From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Fri 30 May 2003 - 18:12:26 GMT
Recalled from what?
Lawry
> Though the author himself doesn't seem to realize it, the
> evidence discussed
> in this article abolishes the notion that the brain alone is
> responsible for
> memory. Every time we recall something, the relevant memory trace in the
> brain is completely erased and then "reconstituted" from scratch.
> If memory
> is nothing more than stored information in the brain, there would
> be no way
> of recreating the memory once it's been erased. The only explanation is
> that we literally recall the past (often making mistakes in the process)
> enabling us to reconstruct the memory after the neural trace has been
> destroyed. Memory must be taken at face value-- as a recollection of the
> past-- rather than simply the retrieval of information from
> cerebral vaults.
> We may regard neural traces as pointers to memories rather than
> the memories
> themselves.
>
> --TD
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 30 May 2003 - 18:15:31 GMT