Memories may be stored outside the brain

reply to post by dominicus


People are assuming that you mean the christian god, perhaps? I sort of agree with you when you say that when we die we return to the "source." I believe that source is NOT a conscious, thinking, human-like entity that is sold by the christians... And I certainly have no tolerance for those who claim their "Lord" says that animals don't have souls. The same mysterious energy which allows human life to persist also operates in every other living thing on Earth, and I can't believe I have to try to convince anyone of that.

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You're making stuff up, kid.

Stop trying to sound intelligent, while just running with the latest assumptions.

You are obviously coming at this from a point of deep and profound knowledge on the subject. That being the case, exactly what is the memory process and how does it physically work? Clearly I'm ignorant of the truth, and my own research would benefit greatly from your expertise.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
Yea, because amnesia after organic brain damage is part of your soul taking a vacation, and alzheimers is the devil... ooookay.

Actually, the brain accesses contextually attributed residual fact sets that (as a result of the specific attributing system itself) reside in what amounts to a "memory cloud" (sort of like the data cloud concept within company intranets). If the brain is damaged in the region where specific access circuits are located, then those "memories" will never be accessible, and there you have amnesia or dementia-related memory loss.

Migratory animals share a "memory cloud" that helps them survive as a species, with some sets contextually associated with the migration process, and the brains evolutionarily developed to "reach" for those instructions when environmental factors hit a predefined "tipping point", which is why all such group-think occurs per locality, as opposed to species-wide.

Human beings do not share a memory cloud. Most predators don't as well, with lions and wolves being a prime example of apex predators that do share one, but on an as-needed basis.

When the human brain dies, the contextual specifics become meaningless, and the data itself is effectively "released" as simple Residual information - no different than any other fact set collective, as far as the rest of the environment is concerned. It wasn't created by the human brain. It emerged as an environmental default response to the specific information that the brain itself created. Once the brain has died, it's no longer unique or necessary for anything other than the Identity definition of the Contextual Environment as a whole, as is the case with all residual fact sets.

Fascinating, but my brain doesn't understand a single thing you are trying to communicate ... lol. Could you please drop the jargon?

contextually attributed residual fact sets

What jargon?

Contextually attributed means that the information was assigned specific attributes that correspond to its historical and relative contextual significance. Residual fact sets are what they are - something happens and the factual specifics of that occurrence immediately exist as a set of facts (fact set) that will always be indivisible and will always exist (residual) within the contextual environment (reality) that hosted the occurrence that happened.

I tried to be efficient with my description. How would you have described it?

Originally posted by QuantriQueptidez
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You're making stuff up, kid.

Stop trying to sound intelligent, while just running with the latest assumptions.

Oh....and if you would, can you provide me with links to the other person who is presenting these assumptions? I'm under the delusion that I'm the one who originated them. Thanks.

Originally posted by centhwevir1979
reply to post by dominicus

 

People are assuming that you mean the christian god, perhaps? I sort of agree with you when you say that when we die we return to the "source." I believe that source is NOT a conscious, thinking, human-like entity that is sold by the christians... And I certainly have no tolerance for those who claim their "Lord" says that animals don't have souls. The same mysterious energy which allows human life to persist also operates in every other living thing on Earth, and I can't believe I have to try to convince anyone of that.

starred for the last half of ur comment. dont understand how you can defend animals right to have a soul yet believe that the source itself would not also be conscious as we are.

Great find, OP. S & F for that article, very interesting.

This reminds me of a movie called MindShock. It details organ donor recipients who begin to take on characteristics of their donors. One 11 year old girls dreams, after receiving a heart transplant, lead to the arrest of the man who murdered her donor.

Im not sure entirely about Genetic memory, that is, memory that you are born with. However, I do believe it is quiet the reality that memory is stored in other parts of the body, other than the brain. I think I read recently that it had been discovered that there are neurons in the heart. Other things that come to mind is the muscle memory one develops through repetition, in things such as playing an instrument or doing some task that requires movement of the body (or parts of it), such as typing.

Something that is rather interesting about all this is that DNA can actually be used to store memory, files, etc. As anyone who has taken biology knows that all cells contain nuclei (with the exception of red blood cells), which is where much of a cell's DNA is stored (although mitochondria also contains its own DNA). We know today that genes within our DNA can have an influence on what diseases we are more susceptible to, how we look, how we emotionally respond to various situations, etc. Cellular memory could actually be part of the reason why a lot of children "repeat" history and have similar experiences to their parents at times even without necessarily knowing of their parents' pasts (or heck even their grandparents).

As an example if a woman dated an abusive boyfriend for a few years while in college and ended up getting married to someone else who treats her a lot better, doesn't abuse her, "a good man" so to speak. Let's say this woman has a couple children, 1 boy and 1 girl. Let's also suppose that the boy and girl grow up in a healthy, nurturing environment where their parents do not abuse them and give them the love and support they need; however, the girl ends up in an abusive relationship like her mother was when she was younger. She believes that she doesn't deserve any better and say she actually ends up dating this abusive guy for some time.

Let's also suppose that there is a man who was abused as a child growing up. Mother was also abused along with his older sister and younger brother by their alcoholic father until his father died when he was the age of 24 due to cancer. He decides to "rise above" everything and is the better man for it all. He ends up having children (2 girls, 1 boy) of his own with the woman of his dreams and they live in a beautiful home, great neighborhood, etc. His children grow up in a loving, caring environment and all got good grades in school. However, their son starts out as being that popular "jerk" to girls say in middle school. He turns out to be the guy who mistreats women (despite his parents teaching him otherwise), goes out to parties starting around the age of 15 on a regular basis (and consequently drinks a lot of alcohol). When he is under the influence, he turns into a rather violent individual. As he gets older, he turns out to be an alcoholic and is abusive to his live-in girlfriend while in college (who he ends up marrying one day).

So if that young girl grew up in a rather healthy environment where she did not have exposure to all of this, why would she end up in situations similar to what her mother was put into when she was younger (without knowing of her mother's past of course)? Why did that young man turn out to be strikingly similar to his grandfather in terms of alcoholism and being abusive, despite growing up being taught very different values and whatnot? Is it due to the young lady "not knowing better" because this young man is her first "love"? Does the young man in the second story become the same way as his grandfather because he like others sometimes just can't deal with their own inner insecurities properly and resort to violence? Is it because the young lady is similar to her mother (and the young man to his grandfather) in terms of personality and mindset, therefore attracting the same types of people? Could it also be that these individuals inherited some subconscious memories of their relatives that they are in essence "re-living" without any of them realizing this?

It's something to think about (hopefully this makes sense where I'm going with this ha ha) and I certainly think that it's something we should consider. May be the idea of deja vu despite having never been to a certain place or seen a particular face (or one remotely similar in that) isn't that far-fetched (possibly memories deeply rooted in DNA could be resurfacing that were passed onto those who experience it). I think it is silly to claim the theory of cellular memory is bunk by sticking to old school ideologies yet verified scientific facts at the very least connote to the possibility of it.

Why DNA Will Someday Replace the Hard Drive
Deep DNA Memory Theories: Can We Remember Our Ancestors' Lives?

reply to post by mrkeen


Really? I find your quick conclusions based on this argument to be laughable. Who is to say that memories aren't stored in multiple strands of DNA? What if the fact that we often remember only specific things of certain memories is the result of that "memory" being stored in different strands (thus we only remember "pieces") and we lose parts of those memories as our DNA "changes" or is possibly damaged? We don't even know that much about all of what DNA does or doesn't do since geneology in itself is very much a growing, DEVELOPING field. Sheesh...

reply to post by TKDRL


It seems to me as though many people immediately dismiss new ideas and/or concepts that aren't at this point at least proven in 3D, tangible ways. Anything that seems to defy conventional wisdom is often dismissed rather quickly, even by so called "scientists". We all know however that the things we know to be "true" today may in fact be disproven entirely tomorrow. For thousands of years, religions, shamans, etc. have spoken of other dimensional entities, connoted to belief in psychic abilities (whether or not they are condemned is another story), "odd" forms of alternative healing (ex. crystal and herbal healing), etc., yet science sticks its nose up to thousands of years of history. These beliefs haven't been held onto for so long for no good reason.

It seems to me as though science today is more about politics and who can get the most money from sponsors than making real discoveries and understanding the universe we live in better.

reply to post by rainprincess64

Could it also be that these individuals inherited some subconscious memories of their relatives that they are in essence "re-living" without any of them realizing this?

That's a farfetched assumption.

At the very most, we can postulate that certain genetic and epigenetic factors can increase the likelihood of a certain course of behavior; whether of not those conditions become activated seems to be a matter of chance, and not "subconscious" memories.

To just highlight the improbability of that situation. In the case of the daughter, she would have inherited her mother and fathers "subconscious" memories; in the case of the grandson, he would have inherited his mother/father/ and two sets of grandparents memories. Unless you mean to say that only a particular individuals memories are inherited - and not anyone elses - that doesn't really help make sense of the mechanism of action.

I think it is far more likely that certain genes influencing temperament may slightly increase the likelihood of repeating mistakes made by your immediate ancestors.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Sure it might seem like a bit of a stretch and it could be. We could inherit a multitude of memories that are stored deep in the subconscious mind. There are a wide range of factors that obviously come into play as to why we do the things we do, why we act the way we do, etc. I agree that certain genes affecting temperament would also have an influence on making similar mistakes our ancestors have made. What I am trying to say is that I think it's possible we somehow "download" memories or "instructions" in how to behave a certain way or getting ourselves involved in certain situations even if we were never taught anything of the sort in our immediate environment.

I don't think we would just inherit memories from a specific person but rather all we are at least more directly related to; whether or not we actually act upon them or at least react to them one way or another is another story. Perhaps our acting upon these subconscious memories has to do with which genes influencing temperament we inherited as well, like we act upon things that appeals to us the most on a subconscious level? I hope that makes sense XD

reply to post by rainprincess64

What I am trying to say is that I think it's possible we somehow "download" memories or "instructions" in how to behave a certain way or getting ourselves involved in certain situations even if we were never taught anything of the sort in our immediate environment.

From what I understand, DNA deals with physical functions; for example, chimps and humans have about 90% of the same DNA. The 10 % differentiation I would imagine deals with the wide ranging differences between the two species. In addition to DNA, there's "methyl-DNA" i.e. one of many epigenetic factors that influence DNA from outside the cell nucleus i.e. from the cytoplasm.

So I don't think it's at all necessary for DNA or any physical substrate should carry information like memories from a relative.

On the other hand, since we still don't know what "consciousness" is, or for that matter, what the "information" that codes genes/epigenes is, there's always the possibility that some non-physical process might feed memories from this non-physical field into the conscious mind.

I truly believe that memories are stored in DNA and that the brain just processes the information.

The problem with this experiement is we won't be cutting off any human heads to see if it works for us as well.

I think we are still in the infancy stage of understanding our surroundings and the future will hold many secrets.

reply to post by knowledgedesired


The DNA doesn't actually store the memory.

Let me explain. Dad's sperm and Moms egg combine to create a zygote - the very first embryonic cell that eventually becomes a human being. This zygote contains the future person DNA. Then cell division happens over 9 months and a baby is born. In each stage of cell division, certain genes in the DNA "shut off" in order to create a newly specific cell; a bone cell is different from a skin cell which is different from a nerve cell.

Our brains have 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) and it is THESE cells which may contain memory within their cell nucleus. It isn't the DNA itself. Skin cells, bone cells etc do not have the 'markers' for memory. Only the nerve cells do.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Neurons contain memories within their cell nucleus? How?

I was under the impression that memory exists not within neuronal cells but rather due the the actions and interactions between neuronal cells.

reply to post by Tetrarch42


Yes. And where do you think that information is stored?

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
reply to post by Astrocyte

 

Neurons contain memories within their cell nucleus? How?

I was under the impression that memory exists not within neuronal cells but rather due the the actions and interactions between neuronal cells.

Microtubules.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Abstract -
Technological computation is entering the quantum realm, focusing attention on biomolecular information processing systems such as proteins, as presaged by the work of Michael Conrad. Protein conformational dynamics and pharmacological evidence suggest that protein conformational states-fundamental information units ('bits') in biological systems-are governed by quantum events, and are thus perhaps akin to quantum bits ('qubits') as utilized in quantum computation. 'Real time' dynamic activities within cells are regulated by the cell cytoskeleton, particularly microtubules (MTs) which are cylindrical lattice polymers of the protein tubulin. Recent evidence shows signaling, communication and conductivity in MTs, and theoretical models have predicted both classical and quantum information processing in MTs. In this paper we show conduction pathways for electron mobility and possible quantum tunneling and superconductivity among aromatic amino acids in tubulins. The pathways within tubulin match helical patterns in the microtubule lattice structure, which lend themselves to topological quantum effects resistant to decoherence. The Penrose-Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness is reviewed as an example of the possible utility of quantum computation in MTs.

This study is going to have to be replicated before concerns of experimenter bias are to be overcome, and ideally with a control group of planarian's who didn't go through the learning process. It's a pity access isn't granted to the paper. It was also already done in 1955 by James McConnell with the same concerns about experimenter bias, and attempts at replicating the effect with mammals were found to be failures.

It is feasible though, if the newly formed brains ware chemically identical to the previous ones then the level of neuro-transmitters the brain was creating as a result of the learning methods in the study would be the same. It's these neuro-transmitters that influence behaviour.

Still, it's likely that memory is vastly more complicated than just neuro-transmitters.