RE: New Scientist on memory

From: Lawrence DeBivort (
Date: Fri 30 May 2003 - 18:12:26 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: New Scientist on memory"

    Recalled from what?


    > 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 30 May 2003 - 18:15:31 GMT