Memory is material, yet still quite mysterious

Whenever a person claims to have experienced something mystical or supernatural, the memory of that experience which enables them to make the claim is thoroughly material. 

I remember that this thought came to mind while I was reading the "Memory" chapter in Matthew Cobb's fascinating book, The Idea of the Brain: The Past and Future of Neuroscience. (See here for my first post about the book.)

But that could be a false memory, though I don't believe it is, since I finished the chapter just a few days ago.

My wife, a retired psychotherapist, learned about false memories during a period in the United States, and maybe elsewhere also, when women, mostly, would recollect being sexually abused as a child in decidedly strange ways, such as at a Satanic ritual.

Eventually it became clear that false memories could be implanted in a person's brain when a counselor, say, would ask leading questions about being abused. 

Since there is no way for us to tell if a memory is true or false other than comparing the recollection to some sort of objective standard, or perhaps by asking others who had the same experience, sometimes accusations against supposed child abusers were made that had no basis in fact.

This is very much in line with what Cobb writes about at the end of his "Memory" chapter, which I've shared below.

The definition of "engram" is: a hypothetical change in neural tissue postulated in order to account for persistence of memory. Here's an explanation of the reference to Penfield. 

At the beginning of the chapter Cobb relates how, from the 1930s onwards, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield carried out hundreds of brain operations in an attempt to relieve chronic debilitating temporal-lobe epilepsy. 

He'd stimulate conscious patients with delicate electrodes to determine what part of the brain was a candidate for removal, if stimulating that part indicated a seizure was imminent.

Cobb writes:

This procedure revealed something rather eerie: sometimes the stimulation led the patient to relive very precise events. These experiences were vivid and detailed, like a waking dream.

... These strange sensations would occur only when the relevant area was being stimulated; if the electrode was removed, or if the patient was told that stimulation was occurring when it was not, nothing happened.

Now, here's how Cobb concludes the "Memory" chapter.

The research on the cellular basis of memory highlights what many psychological studies has previously demonstrated: memory is malleable. It is not simply a recording of ongoing events, it is constructed, and it can be false.

Above all, however, it has a material basis. 

We have found elements of the engram, and it is not like memory on a hard disk in a computer. Biological memory is rich, unreliable and highly interconnected, with access to it taking place via multiple routes, not through a single address.

The link between our ordinary sense of how we remember things and precise memories that could be evoked by Penfield is not clear. 

We do not appear to be perpetually recording our whole lives and yet those experiments reveal that highly specific and apparently inconsequential moments can be recalled, either by some external event, or by the pulse of an electrode.

The engram has given up a few of its most basic secrets, but we are still far from understanding what is happening when we remember.

Our brains might be like a computer in terms of how they sometimes process information, but the way we store and recall our memories is completely different. We are not machines -- or rather, we are not like any machine we have yet built or can currently envisage.

These advances in identifying the physical basis of memory raise the question of how sensory information -- the stuff of memory -- is processed by the brain in the first place.

Memories are held in particular sets of neurons, but that does not explain how the brain is able to work out what is in the world, and what exactly is being remembered. 

The last paragraph is an introduction to the next chapter, "Circuits."

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

The problem with the old thinking that the mind functions like a computer and memories are stored in a specific location in the brain in engrams has been disproven.

Specific locations have specific functions related to memory, but it is much more complex. When we recall we reconstruct. When we remember an event the entire brain comes into play, and the lobes associated with spatial recognition, time, vision, taste, touch, hearing are all activated as we remember those details. At best what we call a memory location in the brain is the key, not the contents. And the neuron that triggers a single memory is also used, like a television pixel, for other memories. Stimulating a single nueron triggers a network of nuerons that trigger memory. And the exact same nueron may not do so tomorrow. Other nuerons may trigger that memory also. This has led to the theory that memories are stored between the neurons in the network of their connections. That's the current theory. But the actual persistent network of specific neurons, dendritic trees, synapses and axons associated with a specific memory has not been found. At best we have found the net of pixels that reflect and help reconstruct memory, specific functions in recall and reconstruction. We still have not located the actual persistent source of any single memory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroanatomy_of_memory

[Spence Tepper]

The problem with science is also its virtue. In uncovering the uncovering beauty and balance of cteation, it raises more questions than it answers. And that is also its miracle. Understanding the discoveries of science makes the creation that much larger, not smaller. That much more elegant and beautiful and perfect, not random, easily dismissed and imperfect. But in seeing some the beautiful architecture, science demonstrates how much more we haven't a clue about. Far more than any religion, science is the great humbling face of God.

[bonobo]

I may change the last line, "science is the great humbling face of our own limitations, not of some God we are not sure of."

[Spence Tepper]

Hi bonobo
I find all the incredible elegant, complex symphony, and the greater mysteries that is this creation, revealed in all its unveiling glory by science, to be the ultimate proof of God. And in these amazing revelations usually completely unexpected, unpredicted, stunning, the equal proofs that I know nothing about God.

[Turan]

Brian. Interesting observations and research by Cobb – though even using the term 'mysterious' provokes a supernatural element to some. A new definition of what we don't yet understand is needed as 'mysterious' just invites superstition, whereas something denoting 'under investigation' may be less provocative.

Science is de-coding much of what old thinking used to see as evidence of the divine. The humility – or rather the discipline – of testing, rejecting or revising their findings often though presents (perhaps temporary vacuums) which are used to justify the supernatural.

There is a climate among religiously minded cultures that revel in the 'gaps' left by science to place God in the so-called 'mysterious'. But, as the old adage goes – 'This too will pass.'

[Georgy Porgy]

I struggle too see the value of science in this area.

Have they actually discovered anything of practical use or they just speculating on how memory and consciousness might arise?

[Sonia]

"Whenever a person claims to have experienced something mystical or supernatural, the memory of that experience which enables them to make the claim is thoroughly material."

The effects of anything will always leave a marker somewhere in our physical bodies, memories. The memory of something traumatic is wired into the brain which is why people suffering from PTSD suffer for years after the event is over.

Fortunately, memory is malleable.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/will-scientists-soon-be-able-erase-our-most-traumatic-memories-180951167/

The measures used to help people with PTSD are not the same as those with free floating panic--as that type of disorder has no actual event to recall, it's just generalized fear and anxiety. It's better in those cases to "erase" the fearful feelings by trying to go long periods of time without feeling what is called "free floating fear". This way, the brain is able to heal the pathways that have been formed in the brain so that they hopefully diminish to "small scars" as opposed to a highly charged neural pathway to hell ready to be stimulated by the slightest amount of stress. That or hypnosis. :|

But, I don't think this necessary proves that OBEs or NDEs aren't real. The body will always mirror what's happening on every level of reality.

[Sonia]

I know the post wasn't about PTSD, but I am fascinated by how memories are malleable and what that means for people with PTSD and certain phobic related psychological disorders.

[Dungeness]

@ There is a climate among religiously minded cultures that revel in the
@ 'gaps' left by science to place God in the so-called 'mysterious'. But,
@ as the old adage goes – 'This too will pass.'

I agree especially if there's a rigidity to exploring all possible
explanations. That rigidity afflicts a wider swath than just
the religious.

Those 'gaps', whether OBE, NDE, or a vivid past life memory
warrant ongoing research along with chronic, intractable
cases of PTSD, or fear in general. The old adage "This too
shall pass" may not so much signal confidence in science
as a blockage to using it.

[Turan]

OBE's and NDE's are apparently real (Kevin Nelson's - The God Impulse researches these phenomenon well) but only real in the sense that they exist or rather manifest through the brain under certain circumstances - and they can be reproduced under test conditions along with many other phenomenon's.
They do not necessarily demonstrate any ethereal entity or any past life experience.

[manjit]

Interesting and curious to read the religious beliefs of materialists and atheists on this blog. The complete lack of self-awareness of the incoherency and unscientific religious belief coupled with very little knowledge of the subject outside of the current wave of pop-scientific, atheist dogma and ideology influence (now diminishing as more and more people are aware of the incoherency and insufficiency of the reductionist materialist philosophy that parades itself as science).

Scientific fact: Science has absolutely no clue what consciousness is let alone even a speculative testable model for how consciousness is "generated". Following the absolute and complete failure of the scientific method to even discover "consciousness" let alone "explain" it, this has led to the absurd intellectual conclusion materialists and atheists find themselves facing and proclaimed by high priests of atheism like Daniel Dennett; consciousness does not even exist. How can it exist if science is unable to even detect it, let alone "explain" it? Fact.

Utterly absurd Atheist belief: Science has explained consciousness. There is no evidence for consciousness existing beyond the brain (caveats; 1. there is absolutely no scientific evidence consciousness exists, full stop & 2. there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence going back to pre-history which strongly suggests consciousness can exist beyond the brain and body, and every single human culture and society has shared this belief, except the western intellectualism of the last 200 or so years. There is also a vast body of scientific research into parapsychology which also strongly suggests this, and even sceptics who actually take the time to study the vast body of scientific research also say, at the very least, they are unable to explain it. Fact. But seeing as we're talking about utterly absurd atheist beliefs, we will scrupulously ignore this vast body of evidence, and mindlessly repeat the mantra "there is no evidence of consciousness existing without a brain", true believers that we are!)

Slightly less absurd belief: Science knows a great deal about consciousness (much like the tribal person knows "a great deal" about an orchestra because they have taken a radio apart), and we are just around the corner, a few days at most, before we have a full and complete explanation for what and how consciousness is generated! We must keep the (blind) faith, lovers of science and truth that we are!

Anyway, here's a video of Kevin Nelson getting schooled on NDEs. Won't stop him releasing a book repeating the same old same old debunked & contradictory to the data arguments!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPCvuva2deU

[Dungeness]

@ OBE's and NDE's are apparently real ...but only real in the sense that
@ they exist or rather manifest through the brain under certain
@ circumstances and they can be reproduced under test conditions
@ along with many other phenomenon's. They do not necessarily
@ demonstrate any ethereal entity or any past life experience.

But many past life memories are also "real" in the sense that they
exist and are arguably far more compelling than NDE/OBE's
reproduced via lab tests.

The research is potentially more valuable too in its study of
consciousness itself, rather than brief altered states; in possible
diagnosis and increased understanding of phobias, PTSD,
chronic depression, etc.; and, maybe, ironically in the
exposure of religious myth.

After all, even if an "ethereal" component is disproven by
research, reflect on the enormity of power hidden in the
brain. How was the oft-cited pre-schooler in Russia able to
speak fluent Japanese and uncannily recall street names
in a remote town in Japan for example. Literally hundreds
of cases studied over decades... often just as confounding.

[Um]

Whatever we experience as thoughts, emotions and other conscious content, inner or outer, is processed by the brain.

The question is, does stimulating these brain centres, produce the same conscious content.?
If yes than …..
If not than …..

Experience of love towards a GIVEN partner, child or otherwise, goes with activity in the brain.
Does activating these centres also create that experience for that GIVEN person?

[NDEpatient]

Manjit,

I just watched the video you linked where you claim that Kevin Nelson got schooled. I didn't see that
at all. Quite the opposite. I saw a patient, engaged, and articulate presentation where more research can be
conducted.

Sorry, but your spin is precisely that..... your spin.

[Sonia]

Does activating these centres also create that experience for that GIVEN person?

Posted by: Um | May 27, 2020 at 09:30 AM

Yes, actually! :) They can even make you taste things and smell things that aren’t there by activating certain parts of the brain. They done these experiments directly on a patient’s brain.

And drugs essentially work this way. LSD and other psychedelic drugs can create “otherworldly” experiences. Ultimately shallow experiences but they feel real at the time.

[Georgy Porgy]

My view is if you’ve truly loved someone, and they die, and they die and you look at that lifeless shell of a body and you think that is all there ever was, end of story then either:
(a) you have never truly loved or
(b) you are a complete cretin ignoramus.

Just my view.

[Um]

@ Sonia,

Yes, yes … stimulation of brain centres does result in als sorts of experience but that is not what I wrote.

The question was, if you feel love for your partner, certain brain centres are onvolved, in the proces of eperiencing that love … but … can stimulation of these centres of your brain RE-create the same feelings you experienced for your partner?!

[Sonia]

The question was, if you feel love for your partner, certain brain centres are onvolved, in the proces of eperiencing that love … but … can stimulation of these centres of your brain RE-create the same feelings you experienced for your partner?!

Posted by: Um | May 27, 2020 at 12:32 PM

Oh... 🤔 well, I’m no expert but from my own experience sometimes a song or a scent or just something out of the blue will trigger a memory I had of someone and it will recreate those feelings. Even if I thought I was totally over that person. But it’s rare. When I’m over someone it’s usually over.

So... maybe. 🤷‍♀️

[Um]

As yet a perpetuum mobile has not been found.

Bolders need a push to roll

Engines nee a spark of energie to start

Batteries have to be loaded with energies

plants are batteries.

loving creatures remain alive by using the rest energie of other living batteries.

Material world is an solidified energie field.

Without solidified energy, energy itself cannot move

the source of energy, where it exists and how far it reaches, is unknown,

To drink coffee, no science is needed nor believe in god

[manjit]

"NDEpatient" wrote: "I just watched the video you linked where you claim that Kevin Nelson got schooled. I didn't see that
at all. Quite the opposite. I saw a patient, engaged, and articulate presentation where more research can be
conducted.
Sorry, but your spin is precisely that..... your spin."

Dear "NDEpatient", I can tell you really are in a very serious condition; as you soul hovers precariously on the border of bodily disengagement & infinite mystery, you appear to have started channelling David Lane. A most serious state of affairs indeed, my thoughts and prayers are with you.

School was great, a time of such unbridled joy and mischievousness. The thing with my school though was it had all sorts of pupils from across the entire spectrum of intellectual, emotional and behavioural capacities and tendencies. So whilst all of us got "schooled", not all of us actually learnt anything. There is no accounting for kids who think they're smarter than school, and the fanboys and fangirls who follow them around, thinking that by mere association they too are smarter than school. Ah, but this was a childish fantasy I eventually outgrew :) :)

The thing with Kevin Nelson is, he came up with his pet theory some 10+ years ago (I believe) that NDEs, and the "veridical" perceptions of the immediate environment (hospital room, nurses etc) and the rest of the phenomena of the NDE is actually some sort of intermingling of the REM state with open eyes, thereby "explaining" both the veridical perceptions of the physical environment, as well as the "otherworldly" aspects of the NDE.

Where Kevin got schooled - whether he or his fanboys and girls noticed it or not - is where Sam Parnia quite persuasively suggests it is absurd to suggest that cardiac arrest patients have their eyes open, and he should know as that is literally his job and he has dealt with hundreds if not thousands of cardiac arrest patients. Schooled.

Kevin's theory is obvious (I speculated to myself the exact theory independently in my teenage years, some 25 odd years ago), but it is also somewhat ridiculous because it does not account for all, or even most, of the actual content of reported NDEs. From eyes clearly being closed, to accounts like Pam Reynolds where there was no brain activity, to veridical components from outside of the physical line of sight or hearing, to the absurdity and incoherency of a materialist model which suggests such profoundly glorious and meaningful experiences almost universally described as "hyper-real", "more real than this life" etc are possible when the heart has stopped and the brain should in fact be getting damaged - not producing experiences that almost 100% of experiencers consider to be more real than this life and world? It really is a glorious conundrum for materialists to try and explain. They haven't even tried to, yet.

So, whilst Kevin's theory is cute - and as I say, as a quite experienced "lucid dreamer" along with other visionary experiential modalities (btw, it should be mentioned not all dreams or visionary experiences occur during "REM", as demonstrated in some more recent scientific research on "OBErs", and in my own experience, which even further complicates the whole issue.) , I too used to think this was a plausible explanation for many years in my late teens and early 20s - it simply doesn't explain all, or even most, of the data, is far too simplistic, doesn't even answer questions about dreams and normal consciousness let alone a potential "afterlife", and he is now wedded to this patently incorrect theory with his career, reputation etc.

Such is the absurdity of belief.