Re: ality

From: Dace (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 04:31:22 GMT

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Scientology 2/2"

    Received: by id EAA08698 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:36:05 GMT
    Message-ID: <004b01c1b2b4$f69e2020$8086b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3C66A16C.22336.E3705A@localhost>
    Subject: Re: ality
    Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 20:31:22 -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
    Precedence: bulk


    > On 5 Feb 2002, at 13:43, Dace wrote:
    > > The mind simply relies on different neurons to facilitate the
    > > recollection. If memories are indeed encoded in the brain, then once
    > > the relevant neural tissue is destroyed, they're not going to suddenly
    > > pop up in a different set of neurons.
    > It's possible because the brain might 'double-save' memory. So
    > there are two different places where the same gets stored and if in
    > one place something gets lost it can be rebuilt from the other
    > 'backup'.

    This is getting very complicated. Far simpler if memories aren't stored
    anywhere but emerge from the act of recollection. Instead of attributing an
    artificial memory system to the brain, we should be searching for the basis
    of natural memory, that is, the recall of what was once present.


    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 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 04:54:59 GMT