Re: ality

From: Steve Drew (
Date: Tue Feb 19 2002 - 21:28:17 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "Fwd: Pentagon Readies Efforts to Sway Sentiment Abroad"

    Received: by id VAA12124 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:36:02 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
    Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:28:17 +0000
    Subject: Re: ality
    From: Steve Drew <>
    To: Jom-emit <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2002 21:30:21.0816 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2A1D780:01C1B98C]
    Precedence: bulk

    >Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:24:05 -0500
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: ality

    >From: "Joe Dees" <>
    >Subject: Re: ality
    >Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:21:29 -0800
    > > "Dace" <> <> Re: alityDate: Tue, 12
    >Feb 2002 19:05:21 -0800
    > >Reply-To:
    > >
    > >Grant,
    > >
    > >> >This is getting very complicated. Far simpler if memories aren't
    > >> >anywhere but emerge from the act of recollection. Instead of
    > >> >an artificial memory system to the brain, we should be searching for
    > >> >basis of natural memory, that is, the recall of what was once present.
    > >>
    > >> Recall it from where?
    > >
    > >You mean, from when.
    > >
    > >Memory concerns time, not space. Otherwise it's not really memory but
    > >merely the storage and retrieval of information. In our memetically
    > >ingrained, mechanistic worldview, true memory is a thing of the past.
    > >Artificial memory is just that-- artifice.
    > >
    >By your definition, memory does not exist, for that which is known as
    >memory is precisely the retrieval of presently existing cortically stored
    >information concerning a past experience. The rest of us call that memory.
    > Your definition of memory represents a referent that is not a thing of
    >the past, precisely because it not only is not, it never was.
    Not tht I've had my nose in the literature enough lately to give it a fair
    whirl (use it or lose it), but one is tempted to wonder wheter Ted has been
    reading any stuff on the molecular research of memory. Sounds quite
    "material" and "mechanical" to me. The stuff I read a while back on long
    term potentiation research looked at stuff like the NMDA receptor and
    calmodulin kinases. There's probably lots more putative components involved
    in the molecular basis of memory, but these are a good start. There's also
    been some work with transgenic rodents (knockouts and all that stuff). Maybe
    researchers should be toying with psychic pets instead.<

    Hi Scott and Joe.

    I'm probably going to regret asking this, because i may not understand the
    answer! Only one way to find out.

    If i understand this memory recording thing, it is essentially down to
    chemical storage patterns in the brain, and their arrangement that forms the
    basis of memory, and that as these patterns degrade or are damaged our
    recall becomes worse. So far so good i hope. I was reading some newspaper
    article over the past few days that suggest that some drugs can restore
    memory loss. my point is that once the information has been lost how can it
    be restored if the *memory patterns* are (i think you have said) unique?

    What am i missing here?



    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 - 22:37:56 GMT