Philosophy Discussion Forums

We may think we know where memory is stored, but we do not. Science has not figured that out yet. We have pinpointed areas of the brain which play a ROLE in the memory formation/ management (like the hippocampus), but we do not know the EXACT place where memories are stored. [see. Francis Crick, "Memory - From Mind to Molecules" by Larry R. Squire and Eric R. Kandel]

There are cases of animal experiments when a large portion of the brain was removed (and the part where scientists thought the memories were stored, according to the EEGs) but the animals continued to remember what they have learned! A recent example of such an experiment to its extreme was conducted with a worm: after the worm was decapitated, it grew a new head and still remembered all it had learned! [jeb.biologists.org/content/early/2013/0 ... 9.abstract, dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-236 ... ories.html]

From Bergson to modern experiments, I believe the memory problem is one of the key problems that will lead to a paradigm shift in the modern materialistic neurology...

The brain is most probable just a reciever...

Neurologists have never stated that memories are stored in a certain a part of the brain, the entire brain acts as a memory, different parts of the brain have different purposes and it stores information within those regions. Memories emerge via synapses which are the pathways for neurochemical reactions, every time the brain learns, experiences something new or carry's out a new function it maps new neuro pathways (synapses), the more frequently these synapses are used/required the bigger they become and the easier it becomes to do/remember something. The brain in principal basically works the same as any other muscle, just like a bicep retains muscle memory so does the brain.

There are scientists who work with complexity and point out the shortcomings of the reductionists. There are other scientists who are reductionists and bask in the ever-growing successes of their narrow specialties in contrast to the lack of, or perhaps even the impossibility of holistic progress.

One thing is for sure. There is a difference between cutting off the head of a worm and cutting off the head of a person. Memories are stored and are acted upon in various parts of the entire nervous system, and not just in the brain. The memories are also of many levels of quality, and are astronomical in quantity. How does a painter paint accurate images of his childhood hometown from memory?

Skakos wrote:
We may think we know where memory is stored, but we do not. Science has not figured that out yet. We have pinpointed areas of the brain which play a ROLE in the memory formation/ management (like the hippocampus), but we do not know the EXACT place where memories are stored. [see. Francis Crick, "Memory - From Mind to Molecules" by Larry R. Squire and Eric R. Kandel]

There are cases of animal experiments when a large portion of the brain was removed (and the part where scientists thought the memories were stored, according to the EEGs) but the animals continued to remember what they have learned! A recent example of such an experiment to its extreme was conducted with a worm: after the worm was decapitated, it grew a new head and still remembered all it had learned!

From Bergson to modern experiments, I believe the memory problem is one of the key problems that will lead to a paradigm shift in the modern materialistic neurology...

The brain is most probable just a reciever...

So because there is something we don’t currently understand we need to have a paradigm shift? The brain is therefor a receiver? A receiver for what exactly?

Dualists like yourself delight in the unexplained, in other words, they delight in ignorance. Dualism skulks in the shadows of neuroscience; shadows that in the fullness of time become illuminated causing it to find new shadows in which to hide.

Of all the sciences, neuroscience is one of the youngest. This is a science just taking its first steps and you suggest its time to wave the white flag? Not only that, but it should give way to “receivers and transmissions”? Neuroscience is full of mysteries, some much deeper then this. What exactly did you expect? That in under a century we would have a complete understating of one of the most complex structures in the universe? But when scientists encounter mysteries they don’t throw in the towel and regress into dogma and superstition, they work on solving those mysteries. That’s what science is. This thread should be titled “dualism of the gaps”.

Perhaps the "scientist" can begin experimenting on that other animal - the human - maybe start by decapitating the scientist's head and sewing it back on again to see if it the brain has the memory to re attach all the stuff. Paradigm shift my foot!

Or just wait to see whether the scientist's head grows back by itself. (The one who experiemented on the worm).

Michael, I would include all the other "scientists" and "laboratory nobodies" who inject steel needles into bundles of little fur trapped in cages.

Gene16180 wrote:

Skakos wrote:
We may think we know where memory is stored, but we do not. Science has not figured that out yet. We have pinpointed areas of the brain which play a ROLE in the memory formation/ management (like the hippocampus), but we do not know the EXACT place where memories are stored. [see. Francis Crick, "Memory - From Mind to Molecules" by Larry R. Squire and Eric R. Kandel]

There are cases of animal experiments when a large portion of the brain was removed (and the part where scientists thought the memories were stored, according to the EEGs) but the animals continued to remember what they have learned! A recent example of such an experiment to its extreme was conducted with a worm: after the worm was decapitated, it grew a new head and still remembered all it had learned!

From Bergson to modern experiments, I believe the memory problem is one of the key problems that will lead to a paradigm shift in the modern materialistic neurology...

The brain is most probable just a reciever...

So because there is something we don’t currently understand we need to have a paradigm shift? The brain is therefor a receiver? A receiver for what exactly?

Dualists like yourself delight in the unexplained, in other words, they delight in ignorance. Dualism skulks in the shadows of neuroscience; shadows that in the fullness of time become illuminated causing it to find new shadows in which to hide.

Of all the sciences, neuroscience is one of the youngest. This is a science just taking its first steps and you suggest its time to wave the white flag? Not only that, but it should give way to “receivers and transmissions”? Neuroscience is full of mysteries, some much deeper then this. What exactly did you expect? That in under a century we would have a complete understating of one of the most complex structures in the universe? But when scientists encounter mysteries they don’t throw in the towel and regress into dogma and superstition, they work on solving those mysteries. That’s what science is. This thread should be titled “dualism of the gaps”.

See a TV. Watch closely. It generates image. You open it and see things inside it "work".

It generates image?

ALL data we have is equally compatible with the "brain generates consciousness" as well as with the "brain is a reciever of consciousness". (yes, if you break the TV you will not see images any more...)

But there are many good indications (from the Princeton non-local consciousness experiments to the NDEs and the lack of success in locating memory) which strongly suggest something you do not wish to see...

Skakos wrote:See a TV. Watch closely. It generates image. You open it and see things inside it "work".

It generates image?

Yes, some technology functions as a receiver, some doesn’t. What this has to do with neuroscience is beyond me. Drawing analogies between the brain and electrical appliances in order to prove a concept is pointless and arbitrary, as you’ve just demonstrated. Might as well try a toaster next time.

Skakos wrote:ALL data we have is equally compatible with the "brain generates consciousness" as well as with the "brain is a reciever of consciousness". (yes, if you break the TV you will not see images any more...)

The data is equally compatible with the brain as a receiver? In that case why stop there? If the data is compatible with the brain as a receiver, then it is also compatible with human consciousness as a software program on the computers of some superior race, or a brain in a vat, or a colony of invisible leprechauns in the head “magically” generating consciousness, or any other fantastical explanation. What these explanations have in common is that they are unsubstantiated, untestable and unfalsifiable, furthermore, they do not generate new experiments or further our understanding but rather serve to remove the whole endeavor from real scientific inquiry.

Skakos wrote:But there are many good indications (from the Princeton non-local consciousness experiments to the NDEs and the lack of success in locating memory) which strongly suggest something you do not wish to see...

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and the “evidence” you present lacks both quality and content - it comes nowhere close to cashing out the claims you are trying to make.

Of course there are things we do not currently understand about memory. Does this really prove that “the brain is a receiver”? And what happens when these mysteries give way to scientific inquiry, as so many have in the past? - You will find some other mystery neath which to hide and expound your beliefs. As I said “dualism of the gaps”.

Stormcloud wrote:Michael, I would include all the other "scientists" and "laboratory nobodies" who inject steel needles into bundles of little fur trapped in cages.

I assume you are a vegetarian, then? Furthermore, I assume you completely abstain from science-based medicine as well? You realize, surely, that the majority of modern medical techniques and treatments are based on animal research? Those “scientists” and “lab nobodies” work on curing infectious disease and genetic disorders, ensure medical treatments are safe for human use, and further our understanding of nature, neuroscience and physiology. What do you do?

Stormcloud wrote:It is not necessary to slash, inject, maim and kill in order to give you a few more token years.

I would not object to criticisms of eating meat, hunting & fishing (especially for sport), animal testing for cosmetics, leather & fur, zoos, destruction of habits, etc. However, animal testing in the context of science is the one exception that serves a true humanitarian purpose, and for what its worth, ethical standards for animal research have become quite rigorous.

Stormcloud wrote:Had people lived more naturally and less artificial lives you wouldn't have need of science-based(on animal cruelty) medicine.

I’m afraid this is simply wrong. The idea that nature will somehow nourish us if we just fall into her arms is a romantic myth. There is nothing “unnatural” about mutations, viruses or flesh-eating bacteria. There’s nothing “unnatural” about us going extinct tomorrow, it happens all the time. Had mass extinctions not occurred before, we probably wouldn’t be here. Misery, illness, competition, premature death, extinction… all perfectly natural.

Stormcloud wrote:Perhaps some "philosophers" could learn to laugh a little more instead of taking everything so seriously.

Don’t worry, I’m not taking this “so seriously”. After all, you have yet to make any serious points

Crikey, you have an imagination! The "stuff" you READ INTO other people's contributions is amazing. I have far more positive things to share in than engage your criticisms.

You haven't actually engaged in anything besides frivolous banter, although perhaps that's what you're here for. By all means, go share your positivity

Animal testing serves a humanitarian purpose ? "Testing" is it? Causing vast numbers of other animals to suffer in the name of vanity - Humanitarian? Hunting (killing) defenceless creatures going about their own lives - sport? Well, you can interpret anything to suit your own ends.

No one escapes their final life review.

Stormcloud wrote: Hunting (killing) defenceless creatures going about their own lives - sport?

Did you read what I wrote?

Gene16180 wrote: I would not object to criticisms of eating meat, hunting & fishing (especially for sport)…

Stormcloud wrote: Animal testing serves a humanitarian purpose ?

You didn’t answer my question

Gene16180 wrote: I assume you are a vegetarian, then? Furthermore, I assume you completely abstain from science-based medicine as well?

Stormcloud wrote: No one escapes their final life review.

Care to elaborate?

There are cases of animal experiments when a large portion of the brain was removed (and the part where scientists thought the memories were stored, according to the EEGs) but the animals continued to remember what they have learned! >>

There are also documented cases where the same thing happened to humans.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/19/scien ... lives.html

A 44 year old French patient had completely intact memory despite the discovery that his skull almost completely empty! It was full of fluid with just a few centimeters of brain tissue surrounding this empty space

http://www.viewzone.com/memorytest1.html