Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA12124 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 19 Feb 2002 21:36:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [126.96.36.199] 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 <email@example.com> To: Jom-emit <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-ID: <B8986660.15Demail@example.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2002 21:30:21.0816 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2A1D780:01C1B98C] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:24:05 -0500
From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ality
>From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: ality
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:21:29 -0800
> > "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> Re: alityDate: Tue, 12
>Feb 2002 19:05:21 -0800
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> >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