mystics theorize the preservation of memory in the astral body supposedly at death? i mean if a person with amnesia can not remember things because of a problem int he physical brain, how is the astral body supposed to?
Because it has nothing to do with how your brain functions...
I have often found that I had different memories in dreams and woke up to realise that those things in the "past" never happened and were completely irrelevant to waking life. Sometimes in dreams I even forgot about waking life and suddenly remembered it during the dream and became lucid.
Here's a thought/theory...
Memories don't happen specifically in the brain as there is no trace of them there whatsoever. The brain could serve as a tuning device for fields of energy which permeate everything and where memories may be accessed. We, the mind, may use the brain to tune into and experience this world and during altered states of consciousness we may acquire different perspectives. Like when you play a computer racing game and you can view your vehicle or the track from different angles. Some angles have advantages and disadvantages.
You might be wondering now...what about brain damage causing memory loss? Well, a damaged TV set will affect the reception of information or external signals. Without this, the programs and films on the various channels will be distorted or simply not be there. We are merely the life force and we can be sentient if we choose to. We may hold on to memories even after we have left the physical body because they were never there in the first place. But the ultimate nature of mind as described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead is a radiant emptiness. We all have this intrinsic awareness. It is the pristine cognition we may acquire at any time just like the various modalities we acquire in waking life or in dream states. This pure emptiness devoid of all knowledge (but not thought!) is how babies come into the world...slowly they enrich their experience.
Here's a couple of links. You heard of Sheldrake and his theory on the M fields?
http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance
Karl Spencer Lashley is the one who presents us with the strongest evidence AGAINST the trace theory of memory with his experiments. He thought that if traces are existent in the brain, then it should be possible to locate them. Well, duh!!! He experimented on rats by cutting out portions of their brains in order to identify the bits of memory that disappeared. After many years he ended up completely frustrated in his research. He found that memory loss only occurred when large portions of the brain were removed (my thinking is that this would affect any tuning system!). Importantly, loss of memory was proportional to the amount of nervous tissue removed, rather than its location. Lashley called this the law of mass action: the idea was that it was the mass of tissue removed that was important, not the specific bits.
The experiment was repeated with octopuses, and the same results were obtained: again, loss of memory was proportional to the mass removed, rather than the particular portion of the brain taken.
Clearly, all attempts to find localised traces within the brain have failed. This, of course, has posed great difficulties for the trace theory of memory, which had earlier seemed straightforward. It is, in fact, the main reason why the holographic theory of memory was developed where memory traces would be spread all over the brain in such a way that cutting out parts of it would not make much difference since all memories are localised everywhere. The theory is, however, obscure because a hologram works on the principle of light waves and interference patterns stored on photographic film. There is nothing of the sort to be found in the brain.
So far, everything seems to prompt us towards the notion that the brain, which plays a vital role in running our bodily functions, is not a memory storage device at all, but rather, a tuning system that enables memories to be picked up and this would certainly explain why no memory traces can be found in the brain (you may also ask yourself the question: who is using the tuning device to receive information?). So where are the memories? A metaphysical realm which we can tune into, perhaps? Some people have suggested that not only is it possible to access our own memories but also the memories of others (indeed the "morphic resonance" theory would entail this). We may even acquire memory from the future (precognition).
Carl Jung, who studied dreams for most of his life, posited that there is a personal as well as a collective unconscious. I think he might have been right. Perhaps on one level we are all one mind. Perhaps we are already all-knowing on some level but since we became human beings our infinite perspective has been narrowed down to a finite one. This would explain why some psychedelics can make you feel like you already know something about existence and yet, once the "high" is over, the mind can revert to not-knowing again. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we choose our experience...
I hope this provided more food for thought! :-)
I will play the devil's advocate for a moment, and say that trace theory is not fully dead- there still remains evidence that memories are encoded in particular parts of the brain.
The experiments that show that memory loss is proportional to mass of brain tissue removed do not necessarily only have the potential to indicate that memories are entirely non-local; the modern trace theorists believe that memories are like bundles of perceptions that the hippocampus ties together, and solidifies as synaptic connections.
For instance, if you had a birthday party at seven, your hippocampus might unite the visual memories of the colored balloons and the disturbing clown, the auditory memories of your uncle playing his guitar at the time, the olefactory memories of the cake and floorwax your father had left, and perception of thankfullness at having friends and family gathered to celebrate your life. Now if a part of your brain was removed, say the occipital part that processed the visual memories, the other parts would still remain, and still tell a fairly cohesive tale of what had happened at your party.
Thus, the same for these monkeys and octopi- even though parts of their brains had been removed, the memory consisted of elements stored in several parts of their brains, corresponding to the parts that had processed each type of perception.
I am not making an argument for the physicality of memories and mind, but I am denying the idea that no one has any idea how a physical system might store our memories.
The experiments you cited are far to simplisticly constructed and analyzed to rule out this possibility.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/memory/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/memory/)
Both cognitive anthropologists and philosophers drawing on dynamical and situated approaches to cognition suggest a general framework for memory science incorporating traces both inside and outside the individual. This is not to collapse the distinction between external and internal representational formats: for a connectionist in particular, the kind of 'storage' mechanisms employed by the brain are quite distinct in format and process from those of most external linguistic or digital systems. The point rather is to see brain traces and external traces as potential parts of temporarily integrated larger systems, used by us so as more successfully to exploit and manipulate information in the environment. As Andy Clark puts it, "our brains make the world smart so that we can be dumb in peace" (1997, p. 180). Our interaction with different forms of external symbol systems and 'cognitive technologies' in some contexts alter our cognitive capacities. Culture and technology are products of cognition and action, but in the human case, as Merlin Donald argues, such products in turn "have direct effects upon individual cognition" (1991, p. 10).
So the best explanations of the form and content of specific personal memories may often refer not simply to the past episode itself, but to multiple causes which span internal and external factors. Cognitive scientists cannot legitimately ignore the transmission and transformation of external representations: conversely, some explanations in the social sciences of memory will refer to appropriately flexible internal processes of schematization or reconstruction.
http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch06_memory/how_are_memories_stored.html (http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch06_memory/how_are_memories_stored.html)
How are Memories Stored?
We have seen that formation of one type of memory-episodic memory-involves a specific part of the brain: the hippocampus. However, other areas of the brain are involved in other forms of memory. "Memory is modular," says neuroscientist Patricia Goldman-Rakic (Service, 1993). For example, Wilson, Scalaidhe, and Goldman-Rakic (1993) found that one set of neurons was active when monkeys remembered the identity of a stimulus; another was active when the monkeys remembered the location of a stimulus. These findings converge with other data suggesting two distinct visual circuits in the brain, one for object recognition, another for object localization (see the discussion of blindsight in chapter 4). In this case memory is involved rather than perception.
Probably each part or module of the brain remembers its own role in each distinct type of brain activity. If so, each part of the brain involved in an experience should show activity during memory of that experience later. Dingledine (1995) notes that "long-lasting changes in synaptic strength are not limited to the hippocampus but are encountered in nearly every layered structure one examines from the cerebellum to olfactory and neocortices, in keeping with the expectation that memory storage areas are distributed throughout the brain."
Brennan, Kaba, and Keverne (1990) showed that a rat's memory for sexual attractant odor was stored at the first synapse after the odor receptor. In other words, the memory was stored in the same neurons that responded to the odor. Again, memory is in the structures that participate in representing the event in the first place.
If memory is a construction, then it makes sense that memories would be stored in the same neurons that originally constructed an experience, because they are the neurons that might be called upon later to help remember it. This is like the old principle of efficient workplace organization: store at the point of first use. In other words, store something at the location where you expect to need it later. In the case of memory representation, the unique brain region involved in the experience would be the first place to look for storage of that memory. The big exception, as earlier noted, is event memory of humans, because the whole person (so to speak) participates in each episode of life. Such memories apparently require processing in the region of the hippocampus, drawing information from widespread parts of the brain and knitting it together.
QuoteI am denying the idea that no one has any idea how a physical system might store our memories.
Of course, sure! It is still possible that it can work as a storage and people can come up with ideas but they remain just that...ideas with no CONCRETE empirical evidence to back them up. Just as I'm holding Sheldrake's anti-trace theory as just a theory too (but that which can't be dismissed). I actually have written a thorough article on all of this before but the above post was only a brief summary which cuts out the gobbledygook. I did touch upon the synapses in that article but it is also referred to as an idea for how it might be stored in the brain.
Sure scientists observe certain activities taking place in the brain when they experiment with memory. They even stimulate certain areas of the brain which can bring about certain vivid memories. But using the TV analogy as a possible scenario that can't be dismissed, you can fiddle with what goes on internally and bring about distortions or even the emergence of a channel - but the content (the programs it shows) are a product of a non-local signal. The experiment I cited was not intended to completely rule out the trace memory theory but it reminds people that no traces of memories have been found in the brain when some people seem to hold this as the absolute truth.
QuoteSo the best explanations of the form and content of specific personal memories may often refer not simply to the past episode itself, but to multiple causes which span internal and external factors.
When people hold something as the absolute truth and reject everything else, they are merely showing themselves to be supporters of a creed (especially when that creed is the most convenient one and less likely to be ridiculed).
For example, although this is a great article and I loved it, they can't concretely say that memories are stored in the brain:
http://www.effectivepersonaldevelopmentblog.com/self-help-personal-development-growth-self-mastery/self-awareness-aware-of/your-brain-stores-memories-and-recalls-with-the-same-neurons/
QuoteI am not making an argument for the physicality of memories and mind
My friend, neither am I. If you knew me you'd know that I am not exactly a supporter of dualism. I'm the first person to point out my SUSPICIONS that the metaphysical is part of the
physical in nature in that it is existent on a frequency beyond the ultrasonic and remains currently undetected by science (there are no spiritual connotations in this idea/explanation whatsoever).
I will say this though...PERSONAL experience with OOBEs has led me to strongly suspect that it is not just all in the brain (and not just where memories are concerned) - particularly where 'visits' and to other individuals and 'mind stuff' is concerned. I have been carrying out an OOBE study for some time now and I must say that the
confirmations or the "hits" happen way more than the "misses" - and while the sceptic may argue against the "confirmation" label (which is fair: after all coincidences happen), the "misses" are also brought into question for their authenticity for various reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I am not holding Sheldrake's theory as the only explanation or stating that the trace theory can't be right, but I will say that just because scientists have ideas as to how something might work in a certain way and thus keeps a theory alive doesn't mean that we will continue looking only for something (that might not be there) and reject other seemingly far-fetched ideas. there is also something that many people tend to forget: just as the body can influence the mind, so can the mind influence the body. If memories are stored in the brain, then surely there must be a mechanism for retrieving these memories. This retriever of memories would have to have a memory of its own, and this memory would need retrievers of its own which would in turn need memories themselves ad infinitum...
You don't need to be affected by the environment to be reminded of something. You can close your eyes, in meditation for example, and choose what you will think about or what memories you will focus on. Sure, the self could still be deliberately but unconsciously rewiring the synapses in the nervous system for this "choosing" to take place. But it is still possible that the brain tunes into certain information from M fields and the activity observed in electroencephalography could be nothing but a symptom of this.
There are ideas and these ideas may work and may be reality but the truth remains elusive for now. We don't know yet.
Quote from: Summerlander on February 22, 2011, 08:06:32
We may hold on to memories even after we have left the physical body because they were never there in the first place.
how would one
tune into those memories according to you, without the brain? im not asking to challenge i am just curious
Quote from: Summerlander on February 22, 2011, 08:06:32
I have often found that I had different memories in dreams and woke up to realise that those things in the "past" never happened and were completely irrelevant to waking life. Sometimes in dreams I even forgot about waking life and suddenly remembered it during the dream and became lucid.
Here's a thought/theory...
Memories don't happen specifically in the brain as there is no trace of them there whatsoever. The brain could serve as a tuning device for fields of energy which permeate everything and where memories may be accessed. We, the mind, may use the brain to tune into and experience this world and during altered states of consciousness we may acquire different perspectives. Like when you play a computer racing game and you can view your vehicle or the track from different angles. Some angles have advantages and disadvantages.
You might be wondering now...what about brain damage causing memory loss? Well, a damaged TV set will affect the reception of information or external signals. Without this, the programs and films on the various channels will be distorted or simply not be there. We are merely the life force and we can be sentient if we choose to. We may hold on to memories even after we have left the physical body because they were never there in the first place. But the ultimate nature of mind as described in the Tibetan Book of the Dead is a radiant emptiness. We all have this intrinsic awareness. It is the pristine cognition we may acquire at any time just like the various modalities we acquire in waking life or in dream states. This pure emptiness devoid of all knowledge (but not thought!) is how babies come into the world...slowly they enrich their experience.
Here's a couple of links. You heard of Sheldrake and his theory on the M fields?
http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance
Karl Spencer Lashley is the one who presents us with the strongest evidence AGAINST the trace theory of memory with his experiments. He thought that if traces are existent in the brain, then it should be possible to locate them. Well, duh!!! He experimented on rats by cutting out portions of their brains in order to identify the bits of memory that disappeared. After many years he ended up completely frustrated in his research. He found that memory loss only occurred when large portions of the brain were removed (my thinking is that this would affect any tuning system!). Importantly, loss of memory was proportional to the amount of nervous tissue removed, rather than its location. Lashley called this the law of mass action: the idea was that it was the mass of tissue removed that was important, not the specific bits.
The experiment was repeated with octopuses, and the same results were obtained: again, loss of memory was proportional to the mass removed, rather than the particular portion of the brain taken.
Clearly, all attempts to find localised traces within the brain have failed. This, of course, has posed great difficulties for the trace theory of memory, which had earlier seemed straightforward. It is, in fact, the main reason why the holographic theory of memory was developed where memory traces would be spread all over the brain in such a way that cutting out parts of it would not make much difference since all memories are localised everywhere. The theory is, however, obscure because a hologram works on the principle of light waves and interference patterns stored on photographic film. There is nothing of the sort to be found in the brain.
So far, everything seems to prompt us towards the notion that the brain, which plays a vital role in running our bodily functions, is not a memory storage device at all, but rather, a tuning system that enables memories to be picked up and this would certainly explain why no memory traces can be found in the brain (you may also ask yourself the question: who is using the tuning device to receive information?). So where are the memories? A metaphysical realm which we can tune into, perhaps? Some people have suggested that not only is it possible to access our own memories but also the memories of others (indeed the "morphic resonance" theory would entail this). We may even acquire memory from the future (precognition).
Carl Jung, who studied dreams for most of his life, posited that there is a personal as well as a collective unconscious. I think he might have been right. Perhaps on one level we are all one mind. Perhaps we are already all-knowing on some level but since we became human beings our infinite perspective has been narrowed down to a finite one. This would explain why some psychedelics can make you feel like you already know something about existence and yet, once the "high" is over, the mind can revert to not-knowing again. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we choose our experience...
I hope this provided more food for thought! :-)
Thank you for these well written couple of posts!
It's always good to see people in the AP community approaching these things from a scientific, tentative viewpoint.
Finding that solid M-field link is the tricky part. :-P
Quote from: Gabe911 on February 22, 2011, 14:19:38
how would one tune into those memories according to you, without the brain? im not asking to challenge i am just curious
How do you see in dreams and OOBEs without using your physical eyes?
@ Gox777:
Yes, proving the M fields theory is tricky but scientists should consider this possibility and look for it never the less. Just like scientists should equally dig out empirical evidence that supports the trace theory. Perhaps a lot of the answers that we look for about the brain will be found in quantum mechanics. They are yet to find the Higgs boson - the particle that gives others their mass.
Think we also need to consider that Bohmian mechanics may also be right though... people are too quick to just accept that quantum events are random or probability-based; they well be deterministic.
^^I agree. Assumptions shouldn't be made. All options should be considered. On that note, there are so many quantum mechanics interpretations out there...it's turned into a zoo! :roll: