From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:14:06 +0100 Archived: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:49:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Perceptions And Memories >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:39:32 -0400 >Subject: Re: Perceptions And Memories >>From: Ray Dickenson<r.dickenson.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:45:34 +0100 >>Subject: Perceptions And Memories <snip> >>Even Slight Stimuli Change The Information Flow In The Brain >>www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120323205339.htm >>Scientists Wrest Partial Control Of A Memory >>www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120322161251.htm <snip> >These two projects seem to be based on opposing premises. In the >first article, a thing is represented in the brain by patterns >of activity in networks of neurons, with the same neurons >involved in representing different things. In the second >article, a thing is represented by individual neurons that >contain the inserted gene. Presumably, different neurons >represent different things. <snip> Ha! Right William, suspect that piece, like so many science releases, was over-stated and over-simplified. One reason for thinking that was an interview I heard mid-day today, where the BBC lady (following up today's `Einstein's Brain' story), asked the brain expert "What remains for us to find out about the brain?". The expert took a deep breath (think he wanted to shout "Almost everything!") and then said in a controlled tone "Well, for instance we don't know what memory is or what a memory actually consists of" - or words to that effect. As it happens I've been doing some recall experiments lately (some recent work calls for bio-notes) and find that a memory of an event (or type of event) tends to arrive in a `bubble' encapsulating the central event plus a remarkable amount of detail, depending, apparently on the duration of the events. But it doesn't usually arrive intil a day or three after the request was submitted, and even then at inconvenient times - after midnight for instance. For the life of me I can't see how that richness of detail (and we can be talking about large panoramic landscapes replete with animal life, not solely pieces of foreground furniture) could be stored as physical shapes in the brain, no matter how small their components might be. Ie - an active nomadic person, blessed with photographic recall, would surely need a brain the size of a railway station. So am beginning to think that richness of detail might be `compressible' - as Stephen Wolfram has shown for so much complexity in nature - and therefore might be storable as a code which, on demand, can (eventually) reform the "memory" from say the quantum field that seems to be involved in many aspects of perception in the brain. I.e Duggins et al found that Bell's Inequality was violated in the case of "perceptual pairing of colour and motion oscillations" which seems to demand a non-local operation within or surrounding the brain: like a quantum field. See: http://www.isc.cnrs.fr/FPAR.htm#Duggins "Visual consciousness must then be considered non-local and inseparable: the microconsciousness does not exist." Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp