In paper
Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)
the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
The term “junk DNA”, itself has been junked a while ago, when it was discovered that a portion of this DNA acts like a kind of OS that switches encoding sections on and off. It is a mistake I believe to look at DNA as a static repository of hereditary information alone. It is this of course, but it turns out to be more complex, dynamic and layered than the simple static model. A lot of the so called “junk DNA” (but not all of it by any means) seems to be involved in this dynamic process. Especially, during the process of embryogenesis, DNA expression is undergoing dynamic highly sequenced and seemingly (somehow) choreographed changes (through methylation and other means).
Other parts of this junk DNA, seem to be parasitical in nature; e.g. the selfish DNA hypothesis, and this also seems very likely – IMO. If such DNA “parasite entities” exist, perhaps using viruses as vehicles during their “life-cycle” in order to ride with them on into a hosts DNA and insert themselves into a new happy home, passing copies down for as long as the lineage continues. Perhaps a parasite is “junk” for the host, but from the parasites perspective I am sure the view is different… so even here in this case is it really junk.
-Chris
Kim
On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In paper
Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)
the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
That seems backwards for Bruno's idea. If memories are outside the brain then they should survive destruction of the brain.
But as I understand Bruno's idea one's "soul" survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2014 7:46 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal
On 26 Dec 2014, at 1:43 pm, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:On 12/25/2014 1:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In paper
Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm)
the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that Bruno should like it.
That seems backwards for Bruno's idea. If memories are outside the brain then they should survive destruction of the brain. But as I understand Bruno's idea one's "soul" survives destruction of the brain as in reincarnation, but memories don't.
Brent
Don't forget this is about long-term memory. How long is long-term? I would say beyond the life of the individual. Seen like that, there has to be some kind of library or lookup table which in no way correlates to anything to do with human brain size, the authors conclude. Certain of these very-long-term memories do get encoded somehow to survive destruction of the brain, as in Jung's 'racial memory' or "collective unconscious' - the original engrams or patterns of recognition (archetypes) some of them terrifyingly inexplicable and probably arising in dreams and recorded as revelations. Folklore is the racial memory of homo sapiens. We still churn it out. What we cannot remember exactly we plaster over with something else anyway, because HS are natural-born story tellers who cannot pass up a good story. If the shoe fits, we tend to wear it. It's literally in our DNA these authors conclude. This suggests to me that the notion of "Junk DNA" is perhaps itself junk as the very purpose of DNA is to record ie encode experience at something for the purpose of passing it on. DNA cannot fail at that purpose. Whenever scientists declare something "Junk" or "Dark" this just means "we are clueless over this" so it's time to find the macro-molecular link that allows this almost-Lamarckian effect of racial memory to come about.
The term “junk DNA”, itself has been junked a while ago, when it was discovered that a portion of this DNA acts like a kind of OS that switches encoding sections on and off. It is a mistake I believe to look at DNA as a static repository of hereditary information alone. It is this of course, but it turns out to be more complex, dynamic and layered than the simple static model. A lot of the so called “junk DNA” (but not all of it by any means) seems to be involved in this dynamic process. Especially, during the process of embryogenesis, DNA expression is undergoing dynamic highly sequenced and seemingly (somehow) choreographed changes (through methylation and other means).
Other parts of this junk DNA, seem to be parasitical in nature; e.g. the selfish DNA hypothesis, and this also seems very likely – IMO. If such DNA “parasite entities” exist, perhaps using viruses as vehicles during their “life-cycle” in order to ride with them on into a hosts DNA and insert themselves into a new happy home, passing copies down for as long as the lineage continues. Perhaps a parasite is “junk” for the host, but from the parasites perspective I am sure the view is different… so even here in this case is it really junk.
-Chris
Not sure who you are responding to. I was commenting on Kim’s use of the term “junk DNA” and how some of what had been thought of as being “junk” was later discovered to play a role in determining what DNA actually got encoded… and that some of these DNA regions also appear to be “parasitic” (e.g. the selfish gene hypothesis).
I could see some instinct-behavioral patterns being encoded in the DNA, but memories I do not see how this would occur. Recording a memory would have to have some measurable effect on the underlying substrate (e.g. the DNA) in which it was being recorded. I see no evidence of memory formation having any effect on an organisms DNA, and also do not see DNA as being even well suited for this… how would the mind communicate with a hypothetical memory recorded in DNA?
Now the glial cells are another matter. I have been reading interesting studies that indicate that at least some kinds of glial cells (thought by most researchers to play a secondary minor role and largely ignored in favor of focusing in on the much more active and visible electrically active neural sheet) may play a fundamental role in the formation and storage/retrieval of long term memories. I could see the far more numerous glial cells as forming some kind of chemical switch based repository for memory that is read and written to by the electrically active neurons (perhaps at an order of magnitude slower rates than neuron to neuron activity… which would fit the introspective perception of the relative slowness of the process of deep memory retrieval… recalling deep memories takes time)
-Chris
Brent
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.