This is an excellent and informative discussion by 4 experts (and speciality) on some of the previously hidden properties and processes of memory that are being discovered
Write4U: You posted this in Pseudoscience. Is the discussion in the video pseudoscientific? Are the "experts" pseudoscientists?
This is from Bard Memory: The Hidden Pathways That Make Us Human is a video from the World Science Festival that explores the science of memory and how it shapes who we are. The speakers discuss how memories are encoded, stored, and retrieved, and how they can be influenced by emotion. They also explore the ethical implications of memory manipulation. Here are some key points from the video: Memories are stored in the brain in a distributed fashion, meaning that there is no single location where a memory is stored. Emotion plays a powerful role in memory encoding and retrieval. Memories that are associated with strong emotions are more likely to be remembered. There is some evidence that memories can be modified or even created through suggestion. Scientists are working on developing new technologies to boost fading memories and treat memory-related disorders. The speakers also discussed the following: How our earliest memories are formed The difference between short-term and long-term memory How trauma can affect memory The ethics of memory manipulation
Thanks, Seattle. It would have been useful if Write4U had given a similar summary in the first place.
I agree. The interesting thing about memory is that the more points of reference you have, the better is your memory. That's why, in part, most people aren't as good in math as in communicating. When we think about a memory from our past we have points of reference in sound, smell, emotions, and various other connections. When it comes to math, it's largely just rote memory or a few connections such as "is it a prime number" , "does it represent a meaningful relationship or pattern". You could meet someone for the first time and chat with them for 60 seconds and a week later you would probably be able to describe their look, personality and other general impressions. If a week ago I said does the number pattern 353599034432 mean anything to you? You would say "no" and when I asked you a week later to repeat the pattern you couldn't do it unless it was some kind of memory challenge that you spent hours on. That's because you don't have many reference points for those numbers. There is a condition called Synthesia (I think) where a part of the brain is "wired" differently and they see numbers as colors, shapes, and other characteristics. They remember long number sequences quite easily as it's just a "movie" of shapes replaying in their mind. For one person that I'm thinking of, they can't easily differentiate between human faces easily. Their brain is wired differently. They don't have our pattern recognition ability which we take for granted. To them, looking at friends is like us looking a a group of raccoons and trying to differentiate them. I haven't seen the video linked to above but I have a feeling that it doesn't belong in pseudoscience. I may be wrong given the source, of course.
Synesthesia. Associating or "seeing" numbers as having colours seems to be quite a common manifestation of this. More generally, synesthesia involves a "mixing" of sense impressions. For example, certain smells might be associated/perceived as having different colours, or different sounds might be associated with different kinds of shapes.
OLIVIER MESSIAEN suffered from it. apparently. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/music/17schw.html I watched the video. A nice breakdown of where the science community is on the process/machinery of memory, diseases, degeneration, reshaping memory with age etc. Seattle has done a nice summary so I will not add mote that but I will add one point which I was not aware of. There is an epigenetic link to memory involving Nuclear translocating RNA and the proliferation of neuronal synapses as a result of outside stimuli. A stack on this on google scholar going back to the 1990s although they probably did not call it “epigenetic” then, “gene regulation/expression.”
Perhaps a kind of preconditioned response to expecting anything slotting in the territory of mind to be moved to Pseudoscience or other Fringe subdivisions. Even if an unjustified or misguided interpretation of such, the subconscious often reacts impulsively or reflexively due to past stimuli rather than due to rational evaluation of those past events. _
I thought I would spare you the trouble of moving it FROM the science section, based on my reputation alone. No, the experts I cite and quote are always respected practitioners of the science. p.s. @ CC The rationale for choosing "pseudoscience" was based on past events.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! IMO, all my subjects belong in the Science forum, even if the particular specialty is still in the hypothesis stage. Apparently, it is my style that confuses some readers. Actually, I like the pseudo-science sub-forum as it should allow for free-ranging exploration of the still "unknown" aspects of the universe. But I know the difference between a microtubule and mythology.
"memory" is a construct What many believe to be memories are in fact unreal" We may have a snapshot or two or three etc... of a prior experience around which we construct a "memory". "There is nothing as unreliable as an eye witness testimony"
The reason your stuff ends up in pseudoscience is that you invariably mix in your own beliefs and opinions with any science you mention, and present you own beliefs as if they are established science. But, very often, your beliefs are not supported by the articles you quote, or they use terms nonsensically, or you just make shit up and pretend that "the science" says it when it doesn't.
