Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA09836 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:36:00 GMT Message-ID: <00cc01c1b906$b44a6000$d486b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <200202180005.g1I05Pg04866@mail9.bigmailbox.com> <email@example.com> Subject: Re: ality Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:31:36 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> At 11:50 PM 17/02/02 -0800, "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Memory is when something is *mentally* present without being materially
> I have stayed out of this thread but this is just *silly.* The method by
> which sea slugs form memory is well understood. This has been elaborated
> by William Calvin and many others to the point we have a fairly good idea
> of how memory is created and accessed.
What Calvin has demonstrated (taking your word for it) is not how memories
are created or accessed but simply what the brain is doing when memories are
created or accessed. Your assertion is correct only if memory turns out to
be a feature of the brain. But we don't know that. It's only assumed. To
prove it we would have to find memories in the brain just as we find data in
computer banks. I know it's a tall order, but sometimes life isn't fair.
Science ain't religion. It's not easy. You don't just "know." You have to
prove it. Neuroscientists have no idea what a memory looks like and
wouldn't know they'd found it if they were staring it in the face. No one
is suggesting a hypothesis of what memories look like which could then be
tested. So there's no theory of memory, just a culturally ingrained
assumption. Perhaps the assumption will turn out to be correct. In the
meantime, we're free to speculate as to alternative answers in case the
belief turns out to be flase. Science makes its greatest strides when years
of ideological gridlock give way suddenly to surprising new approaches.
> Not one of the researchers in this
> area have ever proposed a non-physical basis for memory any more than
> they would propose a non-physical basis for magnetic storage.
Neuroscience is the cult of the brain.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 19 2002 - 06:01:04 GMT