stream of electrons in the cathode tube or the celluloid film the show is taped on? The questions are anal when you realize that the show does exist and those are real people behind the images. There’s nothing keeping you from understanding what a television show really is, so the day when some unified theory in neurology becomes real is not the impossibility these whiny philosophers have sanctified.

Or not? I don't know. Memory seems something elusive and has been for epochs, despite the advance in technology trying to tame her.

Scratch your itch girl!

Pardon?

I just noticd that you have "itchyologist" under your name, and along with this thread, it seems to suggest that you have this itch to understanding, knowing, and even intellectualising, and it needs scratched. I would submit this thread as evidence. Its more of an explanation of an itch that needs scratched than an actual viewpoint.
Or else you could just ignore the itch and it will go away, like midge bites.

No-

Itchyologist is a play on words.
Goofyfish, and let us pray that the man is bent over in some dark alley in horrible pain, is the reason for it.
He's a fish, ichtyologists torture fish, but this one is a fucking pain in one's side so he itches.

Itchyologist.

Sure, thats what you mean by it.
Maybe my definition makes you seem too nice?
Whats goofyfish ever done to you?

Guth:
Sure, thats what you mean by it.
Maybe my definition makes you seem too nice?
I'd eat your children, brother.
Muhahhahahah...

Whats goofyfish ever done to you?
The pleb banned me.

Ok. First of all, for those who are just joining us, this thread is (in a way) a continuation of a discussion elsewhere about how Planaria flatworms are able to eat the neurons of their fellows and learn what their fellows knew.

Here's the link to Gendanken's original mention of this in the relevant thread for those interested.

As I was saying in that thread, I still think that you're getting stuck on mechanics. The phosphorous atoms are not the vessel of memory. They are merely the messengers that instigate the neuronal pathways.

As you say, memory is elusive and it is unknown exactly how it works, but it is a generally safe bet that it lies somehow in neuronal structure. In the delicate web. Not in the chemicals being used as neurotransmitters. The chemicals are the equivalent of several people standing in a field with a complex interweaving of arms and fingers so that one touches the others in just the right way so that when one person taps another on the shoulder, that person taps the next, and then he taps the next and so on.

Neurons are more complicated, of course, with various neurotransmitters and receptor sites. With potentiation levels and so on. With feedback both from within a neuronal group and from without (the hippocampus is thought to be key in memory development. And, glial cells are now thought to be the master of which synapses fire and when through their subsidiary network.)

But, the phosphorous (and other neurotransmitters) doesn't remember. It doesn't care. It doesn't think. It doesn't direct its own actions. It is directed by the neurons. By the pre-existing pathways.

However, in the case of the planaria neurons, there must be some type of chemical memory. Because the neuronal structure is being destroyed by digestion (I should think). Therefore the memory must be based on chemical reactions of some sort. In the example you gave in the other thread, the "trick" learned was an aversion to light. Now, I can easily think of a chemical means of "learning" this trick. Light sensitive chemicals. If a light sensitive chemical were somehow incorporated into the neuron then the presence of light might very well generate an aversion or attraction behavior, depending.

I ought to try to look more in-depth into these planaria experiments. Anyone reading this know anything about them? Surely there must be some simple mechanism to explain the "memory" of these simple organisms through chemical means. If this is so, then the neurons wouldn't have to be consumed, just the ingestion of a certain chemical would teach the trick.


Yet where is the show "Baywatch" located? Is it the glowing phosphor on the screen? Is it the electromagnetic stream of electrons in the cathode tube or the celluloid film the show is taped on? The questions are anal when you realize that the show does exist and those are real people behind the images. There’s nothing keeping you from understanding what a television show really is, so the day when some unified theory in neurology becomes real is not the impossibility these whiny philosophers have sanctified.

Brings to mind the holographic memory theory which I am not well versed in enough to mention at this time. So...

I would submit this thread as evidence. Its more of an explanation of an itch that needs scratched than an actual viewpoint.
Or else you could just ignore the itch and it will go away, like midge bites.

You say this like it's a bad thing. Or amusing. Nothing to say on the topic at hand? I take it that you don't share the itch then? Too bad for you, I say.

Hey Guthrie. Why don't you start a thread entitled Gendanken's title: Itchyologist. And discuss it there?

Got anything to say on neurons? Planaria? Cannabalism?

hey starfish.
Cannibalism? Not my style.
As for the holographic memory thing, I dont know enough about it, but what i ahve read seems to make some sort of sense.
But then I dont see a need for a unified theory in neurology, unles sit is definitely related to how things work, to some decimal places or not.

I think with regarsd to the P, gendanken is getting a little overawed at how our brains keep the same structure, despite replacing the members of that structure. Like the completely new body every 7 years due to the atomic turnover. So what can you tell us about bits of the brain that change rapidly? Are they learning centres?


"However, in the case of the planaria neurons, there must be some type of chemical memory. Because the neuronal structure is being destroyed by digestion (I should think)."
maybe. But at this point I want more than an I should think. Dammit, I want full access to every scientific journal on the planet. But yes, it seems plausiblethat the neuronal structure should be destroyed by digestion. Is there any way it can avoid the digestive tract? Has anyone fed worms neurons from other worms, perhaps radioactively tagged, and watched what happened?


"Therefore the memory must be based on chemical reactions of some sort."
Must be according to my hypothesis, you mean.

"In the example you gave in the other thread, the "trick" learned was an aversion to light. Now, I can easily think of a chemical means of "learning" this trick. Light sensitive chemicals. If a light sensitive chemical were somehow incorporated into the neuron then the presence of light might very well generate an aversion or attraction behavior, depending."
But why should the receiving worm respond to the chemical related to light sensitivity at all? It surely assumes that the worms are identical in all respects, especially in potential. PLus, it suggests that there is something in or adhering to the neurons that is different in one worm simply because it has a phobia for light, therefore, can it be isolated by chemical means? (probably not, but theres some funky kit out there in biology that I know nothing about.)

"You say this like it's a bad thing. Or amusing. Nothing to say on the topic at hand? I take it that you don't share the itch then? Too bad for you, I say. "
No, its a good thing, except when it takes over your life. I have many other itches, and not enough energy or brain power to scratch them. Or time.


gendanken:
"I'd eat your children, brother.
Muhahhahahah..."

I'll use you as the bogeywoman to frighten them with (when i actually have children that is.)

"The pleb banned me. "
Oh yes. That was a while ago. did you learn anything from it?

Oh yes. That was a while ago. did you learn anything from it?
Not a godamned thing.

Vert:

Back with commentary. Its already past 4. Ta.

...Memory seems something elusive and has been for epochs, despite the advance in technology trying to tame her.

This, just as a meta-observation:

I quote Quine (http://my.dreamwiz.com/reality/data/philosophy_information2_quine.htm):

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.

This said, the problems with explaining how he brain works is one of those grand examples of humans being stuck in their thinking systems.

Concerning the memory storage: It sure seems elusive where exactly all the information is stored, alas, I recently read some articles about a theory that essentially says that the information contained in the brain is always circulated. It is not stored in a fixed place, resultin in a constant flow of data through the brain. This could enable the brain to renew parts of its body without losing any information.
Also, it seems that memories are not stored together, a text for example could be taken apart and stored in different parts of the brain, but could still be put together if the need arises. But makinf it also easier to store since the bits and pieces could fit in smaller memory spaces, plastically speaking.

I will try to find the links again.

Ok, found some of my links, look here:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Warren.html

Guthrie:
I think with regarsd to the P, gendanken is getting a little overawed at how our brains keep the same structure, despite replacing the members of that structure. Like the completely new body every 7 years due to the atomic turnover. So what can you tell us about bits of the brain that change rapidly? Are they learning centres?

Its not about keeping the structure moron. Its about keeping the story whole.
There is nothing to somatic cells being shed only to be replaced by exact replicas.
Simple biology.
Those minerals and atoms making the cerebral structures like neurons and dendrites in your brain get tossed out constantly, yet the newcomers are still able to maintain whatever piece of story the other one was responsible for.
How does it do it?

No, its a good thing, except when it takes over your life. I have many other itches, and not enough energy or brain power to scratch them. Or time.

Which is why I called you a lazy cocksucker or some such once, yes?
Some thread where you had the gall to call yourself a writer.

Vert:
As I was saying in that thread, I still think that you're getting stuck on mechanics. The phosphorous atoms are not the vessel of memory. They are merely the messengers that instigate the neuronal pathways.

As you say, memory is elusive and it is unknown exactly how it works, but it is a generally safe bet that it lies somehow in neuronal structure. In the delicate web. Not in the chemicals being used as neurotransmitters. The chemicals are the equivalent of several people standing in a field with a complex interweaving of arms and fingers so that one touches the others in just the right way so that when one person taps another on the shoulder, that person taps the next, and then he taps the next and so on.

Neurons are more complicated, of course, with various neurotransmitters and receptor sites. With potentiation levels and so on. With feedback both from within a neuronal group and from without (the hippocampus is thought to be key in memory development. And, glial cells are now thought to be the master of which synapses fire and when through their subsidiary network.)

::groan::

But still though.
Allright, we both agree that no one yet knows exactly how memory even works, right? The holographic theory is nice, but it doesn’t answer much. At all.

However, this 'delicate web' you're talking about- the neuronal structure.
Its made up of all the minerals (and phosphorous is a mineral, not a neurotransmitter) that align together to make brain matter.
One of them being phosphorous.
Right?

So, I'm seeing these events we live out in our lives stamped onto our brains like a Polaroid, with each pixel being an atom of mineral. When each pixel gets shed, it has to do so as if it never went anywhere.

See what I'm getting at?
Neurotransmitters are the vehicles- its the minerals and chemicals keeping things up I'm concerned with.

Those minerals and atoms making the cerebral structures like neurons and dendrites in your brain get tossed out constantly, yet the newcomers are still able to maintain whatever piece of story the other one was responsible for.
How does it do it?
However, this 'delicate web' you're talking about- the neuronal structure.
Its made up of all the minerals (and phosphorous is a mineral, not a neurotransmitter) that align together to make brain matter.
One of them being phosphorous.
Right?

I don't think I'm understanding you. I had been under the impression that you were referring to neurotransmitters. I think I had phosphorus confused with potassium. It is potassium and calcium that conduct electric currents through neurons, right? I'm afraid I'm a bit rusty on this base functioning of the neurons. I've been delving into the brain at higher levels and this basic neuronal functioning has slipped my mind.

Care to expand? I have been searching on the web to reacquaint myself with this but am having a tough time sorting through garbage.

I do know that phosphorus is a key element in ATP which transports chemical energy between cells. But, I had been thinking more of ions.

Isn't ATP also used by glial cells? I don't have that article I typed up for you so long ago handy. Do you remember? I seem to remember the glial cells actually using it for signalling purposes rather than just transporting energy.

Speaking of glial cells, it is glial cells that provide the pathway for severed neurons to reconnect. That too was mentioned in that article.

Anyway, care to elaborate?

You're saying that phosphorus somehow organizes the neuronal network? That the minerals and their properties are somehow forming the network?

Do tell.

Today it is commonplace to compare the human brain to a computer, and the human mind to a program running on that computer. Once seen as just a poetic metaphor, this viewpoint is now supported by most philosophers of human consciousness and most researchers in artificial intelligence. If we take this view literally, then just as we can ask how many megabytes of RAM a PC has we should be able to ask how many megabytes (or gigabytes, or terabytes, or whatever) of memory the human brain has.

Several approximations to this number have already appeared in the literature based on "hardware" considerations (though in the case of the human brain perhaps the term "wetware" is more appropriate). One estimate of 1020 bits is actually an early estimate (by Von Neumann in The Computer and the Brain) of all the neural impulses conducted in the brain during a lifetime. This number is almost certainly larger than the true answer. Another method is to estimate the total number of synapses, and then presume that each synapse can hold a few bits. Estimates of the number of synapses have been made in the range from 1013 to 1015, with corresponding estimates of memory capacity.

A fundamental problem with these approaches is that they rely on rather poor estimates of the raw hardware in the system. The brain is highly redundant and not well understood: the mere fact that a great mass of synapses exists does not imply that they are in fact all contributing to memory capacity. This makes the work of Thomas K. Landauer very interesting, for he has entirely avoided this hardware guessing game by measuring the actual functional capacity of human memory directly (See "How Much Do People Remember? Some Estimates of the Quantity of Learned Information in Long-term Memory", in Cognitive Science 10, 477-493, 1986).

More at:

http://www.merkle.com/humanMemory.html

Cosmictraveler:
copy-pasted tripe

Who, pray tell, is comparing the brain to a computer?
If anything it resemble an orchestra with madmen at the piano.
Fugues, not printouts.

Invert:
I don't think I'm understanding you. I had been under the impression that you were referring to neurotransmitters. I think I had phosphorus confused with potassium. It is potassium and calcium that conduct electric currents through neurons, right? I'm afraid I'm a bit rusty on this base functioning of the neurons. I've been delving into the brain at higher levels and this basic neuronal functioning has slipped my mind.

Care to expand? I have been searching on the web to reacquaint myself with this but am having a tough time sorting through garbage.

Which is why I can only wish to know everything. Godamnit, the conundrum in philosophy about being unsure of the things we cannot see behind trees and things.

Let's see if we, as poor laymen (fuck the world), can expand for ourselves.
Think of the neurotransmitters as something like bees transporting the pollen.
The pollen had to come from somewhere, and it can only be from the flowers embedded in the background.
Its those flowers I think of being what the cerebral mantle is made of- which would be the minerals and chemicals that give it flesh.
Those flowers are what contains what the bees will carry to and fro, because it is they that store the stuff of memories.

These "flowers" are the phosphorous and calcium and whatever other mineral or chemical the fabric the brain is made of.
Its like you are thinking about the container of a neuron cell where things pass through and I'm thinking of its skin where things are stored.
Each of those components, like body cells, gets shed but cannot do so without communicating the piece of memory its holding so that a memory is transported whole.

A body cell is hacked to bits and thrown away to be replaced by another one just like it- kind of like two zombies going through revolving doors, one in and the other out without either even seeing each other.
But the cerebral components have the odd task of having to stop and actually ...draw the component that will replace it.

I always picture this absurdity:

http://artseek.barewalls.com/product/artwork.exe?ArtworkID=1696

Can you picture a phosphorous molecule telling another phosphorous molecule about a vacation you took ten years ago?
Insanities.

You're saying that phosphorus somehow organizes the neuronal network? That the minerals and their properties are somehow forming the network?

YES!!

A body cell is hacked to bits and thrown away to be replaced by another one just like it- kind of like two zombies going through revolving doors, one in and the other out without either even seeing each other.
But the cerebral components have the odd task of having to stop and actually ...draw the component that will replace it.

No, the whole reason memory works is because neurons are one of the few body cell types (along with cardiac cells) which DO NOT get replaced. Ever.

J:
No, the whole reason memory works is because neurons are one of the few body cell types (along with cardiac cells) which DO NOT get replaced. Ever.
Then why the fuck do you think I've been talking about minerals and chemicals?

Like, duh?

I am simply pointing out that u are wrong in saying that the cell is replaced by another one just like it. Memory doesn't necessarily need to be transported as u say. It can stay within that neuron all your life.

Connellan. It get's replaced at a subcellular level. The minerals and other components are replaced. That's why she brought up the bit on phosphorus.

However, Gendanken, I don't really have much to add at the moment. I'll comment on what you have up there, but I've been looking into the role of phosphorus in various online biology books. I take it that what you are referring to by phosphorus is the phospholipid cell membrane? I can't find many references to phosphorus other than that (yet). Except for in ATP and a few other energy carrying molecules.

Let's see if we, as poor laymen (fuck the world), can expand for ourselves.
Think of the neurotransmitters as something like bees transporting the pollen.
The pollen had to come from somewhere, and it can only be from the flowers embedded in the background.
Its those flowers I think of being what the cerebral mantle is made of- which would be the minerals and chemicals that give it flesh.
Those flowers are what contains what the bees will carry to and fro, because it is they that store the stuff of memories.

I've always seen it more like highways and byways. The neurotransmitters travel the paths of axons and dendrites. They don't really carry anything other than themselves. Well, to be precise, the neurotransmitters only travel the synapse. It is action potential that travels the highways. And the spark causes the vacuoles to release the neurotransmitter into the synapse to be taken up by receptor sites.

But, the memory is not inside of these chemicals. The memory is in the shape of the highways. The branchings and connectings. In the varying potentials of the various neurons. It is in the physical structure that the interlaced neurons create.

However, the experiments on planaria suggest something else entirely. The ability to eat memories suggests a chemical method of memory. But, planaria most likely don't have memories even remotely similar to ours. I gave a possible explanation for the light avoidance memory. A simple chemical reaction. I haven't had much luck finding anything specific on the planaria. I've seen references to a few Nature articles but I don't have a fucking subscription... Damnit! That shit should be free. Fucking elitist assholes.

Each of those components, like body cells, gets shed but cannot do so without communicating the piece of memory its holding so that a memory is transported whole.


Just a few days ago I was reading somewhere that if a portion of the brain is removed, then a certain memory will be lost. However, if the brain were removed in pieces. Slowly. A bit at a time. Then the memory would remain intact. Moved somehow. Unfortunately... I can't find the article I was reading now that it would be useful.

I always picture this absurdity:

Sweet. The mind drawing itself. Singing itself to sleep at night. Waking itself up in the morning with a refreshing cup of coffee (imaginary). Jabbering away at itself all day just because it can. Escher was insane.

YES!!

Elaborate, please. What are you referring to? The phospolipid cell membrane? ATP? Something else?

Escher was insane.

This isn't exactly on topic, but since you brought it up, it's too good to be tossed away: Many M.C. Escher's pictures have one thing in common: a picture ... is a picture ... is a picture. A picture is making itself.
It's the old problem of how identity of an object is established in our mind: it's a two-way inductive process, and it's not analyzable! It's freaky. Can you recognize something as an "apple" if you've never seen an "apple" or heard of an "apple" before? No. Apples seem to be an easy example, but think of some fancy biology or chemistry term that you may read in a text, but will gloss over it as if it weren't there, and will also not see what it desrcibes even though it were about your own body.
"You see it when you can see it, and you can see it after you have seen it."

As if our mind has the ability to float in empty space for a while, gathering information and processing it *without* us have any control or awareness of it. That's how prototypes are made.


***
Oh, and look at the ads here:

"Activate your mind, increase IQ, & build more neural connections now! "

Connellan. It get's replaced at a subcellular level. The minerals and other components are replaced. That's why she brought up the bit on phosphorus.

I don't even agree with that. Sure, most chemical components of the body are replaced according to their respective residence times but I believ there are some components which have residence times similar to our lifetime. I believe these components may be the basis of memory.

However, Gendanken, I don't really have much to add at the moment. I'll comment on what you have up there, but I've been looking into the role of phosphorus in various online biology books. I take it that what you are referring to by phosphorus is the phospholipid cell membrane? I can't find many references to phosphorus other than that (yet). Except for in ATP and a few other energy carrying molecules.

Surely u haven't forgot DNA. Most of all the DNA in our bodies are held together by phosphate bonds.

But, the memory is not inside of these chemicals. The memory is in the shape of the highways. The branchings and connectings. In the varying potentials of the various neurons. It is in the physical structure that the interlaced neurons create.

"Memory" is analagous to capacitance IMO. It is stored as charge so I suppose it CAN be said to be stored inside chemicals! "Thinking" on the other hand, is the firing of neurons. When we "think" of a "memory", we discharge the tiny capacitors in our head.

Just a few days ago I was reading somewhere that if a portion of the brain is removed, then a certain memory will be lost. However, if the brain were removed in pieces. Slowly. A bit at a time. Then the memory would remain intact. Moved somehow. Unfortunately... I can't find the article I was reading now that it would be useful.

Thats quite interesting. I'm sure the body has a large capacity to replicate things such as charge. It needs to do this or we might lose important memories every time we drank alcohol!

What if the way memory has been tried to be understood was a misleading one?

Usually, memory is regarded as some sort of a library or a data store. Something you go to, and pick up something from there.


I find it possible that memory is no different than learning/conditioning -- that memory is not about storage, but about neuronal connections made. And when "remembering" the "thought process is run through those neuronal circuits".

(Actually, I just "remembered" -- Peter Russell spoke about this in the oldie-goldie Brain Book!)

This way, *any* part of the system can be replaced, and still, nothing, no "memory" gets lost.

For preventive reasons (ie. this is how that prinicple was selected for), those memory neuronal connections are multiplied, so that the dying of a cell does not fatally affect a certain circuit.


What about the planaria experiments and unearned knowledge? Don't know about that, but the way a planarian brain works may not be the same as a human brain works.

I find it possible that memory is no different than learning/conditioning -- that memory is not about storage, but about neuronal connections made. And when "remembering" the "thought process is run through those neuronal circuits".

Could u tell me more about this theory? Sounds interesting! So your memories are being created over and over again all the time kind of thing?

Could u tell me more about this theory? Sounds interesting! So your memories are being created over and over again all the time kind of thing?

:( Actually, I just played with the metaphor. And something very plausible came out.

Note what Quine said inThe two dogmas of empiricism (http://my.dreamwiz.com/reality/data/philosophy_information2_quine.htm):

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.


Edit:
Don't lynch me for being so light on my feet and "simply choosing to see the phenomenon of memory with a different metaphor".
As I quoted Quine, the problem with empirical data is that the same data can be "arranged" or interpreted in more ways. Cause and effect relations are always subject to revision, and when dealing with empirical data, we should keep Quine's thoughts as a constant memento.

FUCK.

Vert:
Just a few days ago I was reading somewhere that if a portion of the brain is removed, then a certain memory will be lost. However, if the brain were removed in pieces. Slowly. A bit at a time. Then the memory would remain intact. Moved somehow. Unfortunately... I can't find the article I was reading now that it would be useful
I would love to get my hands on this.
This would support Rosa's theory of memory being connections made but still- something lacks.

If we sit here and actually believe that the memory of the kid's face you beat to pulp in the 3rd grade is only a matter of malleable connections between neurons, then that is something like saying memory is simply the stocking up of containers with nothing to fill them.
Something lacks. Terribly.

Godamnit, what is memory? This idiot here is saying that the structure of neuron has remained the same for an 85 year old man as it was when he was 3.
If memory is neither chemical nor mineral influenced, then all of you have alot of explaining to do for cerebral medicines that either improve memory or deplete it.
Penfield did his experiments on split brain patients, remember? With their skulls open, he would push on a portion of brain and patients would miraculously recover lost memories. But the an entirely different memory would also debut if he pushed on another portion close to that one.
This goes against connection theory.

I've always seen it more like highways and byways. The neurotransmitters travel the paths of axons and dendrites. They don't really carry anything other than themselves. Well, to be precise, the neurotransmitters only travel the synapse. It is action potential that travels the highways. And the spark causes the vacuoles to release the neurotransmitter into the synapse to be taken up by receptor sites.

But, the memory is not inside of these chemicals. The memory is in the shape of the highways. The branchings and connectings. In the varying potentials of the various neurons. It is in the physical structure that the interlaced neurons create.

Well, if not in those chemicals nor minerals than where?
If memory is shape than......what the fuck?

If I took a Polaroid, then what is the picture? The shape of the Polaroid? Or the individual pixels making up the colors?

Joanna:
I don't even agree with that. Sure, most chemical components of the body are replaced according to their respective residence times but I believ there are some components which have residence times similar to our lifetime. I believe these components may be the basis of memory.

Oh?
A longevity similar to our lifetime?
A lifetime at the end of which every last component in that body, chemical or otherwise, is not the same one you were born with.
We know a brain cell is a given at birth and remains so in that lifetime, but to suggest there is no upkeep is ludicrous.

You even contradict yourself:
"Memory" is analagous to capacitance IMO. It is stored as charge so I suppose it CAN be said to be stored inside chemicals!

And what about DNA? Its as subject to metabolism as skin cells, you idiot.

Rosa:
Don't lynch me for being so light on my feet and "simply choosing to see the phenomenon of memory with a different metaphor".
As I quoted Quine, the problem with empirical data is that the same data can be "arranged" or interpreted in more ways. Cause and effect relations are always subject to revision, and when dealing with empirical data, we should keep Quine's thoughts as a constant memento.
No, I'll lynch you for not being scientific enough.

Kidding.
I've gone through tireless phases of explaining everything philosophically.
The natural sciences are clearer, saner, neater

Oh?
A longevity similar to our lifetime?


yes, for some people. For others, a little less than that (60-70 years)

A lifetime at the end of which every last component in that body, chemical or otherwise, is not the same one you were born with.

What did I just say, u fucking retard.

We know a brain cell is a given at birth and remains so in that lifetime, but to suggest there is no upkeep is ludicrous.

Looking for an argument again? Who said that?

You even contradict yourself:

Explain the contradiction.

And what about DNA? Its as subject to metabolism as skin cells, you idiot.

Not necessarily. There are parts of DNA which must not change so it gets passed on to other cells befroe it's damaged.

"Just a few days ago I was reading somewhere that if a portion of the brain is removed, then a certain memory will be lost. However, if the brain were removed in pieces. Slowly. A bit at a time. Then the memory would remain intact. Moved somehow. Unfortunately... I can't find the article I was reading now that it would be useful"

I would love to get my hands on this.

Even I've read and heard (ie. tv documentaries) about this several times, it is already in Russell's Brain Book.


If we sit here and actually believe that the memory of the kid's face you beat to pulp in the 3rd grade is only a matter of malleable connections between neurons, then that is something like saying memory is simply the stocking up of containers with nothing to fill them.
Something lacks. Terribly.

What if memory is about those containers? About form?

Memory is what remains, yes? And form is what remains, even though individual elements of that form are regenerated -- like the shape and build-up of the body as a whole and its organs, where cells are regenerated, while the organ remains in the same shape and function.

Of course, the organ is not just the shape and function, and it is not just individual cells -- it is an integration of both.


Godamnit, what is memory? This idiot here is saying that the structure of neuron has remained the same for an 85 year old man as it was when he was 3.
If memory is neither chemical nor mineral influenced, then all of you have alot of explaining to do for cerebral medicines that either improve memory or deplete it.
Penfield did his experiments on split brain patients, remember? With their skulls open, he would push on a portion of brain and patients would miraculously recover lost memories. But the an entirely different memory would also debut if he pushed on another portion close to that one.
This goes against connection theory.

If memory is chemical/mineral influenced, this doesn't go against the connection theory. Think memory thus: a "memory" is made up of a form *and* a content. The form are the neural connections, and the content are the chemicals/minerals; if you have only one of these components, either only the connection or only the chemicals/minerals, there will be no memory.

That could explain why memory can be bettered or depleted: take away those chemical contents, and nothing has to run through the circuits, hence no memory. Give more contents, and the memory goes nuts.

As for poking into an awake living brain: I take that poking changes the electrical charge between the cells, and thus revive previously sleeping circuits -- so you get memories.


If I took a Polaroid, then what is the picture? The shape of the Polaroid? Or the individual pixels making up the colors?

This metaphor may be very misleading!

Just for fun, read "Camera lucida. Notes on photography" by Roland Bartes.

The thing is that the picture is what we "read". We "read" a picture, we don't really "see" it. I suppose "seeing" is only about the entirely phsyical aspect, the lightvawes, and we do not consciously analyze that. Maybe we do it, maybe we don't (it seems that we sometimes do, given by the way we can recognize two versions of the same picture, one with a slightly shifted colour scheme); but the point is that those calculations and integrations are beyond our conscious reach.

We "read" a picture, much the same as we read a text: what we grasp is the *meaning*, not the dots or lightvawes.

Memory probably functions the same way: there are some profound integrations going on, which are then *read* as something meaningful by other circuits. Or it is that once you have a lot of integrations within a neuronal system, they make a *holistic effect*, which we understand as "memory".


Plus, there is one more trouble with memory organization: It changes over time, as the brain grows and ages. The memory organization in a 2-year old is different than that of an 8-year old, and that is different from that in the brain of an adolescent, and that is different than the one of an adult. But whether these differences are solely phsyiological or solely cognitive, is hard to answer; it is possible that they are both.



No, I'll lynch you for not being scientific enough.

Kidding.
I've gone through tireless phases of explaining everything philosophically.
The natural sciences are clearer, saner, neater

I know, I am quite a layperson. :)
The natural sciences are only "clearer, saner, neater" because they act as if the logic they work with would be set in stone. Which it isn't.

Has anyone here heard of Hebbian learning? I don't know how weights are changed in real neurons, but surely whole axons would not physically move in direct consequence of particular input? Memory is therefore either 'software' (i.e. the particular states and loops of signals) or chemical in the form of dynamic dendrite sensitivity weighting.

If anyone knows anything about axon movement or re-alignment I'd like to know.

What did I just say, u fucking retard.

I'll make it easier for you, idiot.


d) The soma (gend: meaning the body) of the neuron is responsible for maintaining not only its own structures and materials, but the contents and membrane of all the dendrites, the axon, and the synapses - a huge far-flung empire. The complicated molecular materials for the continued upkeep of the neuron are synthesized from small molecules in the cell body, segregated, and transported down either the axon or the dendrites, creating several distinct requirements and mechanisms

Read:

http://wberesford.hsc.wvu.edu/cytol.htm

Every last molecule in your body is not the same as that from birth, is what I'm saying.
Those molecules are involved in memory, is what I'm saying.
Yet memory persists whole, is what I'm saying.
How, is what I am asking.
And get the fuck out of here as you've contributed NOTHING but chatty bullshit, as always, or be thrown out- is what I am stating.

Rosa:
What if memory is about those containers? About form?

Memory is what remains, yes? And form is what remains, even though individual elements of that form are regenerated -- like the shape and build-up of the body as a whole and its organs, where cells are regenerated, while the organ remains in the same shape and function.

Of course, the organ is not just the shape and function, and it is not just individual cells -- it is an integration of both.


You see?
Now you're speaking in terms of both when before you spoke only of one.

The retrieval of memory is what is obvious to me- neurotransmitters shot by action potentials and phosphorous or calcium like minerals would be responsible for it.
Its in the keeping together whole of a memory despite there being a shedding of the molecules holding neuronal membranes together that intrigues me.
A phosphorous molecule from today is not the same one from 16 years ago and yet I still remember every detail- face, smell, sound- of my beating that boy up in 3rd grade.

This is ..uncanny.

Of course, the organ is not just the shape and function, and it is not just individual cells -- it is an integration of both.

BAHHH!!

All right, let's see if I can paint what I'm trying to say here.
Its almost as if each thread in your blouse is being replaced without that blouse losing its form for an instant.
Make sense?

And imagine that on that blouse you had a huge stain, but a unique one. All stains are unique.
The task now is for each of those threads to replace themselves without not only never disfiguring the shirt but not disfiguring the stain either.
The stain would be a story, a memory.
And the blouse the neuron.

Blue_Uk:
Has anyone here heard of Hebbian learning? I don't know how weights are changed in real neurons, but surely whole axons would not physically move in direct consequence of particular input? Memory is therefore either 'software' (i.e. the particular states and loops of signals) or chemical in the form of dynamic dendrite sensitivity weighting.

If anyone knows anything about axon movement or re-alignment I'd like to know.
Nope.
And you damn well know you could have googled for it

You see?
Now you're speaking in terms of both when before you spoke only of one.

I said before -- "And when "remembering" the "thought process is run through those neuronal circuits"." We have the "thought process" and the circuits" and the "running". What this "thought process" and the "running" is -- chemicals/minerals/electricity?


The retrieval of memory is what is obvious to me- neurotransmitters shot by action potentials and phosphorous or calcium like minerals would be responsible for it.
Its in the keeping together whole of a memory despite there being a shedding of the molecules holding neuronal membranes together that intrigues me.
A phosphorous molecule from today is not the same one from 16 years ago and yet I still remember every detail- face, smell, sound- of my beating that boy up in 3rd grade.

This is ..uncanny.

It can't be uncanny -- it can't be unnatural, or we are unnatural!

That experiment with phosphorus shows only that phosporus is not fully in charge of memory.
Yes, I know, we're back at the beginning.


All right, let's see if I can paint what I'm trying to say here.
Its almost as if each thread in your blouse is being replaced without that blouse losing its form for an instant.
Make sense?

And imagine that on that blouse you had a huge stain, but a unique one. All stains are unique.
The task now is for each of those threads to replace themselves without not only never disfiguring the shirt but not disfiguring the stain either.
The stain would be a story, a memory.
And the blouse the neuron.

I know what you mean. But somehow, I yet don't know why, I think this blouse-thread-stain metaphor may be misleading. It is too static, something is missing.
'Sblood, there must be some other way to explain memory.


I would like to state some questions:

1. What is the connection between conditioning and memory?

2. We remember things that are in some way important to us, usually, this is displayed as things having certain emotional impact on us. Enter amygdala being the scissors of memory. -- But this is only the meta-level description of memory, not the basic level.
But maybe some clues to memory lie in the why we remember things?
The brain functions by the principle "use or lose" -- so memories must be *something useful*, in one way or another, or they wouldn't be kept alive.


I still have a problem with understanding memory as "something stored". "Something stored" is good only as a meta-level description, but it is not necessarily good also as a basic-level description.

Every last molecule in your body is not the same as that from birth, is what I'm saying.

Is there any evidence for complete turnover of all atoms and molecules in the body? I would love to see it coz I can't find any on the Net at least.

Even if there was, it can be explained using the same template theory that DNA replication is based on. How is the integrity of the human genome maintained throughout life if, indeed, there is a fast turnover of nucleotides?!

And get the fuck out of here as you've contributed NOTHING but chatty bullshit, as always, or be thrown out- is what I am stating.

U have to admit though, there is a much greater chance of me contributing something special than you!

Rosa:
It can't be uncanny -- it can't be unnatural, or we are unnatural!

Pause.

Uncanny as in amazing, intriguing, fascinating, fucking odd.
Uncanny.

I would like to state some questions:

1. What is the connection between conditioning and memory?
Answers to which are scattered throughout journals and private laboratories and cryptic internet sites that all say different things.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
One says this, this says that, he says those and so on- mneh..
Penfield had it easy, ripping skulls open and poking the meat with his finger.


2. We remember things that are in some way important to us, usually, this is displayed as things having certain emotional impact on us. Enter amygdala being the scissors of memory. -- But this is only the meta-level description of memory, not the basic level.
But maybe some clues to memory lie in the why we remember things?
The brain functions by the principle "use or lose" -- so memories must be *something useful*, in one way or another, or they wouldn't be kept alive.
Nice metaphor.

I still have a problem with understanding memory as "something stored". "Something stored" is good only as a meta-level description, but it is not necessarily good also as a basic-level description.
I don't.
I see it more like smeared molecules.

Answers to which are scattered throughout journals and private laboratories and cryptic internet sites that all say different things.

But the main thing to realise is that it CAN be explained in a natural manner. We are not unnatural. Any one of those theories (which do not invoke the presence of ghosts in our body) might be correct.

John, this is not good enough. It's like saying "I can make a sweater", but this doesn't mean I will make one for you.
We need some at least seemingly reliable theory explaining the connection between conditioning and memory.

John:
But the main thing to realise is that it CAN be explained in a natural manner. We are not unnatural. Any one of those theories (which do not invoke the presence of ghosts in our body) might be correct.
And how have I even come close to saying, or even implying, that it could not be explained naturally?

Have I in any way invoked spirituality?
Or did you also fuck up on what "uncanny" meant?

Oxford student's dictionary:

uncanny adj not natural, mysterious: an uncanny ability to predict disaster.

John, this is not good enough. It's like saying "I can make a sweater", but this doesn't mean I will make one for you.
We need some at least seemingly reliable theory explaining the connection between conditioning and memory.

Very true, and I'm sure it will happen soon. But u of all people should know that just because we don't have a working theory for it yet, doesn't mean its unnatural. I really hope u weren't implying that seriously when u said it. Sounds like something one of the creationists would say over at Religion :D

Ah.
Look, we need to separate between different levels of description. On a biological level, things should be explicable without too much trouble. There is no "philosophy" or "religion" involved when explaining things in the biological manner -- this much ought to be clear.
Trying to explain a *biological* phenomenon by implying it is "unnatural" or "supernatural" is just both cheap science as well as cheap religion.


It is only when we are talking about certain *philsophical* *concepts*, on a cognitive meta-level (that has nothing to do with biology), that we can indeed infer certain extrasystemic instances. But this, again, has nothing to do with biology. Alright?

Gendanken,

I would love to get my hands on this.

And you have. And, now you know the source is a religious site and therefore the information is suspect. However, it is referenced and if we only had access to scientific journals we'd be in business. Damn it.

Here (http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_VI/Chapter2.html)'s a link for any following along.

If we sit here and actually believe that the memory of the kid's face you beat to pulp in the 3rd grade is only a matter of malleable connections between neurons, then that is something like saying memory is simply the stocking up of containers with nothing to fill them.
Something lacks. Terribly.

This is where we differ, I guess. It's not so much a "stacking of containers" as it is a delicate weaving of a beautiful tapestry. A neuron is more than just a container or a highway for any particular thought or memory. It can take part in multiple patterns. At one moment part of a memory of beating that kid up in 3rd grade. At the next moment perhaps being part of a memory of another beating. Or perhaps something even more disconnected. The exact mechanism by which associations are made within the brain is unknown.

Somehow memories are burned into a brain structure. While the physical network surely plays an important part, there must be more involved. Some type of traffic cop. If it were purely a physical structure then one neuron could only play a part in one circuit. Somehow the neurons know what is being thought and what to do with it at any give time.

Parallel computing should deal with some of this, I imagine. But it still leaves so many questions unanswered.

If memory is neither chemical nor mineral influenced, then all of you have alot of explaining to do for cerebral medicines that either improve memory or deplete it.

Well, any connection between neurons is chemical based. And it's possible that these medicines ease the flow of neurotransmitters across the synapse might increase memory skill. But, increase the activity too much and you're in trouble.

The question is what is the hook? How does a memory get pulled from the 'bin" in any given circumstance?

Calvin speaks of Darwin Machines. Little groups of neurons and multicolumns that join together in an evolutionary competition and it is the successful memory, thought, or function in this competition which moves on to another portion of the brain for further analysis and evolutionary struggle. Generations and generations of evolution is compressed down to milliseconds in brain activity. The physical connections of the neurons are seen as the lay of the land and are helpful in limiting growth of an impulse beyond control.

Remember, the frontal lobe is a strait jacket. Much of what we do with our brain is found in limiting excessive proliferation of impulses. It is through an evolutionary struggle in which the weak and malformed die and only the strong survive.

And what decides what is to be passed on to the next "generation" in this struggle? Strength of numbers alone.

How does this relate to memory? Memories are burned in to a patch of brain cells. Therefore, the patterns that form a proper memory are more likely to survive and flourish past the the activation level than a malformed memory. (Note that a say proper and malformed rather than true or untrue. Much of memory is far from true.)

Well, if not in those chemicals nor minerals than where?
If memory is shape than......what the fuck?

Think dancing gestalt. You remember my description of the circles within circles, right? Not a single shape, but an abundance of overlapping and shifting shapes. It is in the limiting of this overabundance to a clear concise pattern of which thought and memory is made.

But, those planaria experiments really make one wonder just where memory is located. But, a planaria is not a man. And the "memory" of a planaria is not the memory of a man. If it were, then kuru would be an occupational hazard of all scientific minds.

That page I referenced earlier mentions that scientists believe that the planaria is stored within specialed RNA structures. Now, I can't imagine that a means of communicating in primitive neurons has been completely removed. Surely our neurons would have some similar ability as these planarian neurons. But, what do our brain cells use this method of communication for? Surely it wouldn't be completely in disuse, but it wouldn't be enough to work for the complex networks of neurons that we have in our brain. The planaria ganglia is small and the neurons lack axons and dendrites (I believe I read this somewhere in my research.) This method of communication through RNA might work in such small-scale structures but would fail utterly in a more complex one.



As to your hypothesis on the role of phosphorus in memory, I'm afraid that I still haven't found much on the role of phosphorus in the brain. These studies that you mention, do you have a link? I wonder just how this phosphorus is tied up within the brain. How it is used and how it is moved out.

From what I have found, the most likely use would be in the cell membrane. Surely these require constant maintenance. And, from my recent reading I've discovered that the action potential actually travels through the cell membrane. I'd always thought it would have passed through the interior of the cell. In the cytoplasm. So, in this way, the phospholipid membrane does act as a direct conduit for brain impulses.

John has brought up phosphate bonds in DNA and I should think that RNA would have similar bonds. But, is this a likely place for the phosphorus to be used in? Neurons don't divide. (Or at least often. I seem to remember reading that it has been discovered that neurons do multiply contrary to what was once believed.) So, new phosphorus for DNA would be unlikely. However, RNA is used as a means of communication between the nucleus and the machinery of the cell, right? So RNA is constantly being constructed and deconstructed in the daily life of a cell. I imagine that some phosphorus would be used in this way.

Another candidate that I've found is ATP. Chemical energy. Also in other chemicals that have a similar purpose. Conveying "fuel" from one cell to another.

Of these three candidates, which are the most likely to be transport mechanisms for phosphorus outside of the brain? (Question. The levels vanished within the brain. Were they relocated elsewhere in the body? Or were they excreted in some fashion?) The question is how far does either RNA or ATP travel through the body? Is RNA even a method of communication outside the cell? I don't think that I've ever heard anything of the sort before, but for RNA to be a carrier of memory then it must travel between cells somehow.

Is memory in the planaria similar to a virus?


As to the new minerals knowing where to go. We know that glial cells play a part in reconnecting severed neural connections.


Dug out the Other Half of the Brain and found this: They found that glial cells lacked the membrane properties required to actually propagate their own action potentials. Now, if I had been thinking about it at the time, then this would be a clear indication of the importance of the cell membrane in brain impulses.

And another: In their glial experiments noticing that a familiar molecule kept cropping up -- ATP (adenosine troposphere), known to every biology student as the energy source for cellular activities. Although it makes a great power pack, ATP also has many features that make it an excellent messenger molecule between cells. It is highly abundant inside cells but rare outside of them. It is small and therefore diffuses rapidly, and it breaks down quickly. All these traits ensure that new messages conveyed by ATP molecules are not confused with old messages. Moreover, ATP is neatly packaged inside the tips of axons, where neurotransmitter molecules are stored; it is released together with neurotransmitters at synapses and can travel outside synapses, too.


Ah. But here's the bit I was looking for:
Most recently, Le Tian, Wesley Thompson and their associates at the University of Texas at Austin experimented with a mouse that had been engineered so that its Schwann cells fluoresced. This trait allowed Thompson’s team to collaborate with Lichtman’s group and watch glial cells operate at the junction where neurons meet muscle -- a feat previously not possible. After a muscle axon is injured or cut, it withdraws, but a cluster of neurotransmitter receptors remains on the recipient side of a synapse. Investigators knew that an axon can regenerate and find its way back to the abandoned receptors by following the Schwann cells that remain.

But what happens if the axon cannot find its way? Tracking the fluorescence, Thompson’s group saw that Schwann cells at intact synapses somehow sensed that a neighboring synapse was in trouble. Mysteriously, the Schwann cells sprouted branches that extended to the damaged synapse forming a bridge along which the axon could grow a new projection to the receptors.

So, in this instance, he neuron is unable to find its way. But, the glial cells somehow knows that the neuron is in trouble and then it somehow knows what needs to be done to solve the situation. How does it know?

Yet memory persists whole, is what I'm saying.

But, does it really? Or do you just think it does? Many memories must be accurate else we would fall prey to Alzheimer's or similar syndromes. But, there is a "good enough" in memory, yes? And we'd be the last to know if we're fabricating missing portions of any given memory.

The retrieval of memory is what is obvious to me- neurotransmitters shot by action potentials and phosphorous or calcium like minerals would be responsible for it.

Interesting. The addressing and retrieval of memory is not so obvious to me.

All right, let's see if I can paint what I'm trying to say here.
Its almost as if each thread in your blouse is being replaced without that blouse losing its form for an instant.
Make sense?

And imagine that on that blouse you had a huge stain, but a unique one. All stains are unique.
The task now is for each of those threads to replace themselves without not only never disfiguring the shirt but not disfiguring the stain either.
The stain would be a story, a memory.
And the blouse the neuron.

Ahh. This is the proper metaphor to address the situation. Now I see what it that you're getting at. You are talking about the membrane.

Look at it this way, you're attributing the stain to the cotton that composes the shirt. If there were nanotech molecules swarming over the shirt repairing and replacing damaged fibers then one would expect the stain to be removed as "damage", yes? But, the stain is not properly a memory. It is rather (IMO) the weave of the fibers beneath it. The shirt analogy fails because it is incapable of conveying the sense of life that the neural net is made of. The dancing ephemeral impulses. The evolution of thought.


Connellan,

I don't even agree with that. Sure, most chemical components of the body are replaced according to their respective residence times but I believ there are some components which have residence times similar to our lifetime. I believe these components may be the basis of memory.

So, cell membranes don't require constant maintenance then? How would you suggest the phosphorus is being used?

You know what I wonder? Do neural membranes require more maintenance than ordinary cell membranes because of the electrical impulses which they must convey day after day? That's got to be damaging, right?

"Memory" is analagous to capacitance IMO. It is stored as charge so I suppose it CAN be said to be stored inside chemicals! "Thinking" on the other hand, is the firing of neurons. When we "think" of a "memory", we discharge the tiny capacitors in our head.

Memory must be something physical in order to survive comas and seizures. Thinking is RAM while Memory is some form of hard storage. I think it's burned into a field of neurons. And is therefore likely to appear when this field is stimulated properly.

The key question is how is the memory addressed? How are the associations called forth? Once we answer this, we will be MUCH further along to understanding how what "we" are.

Thats quite interesting. I'm sure the body has a large capacity to replicate things such as charge. It needs to do this or we might lose important memories every time we drank alcohol!

This is precisely why the memories must be stored phsyically somehow.

As to the memories being moved about, I have a theory that it involves the Darwin Machines of Calvin. Memory isn't stored in any one place. There's no place in the brain that holds "the memory of beating up that kid in 3rd grade". Rather, it is distributed through various areas of the brain. Even if limited to a particular area of the brain, the size of the playing field is far larger than the size of space needed for the memory, so the memory is likely distributed and also stored reduntantly. If an area holding a portion of the memory is destroyed, the parallel processing of the brain can likely evolve a new working copy of the damaged data. Remember, memories are not necessarily true. But, damage enough of the areas holding the memory and there isn't enough starter material to get the resonances flowing. There are too many gaps for the most imaginative interpreter mechanism to fill. Realistically anyway. It is quite possible to filled in this instance with an utter fabrication that has NO basis in reality and is OBVIOUSLY fraudulent to the extreme. Obvious to everyone but the fabricator.

Not necessarily. There are parts of DNA which must not change so it gets passed on to other cells befroe it's damaged.

Maybe so, but that's no guarantee. Is it?


Rosa,

I find it possible that memory is no different than learning/conditioning -- that memory is not about storage, but about neuronal connections made. And when "remembering" the "thought process is run through those neuronal circuits".

Yes. But the brain is more than circuits. Neurons are living cells and as such are prone to errors and fuzziness. The fuzziness is overcome by redundancy, but is also used in an evolutionary mechanism. Our memories evolve. They live or die based on their fitness.

What about the planaria experiments and unearned knowledge? Don't know about that, but the way a planarian brain works may not be the same as a human brain works.

It is a certainty that our brains don't work anywhere close to the same as a planarian ganglia. If they did then we'd all be brain eaters.

I know what you mean. But somehow, I yet don't know why, I think this blouse-thread-stain metaphor may be misleading. It is too static, something is missing.
'Sblood, there must be some other way to explain memory.

First... 'Sblood? What does that mean?

Second. Static. That is the exact problem with the metaphor. Memory is not static. The brain is not static. It dances. It shifts. It evolves.

1. What is the connection between conditioning and memory?

Well, for conditioning to have any relevance it must be remembered. So, conditioning is memory. But, is memory conditioning? In a sense it is, in my view. The "burning in" is a form of conditioning. It increases the likelihood of a certain pattern forming from a certain stimulus.

2. We remember things that are in some way important to us, usually, this is displayed as things having certain emotional impact on us. Enter amygdala being the scissors of memory. -- But this is only the meta-level description of memory, not the basic level.
But maybe some clues to memory lie in the why we remember things?
The brain functions by the principle "use or lose" -- so memories must be *something useful*, in one way or another, or they wouldn't be kept alive.

Usefulness isn't really mandatory. The limbic system is more concerned with pleasing and displeasing rather than usefulness or not. Usefulness would be determined by logical processes in the cortex. And, my memory is riddled with useless bits of this and that.

It's not about usefulness. It's about interest. The limbic system arouses interest in some things. The amygdalla is the entry point to the limbic, but the hippocampus plays a more direct role in memory. But, the hippocampus takes its cues from the amygdalla, so...

And, as to the use or lose. This may be true to an extent. Or it may not. Some autistic savants have the ability to recall everything that ever happened in their entire lives. It's possible that all our memories are stored and only the means of addressing the memory is lost. Think repressed memories. Recovered memories.

I still remember the boy scout creed. I remember it so well the night that I needed to repeat it to get into boy scouts that it has burned in permanently into my cortex. I can spit it out in about 15 seconds. At the drop of a hat. It serves no purpose except to show to me the strangeness and persistence of memory though time.


Whew. Getting long. Cutting it here.

Off to class.

Back with commentary.
(Fuck the world)

Heh. What an odd world we live in.

Speaking of phospholipids... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41465

It would appear that there is only one phosphorus atom per phospholipid molecule. But, there might still be a quick turnover rate in the cell membranes. Especially if the action potential that the membrane must take over and over again is damaging to it.


Another question to ask, is what makes the cell membranes of different cells different. Why does the neuron's membrane conduct the action potential while the membrane of the glial cell does not? Could it be that the molecules might be slightly different.

Connellan,

So, cell membranes don't require constant maintenance then? How would you suggest the phosphorus is being used?

They require very little maintenance but vary depending on where in the body they are. Anyway it is not cell membranes I am talking about. Membranes probably have the highest turnover of all cell components anyway!

You know what I wonder? Do neural membranes require more maintenance than ordinary cell membranes because of the electrical impulses which they must convey day after day? That's got to be damaging, right?

I would actually imagine so. Apparently, arterial cells also go through a lot of wear and tear.

Memory must be something physical in order to survive comas and seizures. Thinking is RAM while Memory is some form of hard storage. I think it's burned into a field of neurons. And is therefore likely to appear when this field is stimulated properly.

I used to alwayts think of charge but now I'm thinking u might be right. Maybe charge is just the RAM of the brain. For temporary thinking in the 'now'.

This is precisely why the memories must be stored phsyically somehow.

Charge is physical but I guess u mean stored in a material way (like engraving!)

Maybe so, but that's no guarantee. Is it?

It pretty much is - because we have so many cells, it is highly unlikely that all of them are damaged before passing the genetic material on. However during our embryonic stages, this might be more of a problem. Perhaps that's why genetic repair mechanisms are so strong then.

Vert:
And you have. And, now you know the source is a religious site and therefore the information is suspect. However, it is referenced and if we only had access to scientific journals we'd be in business. Damn it.

Not necessarily, no.
He's not saying anything you can't find in a science journal.

This is where we differ, I guess. It's not so much a "stacking of containers" as it is a delicate weaving of a beautiful tapestry. A neuron is more than just a container or a highway for any particular thought or memory. It can take part in multiple patterns. At one moment part of a memory of beating that kid up in 3rd grade. At the next moment perhaps being part of a memory of another beating. Or perhaps something even more disconnected. The exact mechanism by which associations are made within the brain is unknown.
And this is what fascinates me.
The precise way in which an abstract of vision is transmuted into a personal picture a living brain carries around as memory.
We say it is unknown.
Qualia is unknown- but only because I can't gore through your skull and connect our brains with axial wire. Its entirely possible for me to experience the world as you do and look at your memories.

The stacking of containers was my comments to Rosa- look, if we go around saying that a memory is successful because of the connection and synaptic shapes they make in the mind, or because of competitive ‘chorus’, then all you are saying to me is that location is the highway loops you drove to get there.
Is your home the shape of the street you drove down to get there?
Are the contents of Kool- Aid the shape of its container holding it?
Or for that matter, is a beehive the noise of its bees?


The question is what is the hook? How does a memory get pulled from the 'bin" in any given circumstance?

More like- how can it get transported around whole despite all the chemical and mineral properties holding them getting shed all the time.

For example- if you look at a neurotransmitter you think of it as molecule- acetylcholine, for example, has a molecular structure with nitrogen and hydrogen bound up in crystals. These elements are responsible for carrying whatever data it must across synapses.
Yes?
And each action potential is impossible with the energy boost of ATP, which you mentioned earlier, along with ions and whatever other stuffy doctor would write here I don't know about.

Each of these components involved are shooting around carrying data- its like a hundred people running around carrying one word and somehow one person can look down on the chaos and read a coherent book.
Always.
Each person is getting tossed out and replaced constantly, and yet that one person can always look down and read a coherent book.
Book= memory.
How it does it, I don't know.

Remember, the frontal lobe is a strait jacket. Much of what we do with our brain is found in limiting excessive proliferation of impulses. It is through an evolutionary struggle in which the weak and malformed die and only the strong survive.

And what decides what is to be passed on to the next "generation" in this struggle? Strength of numbers alone.

How does this relate to memory? Memories are burned in to a patch of brain cells. Therefore, the patterns that form a proper memory are more likely to survive and flourish past the the activation level than a malformed memory.
Damnit- everyone is going around saying its burned, its burned, its burned!!
Connections, connections, connections!!

Completely neglecting to stop for a second and think about what they're saying- each part of the burn pattern is shed. Thrown. Shoo. Finished.
And yet the burned image remains.
And I knew you'd bring in psychic Darwinism, I understand what you mean by it but it fails to address exactly how each new molecule 'remembers' the part of the old one.
Its almost as if each molecule or mineral ate themselves like the flatworms.

(Note that a say proper and malformed rather than true or untrue. Much of memory is far from true.)

So true.

For example- given the words
bed
pillow
cotton
night

You'd swear minutes later if interrogated that you heard the word 'sleep'. Simple schema.

Is memory in the planaria similar to a virus?

This is what I was beginning to think would explain a depletion of something like phosphorous, in my opening post.

But its stupid really. We are metabolizers.
Godamnit, if I could only see how memory is not only made but maintained.

I simply cannot get over the fact that we live our whole lives carrying around 5,10,20, 60, 80, 100 year old images that have remained whole despite every last chemical and cellular membrane in that body purportedly maintaining them not the same ones present when the image was processed.

Gendanken,

Not necessarily, no.
He's not saying anything you can't find in a science journal.

Yes. But, wouldn't it be so nice to have access to the original papers?
I will say that from what I read on the site, the author is one of the less manipulative religous writers I've seen. He doesn't invalidate the data by twisting it about like many do. And the site is fully referenced. If only... damnit.

The stacking of containers was my comments to Rosa- look, if we go around saying that a memory is successful because of the connection and synaptic shapes they make in the mind, or because of competitive ‘chorus’, then all you are saying to me is that location is the highway loops you drove to get there.

Yes. It sort of is, but not really. Because there is also a traffic cop involved somehow. The electrical impulses don't follow the same path each time. They alter and shift. A highway is not alive. But, the cars driving on it could be seen as alive. But, driving the highway doesn't change the cars (except for fuel consumption and wear and tear). But, impulses on the neural highway do change. Some connections make impulses stronger. Some connections make them weaker. Some clarify. Some blur.

How?

I would think that it would be something like an electonic circuit. You have various mechanism that channel power from one area to another. Transistors (or is it a diode?) switch between paths depending on current from a third source and so on. I should think that the same thing occurs in the brain. If neuron A is firing into neuron B with enough current to trigger the potential of the cell, then neuron C, which also connects to to neuron B, will be routed to neuron D. Otherwise it is routed to neuron E. And this is a simple method. I can envision far more possibilities than a mere two way switch.

The key is that some connections inhibit. While others excite. In this manner the impulses can be routed here and there. It is amazing complex, but that is because it is the product of billions of years of evolution. We are the inheritors of the most complex brain on this planet (that we're aware of) and it should be no surprise that it's functioning is awe-inspiring.

And, don't forget glial cells. They also have the power to either inhibit or excite a synaptic connection.

More like- how can it get transported around whole despite all the chemical and mineral properties holding them getting shed all the time.

But, that's just it, right? It's not the chemical and mineral properties that are being shed. It's the chemicals and minerals themselves. They are then replaced with chemicals and minerals that possess identical properties. It's not that these chemical and minerals hold data (most of them anyway) it's just that have certain properties that allow them to be utilized in specific manners.

The phospholipid cell membrane itself doesn't hold information. It merely has the property of conducting the action potential.
The neurotransmitters don't hold information (although some might in a way similar to RNA. I'm not entirely sure.) They are merely keys that fit in to locks thus provoking a response in the recipient cell. The neurotransmitters don't travel far. The calcium ion causes the vessicle containg the neurotransmitter to pop in the synapse. The neurotransmitter then diffuses across the synaptic gap and it fits into a receptor site. Once it fits into the receptor site, whatever cellular function that particular receptor site is tied to then fires. It either adds to the potential building towards firing an action potential or it inhibits it.

In this way, multiple connections can create complex interactions that can do far more than any electronic circuit is capable. The difference is that electronics are quantum while neurons are fuzzy. It is through this fuzziness that I feel consciousness arises.

However, it does make memory a difficult thing to grapple with. As they are as subject to error as any other biological function.


Each of these components involved are shooting around carrying data- its like a hundred people running around carrying one word and somehow one person can look down on the chaos and read a coherent book.

I don't think that's quite right. Just like one neuron alone can convey no real information. Perform no complex tasks. Any of these components, either the minerals and molecules that compose the structure or the neurotransmitters, are capable of conveying any information alone. It takes a multitude to achieve any significant result.

Look at electronics. One electron bopping around a circuit isn't going to do shit. Right? It takes a multitude of electrons flowing. It takes amplitude and modulation and frequency and yaddah yaddah. All these conditions are achieved by a multitude of electrons. The electrons themselves aren't carrying any information, they are merely obeying their properties. Any electron placed in the same circuit would behave in an identical fashion. Would take part in conveying the same piece of information without any need to "learn" from another electron. It is the structure of the circuit that influences the dynamic of the multitude of information carriers, whatever they may be, electrons, action potential, neurotransmitter, shoulder tapping.

To a creature that knew the world solely through hearing, then the beehive would be the buzzing of the bees. Yes?
It is only creatures with site that see the hive and think it is something else. But, in this case there is a difference between a cold, lifeless, empty hive and a warm, buzzing, dynamic hive full of life. In this case the hive may be the shell which the bees have built, but this is like looking a dead brain. The life has fled. It is the bees buzzing and moving. Working. This is the hive. And there is information present. Think of the bee's dance.

Completely neglecting to stop for a second and think about what they're saying- each part of the burn pattern is shed. Thrown. Shoo. Finished.
And yet the burned image remains.

You're right. The metaphor of "burned in" resonances rolls off the tongue easily, but I don't understand fully the mechanism by which it takes place. I shall look more into this.

I do know that it occurs. Neural pathways that are utilized frequently are more likely to be utilized in the future. It's a function of receptor sites building up because of increased neurotransmitter activity in the synapse. There is also a point where there is a dieback and more and more neurotransmitter is needed to achieve the same result. This is temporary and after a period of rest things return to normal. This is how drug resistance works.

The problem with much of our understanding of the brain is that most testing of these things are done to damaged individuals. Epileptics and other brain problems. We are basing our studies on damaged goods. In epileptics this "burn in" problem is prevalent. The seizure activity in a particular location of the brain acts to burn in patterns that are easily recalled with minor stimulation. Brain tumors also cause seizures that cause such things. Many seizures begin with some type of sensory artifact. A sight. A sound. A smell. A touch. Some burned in pattern beginning to be drawn forth as the seizure begins and electrical activity increases.

As I said, I'll look more into this. The Cerebral Code and Conversations With Neil's Brain both deal with these issues and I will read these two books.

And I knew you'd bring in psychic Darwinism, I understand what you mean by it but it fails to address exactly how each new molecule 'remembers' the part of the old one.
Its almost as if each molecule or mineral ate themselves like the flatworms.

I would prefer cognitive Darwinism. Or neural Darwinism. I'm not entirely sure what Calvin calls it. Come to think of it. He has to have some type of name for the theory.

Anyway, this theory of evolutionary struggle of thought processes is so simple and pure that it calls to me. It almost seems inevitable that evolution would lead to such a thing. Evolution evolved evolution.

As to each new molecule remembering. First, the molecules have nothing to remember. They just behave according to their properties. Second. Remember that they are changed out in small numbers. Like the mention of the brain being removed in pieces preserving function. It's because there is time for acclimatization to occur.

I simply cannot get over the fact that we live our whole lives carrying around 5,10,20, 60, 80, 100 year old images that have remained whole despite every last chemical and cellular membrane in that body purportedly maintaining them not the same ones present when the image was processed.

It is amazing. Even though the memories aren't necessarily whole, they might be relatively so.

And what of the autists who have perfect recall of every minute of every day of their entire lives. That is something. But, the question is how accurate are their memories? I can't imagine them being perfectly flawless either.

I recall a movie where some some stupid guy thought he could multiply multi-digit numbers in his head. His buddy would give him a couple of numbers and then he would give the answer and the buddy would confirm that he did it right.
Turns out his buddy was lying to him the whole time. He wasn't a savant. Just stupid. And gullible.



Connellan,

Charge is physical but I guess u mean stored in a material way (like engraving!)

Yes. Something like that. The analogy is something like grooves in a record player. Or ruts in a worn out road. It is a trait that has been identified strongly in brains suffering from seizures as I've said to Gendanken above. The newer theories of this speak of chaotic attractors and such. But, I need to read a bit to understand exactly what I'm talking about with this "burned in" analogy. I understand it somewhat, but a stimulated neuron becoming easier to stimulate would fade with time. But, this burning in has to have longer lasting effects. Maybe it's like scar tissue.

I'll come back to this.
It's based on Hebb's work back in 1949. (Didn't Blue UK bring up Hebbian learning earlier?)

Invert:

There are some subconscious scientists and hypnotists that believe that everything our senses perceived is stored in some way (hence regression techniques etc) and that we never lose the information (forget) but we do seem to lose the ability to access the information easily as we grow older and the memories "fade".

What is your opinion on this? It certainly fits into your "scar tissue" theory :D

Connellan,

I think I said that exact same thing somewhere up above. That the key gets lost. Data gets obscured. I even brought up repressed and recoverer memories. And hypnosis.

Oh well, you can't read everything, can you? ;)

Just a short note:
" 'Sblood" is an interjection, short for "God's blood", and it means 'damn'.
By "useful" I meant 'useful in one way or another', not 'useful in the sense of statistics and rational thought'. My brain finds it extremely useful to remember whole pieces of classical music, but there really is little or no actual rational use for this memory.

Rosa,

God's Blood. Interesting.

Useful. This sort of sounds like what I was saying about the limbic system arousing interest in particular things and not others. But, it arouses the wrong connotations.

For instance, the boy scout creed is the farthest from useful that I can imagine and yet it is flash fried in my memory seemingly never to be eradicated.

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverant.

I've broken almost all of those at one time or another down the years. And I've lived up to almost all of them at one time or another down the years. But, they serve no purpose whatsoever, emotionally, logically, or purposefully. Look at your love of music. It does serve a purpose. You like music. But, the boy scout creed has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes. It just is. And it remains after 20 years time has passed. And the way that I have it memorized, I have to say it fast. To type it out I have to stop and say it again and again because I can't type it as fast as I say it. As fast as I remember it. Each word tied to the next.

Hmm. This leads me to another thought. Music. I've memorized quite a few pieces of music to play on the guitar. Some people are amazed by the number of musical pieces that I have memorized. But, it's not so much of a feat. Each note ties to the next in a sort of chain. It is difficult to start a piece in the middle. There are natural breaks in the music where it is easy to start, but try starting in the middle of complex flow of notes and I have to stop and think and think and try this and try that and then finally I get the right spot.

So, if memories of normal events are stored in a similar manner, then forgetting occurs when a key element in the chain of associations is lost. Perhaps damaged. Maybe a burned out brain cell. Maybe something else entirely. Maybe it's obscured with a newer stronger memory that has been burned in over the older memory.

Connellan,

I think I said that exact same thing somewhere up above. That the key gets lost. Data gets obscured. I even brought up repressed and recoverer memories. And hypnosis.

Oh well, you can't read everything, can you? ;)

Sorry, I DO tend to skip over the longer posts!