From: Lawrence DeBivort (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 31 May 2003 - 20:25:58 GMT
Dace, '"reconstituted" from scratch' sounds like an unmitigated
contradiction in terms to me. Can you explain how it isn't?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf
> Of Dace
> Sent: Sat, May 31, 2003 3:58 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: New Scientist on memory
> > From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Recalled from what?
> >From the past. Memory is the recall of events from the past.
> This is the
> common sense view, and it's rapidly becoming the only viable
> scientific view
> as well.
> > > 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 31 May 2003 - 20:28:33 GMT