From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue 03 Jun 2003 - 18:38:52 GMT
> From: joedees@bellsouth.net
>
> > > From: joedees@bellsouth.net
> > > >
> > > > The brain does not contain records of memories but mere "traces"
> > > > that point us to them. A trace can be wiped clean at the moment
> > > > we remember it because, now that we recall it, we don't need the
> > > > trace anymore. But we'll need it the next time we want to recall
> > > > it. So the trace is re-fixed. But if the fix isn't carried out,
> > > > there's nothing left, no "dynamized" or "fluidified" or "unmoored"
> > > > relic. Simply nothing.
> > > >
> > > No, a memory that has been accessed is still in the brain, it is
> > > just in
> > the
> > > realm of attention rather than being stored. If it is not
> > > chemically blocked from doing so, the very act of reaccessing it
> > > causes the axons, dendrites and synapses, through the
> > > electrical-stimulation-induced production of the MAP-2 protein, to
> > > strengthen their myelin sheaths, increasing the fixation of the
> > > memory pattern and therefor reinforcing the memory.
> >
> > Rather than answer my point directly, you seem to be rehearsing your
> > neurology jargon.
> >
> I know you have a problem with facts, but this is the electrochemical
> WAY IT WORKS.
I'm perfectly aware of the established facts of the matter. The question is
how to interpret them.
> It is how repetition of access more firmly fixes a
> memory in the brain.
Memory or mere pointer to memory? It appears to be the latter. If the
actual memory were in the brain, we wouldn't be able to reconsolidate it
after it's been rendered "fluid." Only after we've recollected the past
event itself can we re-establish the memory trace.
> > > > > Lawrence:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dace, '"reconstituted" from scratch' sounds like an unmitigated
> > > > > contradiction in terms to me. Can you explain how it isn't?
> > > >
> > > > Ted:
> > > > It is a contradiction, Lawry. You can't reconstitute something
> > > > from nothing, and there's nothing in the brain that could provide
> > > > the model for reconstituting a memory trace once the memory is
> > > > recalled. Therefore reconstitution of the memory trace proceeds
> > > > through active recollection of the past. Without true memory, a
> > > > trace would indeed have to be reconstituted from scratch-- an
> > > > impossibility.
> > > >
> > > Joe:
> > > Once again, Dace attempts to sneak his pet Sheldrakean 'morphic
> > > resonance' magickal mystical Einsteinian-spacetime-denying woo-woo
> > > in through yet another back door he mistakenly thinks he has
> > > discovered. But doors leading the serious and ungullible to such
> > > pseudoscientific and nonsensical absurdities just ain't there.
> >
> > Once again you reveal your tendency, when you can't refute a point, to
> > go for the jugular.
> >
> The point is not only refuted, but your memebotic agenda is once again
> starkly exposed; you have, and will, attempt to twist anything you
> encounter in a futile attempt to furnish any conceiveable shred of
> justification for your obsession with reifying your acolytic Sheldrakean
> fixations.
There you go again. Talk about obsession.
Ted
===============================================================
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 : Tue 03 Jun 2003 - 18:41:53 GMT