Slashdot Mirror
Brain Cells Observed Summoning a Memory
Anti-Globalism writes "Scientists have for the first time recorded individual brain cells in the act of summoning a spontaneous memory, revealing not only where a remembered experience is registered but also, in part, how the brain is able to recreate it."
What does a memory of what a memory being recovered look like?
I sometimes have epileptic seizures which make me spontaneously remember past events. Sometimes it causes me to recall events which may not have happened. I am literally processing garbage data.
The seizure often interferes with the recording of memory, probably because it is messing with the replay of memory at the same time, so it is difficult to report exactly what the experience consists of after the event, beyond a simple outline.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This is the kind of claim you make in the NY Times or another public media outlet: while it might happen, because sometimes people do stupid things, I doubt the actual research article will go so far as to say anything so far-fetched.
While it makes logical sense (memory, so far as it is located any single place, does seem to be strongly linked to the deeper, distinct organs within the brain, like the hippocampus), there is no actual way to "know" what exactly is going on: this is a quasi-experimental design, at best, and at most all they can reliably say is "Similiar structures in the brain responded in a similar way during recall of an event compared with how they behaved during the observation of the event itself." For example, it has been shown in some studies that areas in the occipital area of the brain (which has been strongly linked to vision) "light up" when a subject is asked to describe a previously viewed visual stimulus: however, researchers in these studies make no claims to such being evidence of an observed activation of a memory, which is essentially the claim being made here. Typically, the most they will offer in such studies is that the brain may be "spoofed" into thinking it is viewing the same stimulus again, thus activating certain, similiar function. Logically, both the visual research and this phenomena certainly sound like memory: but logic isn't science, nor is something true because it makes logical sense. Newtonian mechanics make logical sense, but good luck building a model of the universe as successful as one provided by quantum/relativistic physics, which often times make utterly no logical sense.
This is one of the key problems in any kind of study concerning phenomena which are part and parcel of the conscious mind/brain: being that we do not experience the subject's perceptions ourselves, and since consciousness is so singular and personal, we might never be able to say with any clear confidence what we are observing in the brain. However, kudos to the researchers. At the very least they've examined a function (whatever it is) within the brain that is an utter pain in the ass to study.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
As far I know, not only religious people use the term "soul". Psychologists use it too, although in a a little bit different meaning as the various afterlife-guys.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Because I'd laugh my ass off at somebody who thought they would be able to jump straight into a 7th dan Karate Kata, and fall flat on their face.
I think that for some people the 'soul' theory is the reason they trust religion, not the other way around.
You'll have to agree that it is a bit depressing knowing for certain that your existence is just the few years you spend 'alive' and after that it's all gone. And for some, it's too depressing.
Humans need to know they'll live on somehow, that their lives have some meaning. And if you're not famous enough to hope for historical eternal life, than soul is what you have left.
Actually, I find the thought of simply ceasing to exist not that bad; although I seriously don't want to die (and thus are transhumanist), believing in no afterlife were you would be judged gives you a nice feeling of freedom - while religious people usually try to avoid a lot of things since they want to reach heaven (or whatever else they believe in how they will be rewarded for a life devoted to their god[s]), I act on my own moral criterias without any pressure, being free to choose what is right and what not on my own.
Though yes, I fully agree with you.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
I want it to work the other way, as a backup mechanism. Every day I get older, and a bit of my RAM seems to fizz & burn and takes away the bytes that were stored in there. I accept the irreplaceable loss of the memory but I wish I didn't forget things too. I could easily page out the least-used memories and store them safely off-site.
Anyone who believes that they will meet (and remember) their deceased family members when they get to Heaven. Anyone who thinks that they will still have and/or know their own name when they get to Heaven. Anyone who believes in ghosts. So probably about 80% of Americans (that's not an attack, just an estimate).
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Maybe you are onto something there. Perhaps it would be appropriate punishment to take the memories from the people affected by their crimes and cram them into the criminals head so that he personally experience the impact of what he's done. At the same time you would have to replace any positive aspects of personal gain or gratifaction that he received. The next time he considers commiting a crime, he'll have a lot more to think about...
I've read a number of books which discuss in detail the fact that memory is stored non-locally, in a method similar to the way a hologram stores information non-locally. The book 'The Holographic Universe' is the most recent example that I've read. It's a fascinating book - well worth a read. In fact I've read it twice now. With respect to memory, it goes on to say that in experiments with mice, researchers said they were incapable of destroying a memory of how to complete a maze by surgically removing brain tissue. The more they removed, the more foggy the memory appeared, but it never disappeared. This strongly backs the holographic storage method that the book postulates.
If these scientists think they've seen an individual brain cell recall a memory, then I think they're horribly mistaken.
For me, it's not depressing at all.
I didn't come into existence until 1986. For billions of years, I wasn't the least bit upset about it.
In other words, if "life" after death is the same as "life" before life, then there is little I have to worry about.
I once heard a bit on the rise of science against religion. The crux of the argument was that science should be viewed and approached with an eye more toward humanism.
In the Dark Ages, God was viewed as someone who controlled everything. If something bad happened, there was a reason. If something good happened, there was a reason. Priests where the ones who understood that pattern, and each of us had a friend looking down benevolently (overall) to take care of us.
The rise of science began to make the world a hostile, unpredictable place. Of course, science must studied, information gathered, and one day man could make sense of his (now inscrutable) destiny and place in the universe.
I believe the argument went that this shift in thinking, from having a plan to not having any has caused a lot of strife. Of course, we're more rational (some of us) but this does not change the fact that we often feel alone and insignificant, whirling through the ether.
The solution was to try and find a way to help people view science as less about cold calculation, but more as a friend, a helpful and predictable Cosmic Hand that doesn't flip us off, but rather is working behind the scenes, as God once did, to keep everything working in The Bigger Plan.
-