Evidence of Memory Formation

[hoggworks]

There's an interesting article here on LiveScience about experimental evidence of memories being formed in the brain:

First Image of a Memory Being Made | LiveScience

I'm sure that if you really wanted to you could write it off being a correlative thing, and not causal, but the scientists have been able to track physical changes in the brain linked to formation of memory. It's fascinating stuff.


Also, it would seem a good answer to the question posed by many of you here, namely: "What evidence is there that memories are stored in the brain?"

The answer, of course, is science.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The scientists are making materialist assumptions and therefore reaching the wrong conclusion. Those proteins are the building blocks of the neuron-level transceivers that are formed when the brain needs to interact with a new external memory.

Cool stuff!

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

There's an interesting article here on LiveScience about experimental evidence of memories being formed in the brain...

There is nothing new here to add to the 'are memories stored in the brain' question. It's been known for decades that long term memory formation results in changes to the physiological behaviour of neurons, termed long term potentiation. The only difference here is in the scale of the physical changes observed. In fact, it was predicted that long term potentiation would be accompanied by changes to the physical structure of synapses.

But as always, the question of whether conscious memories are stored in the brain* boils down whether conscious experience can be explained by physical structure. And we all know how difficult a question that is. By simply pointing to additional correlations between observed changes in the physical structure of the brain and the formation of consious memories, the physicalist argument does not gain any more weight. The same philosophical problems remain regardless of how many correlations are observed.

*bear in mind that the article describes memory formation in a relatively primitive organism. We normally think of memories as being conscious but there are also lots of memories that refer to changes in behaviour that we assume to be below the level conscious awareness. The 'are memories stored in the brain' question is usually framed in the context of conscious experience. However, that's an issue for the physicalists to make explicit in their argument.

[Open Mind]

How did they measure that a sea slug is consciously recalling a memory?

Without reading their paper I am not sure what these scientists are claiming, is this correlated to an involuntary reflex, learned reflex or memory? Memory, as humans think of it memory means consciously recalled, a reflex doens't automatically produce consciousness.

Another question I would ask is just how 'long term' is the memory? Humans can recall events decades ago .... yet all molecules in the body (except DNA) replace in days/weeks... how long is the potentiation? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

There is nothing new here to add to the 'are memories stored in the brain' question. It's been known for decades that long term memory formation results in changes to the physiological behaviour of neurons, termed long term potentiation. The only difference here is in the scale of the physical changes observed. In fact, it was predicted that long term potentiation would be accompanied by changes to the physical structure of synapses.

And this is evidence that the prediction was correct.

But as always, the question of whether conscious memories are stored in the brain* boils down whether conscious experience can be explained by physical structure. And we all know how difficult a question that is. By simply pointing to additional correlations between observed changes in the physical structure of the brain and the formation of consious memories, the physicalist argument does not gain any more weight. The same philosophical problems remain regardless of how many correlations are observed.

And since all science can ever do is discover correlations, there is not need for anyone to worry that their immaterial viewpoint will be challenged. However, the more we discover correlations, the less we need an immaterial viewpoint.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

How did they measure that a sea slug is consciously recalling a memory?

No one said anything about conscious recall. It's just about memory storage.

Another question I would ask is just how 'long term' is the memory? Humans can recall events decades ago .... yet all molecules in the body (except DNA) replace in days/weeks...

But the new molecules serve the same functions as the old, so structure, damage, and information are preserved. Interesting article:

FuturePundit: Average Age Of Cells In Body May Be Below 10 Years

~~ Paul

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Without reading their paper I am not sure what these scientists are claiming, is this correlated to an involuntary reflex, learned reflex or memory? Memory, as humans think of it memory means consciously recalled, a reflex doens't automatically produce consciousness.

Why don't you read the article instead of asking us about it? It's not a terribly long article, and you'll sound like you're actually interested in having a discussion, rather than trying to offer cracks in the research.

Another question I would ask is just how 'long term' is the memory? Humans can recall events decades ago .... yet all molecules in the body (except DNA) replace in days/weeks... how long is the potentiation? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?

Paul makes the very excellent and obvious point about cells; my brain is, in a direct, physical sense, not the one I was born with; every cell in my brain has been replaced. Since it's been replaced correctly, cell at a time, however, I'm still "me." Or even if I'm not still me, if I only think I am, I have access to "my" memories.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

There is nothing new here to add to the 'are memories stored in the brain' question. It's been known for decades that long term memory formation results in changes to the physiological behaviour of neurons, termed long term potentiation. The only difference here is in the scale of the physical changes observed. In fact, it was predicted that long term potentiation would be accompanied by changes to the physical structure of synapses.

Well, then, that makes me wonder why so many folks here so loudly (and proudly) proclaim that there's no evidence at all that memories are physically stored in the brain.

But as always, the question of whether conscious memories are stored in the brain* boils down whether conscious experience can be explained by physical structure.

How do you figure? Couldn't you imagine a consciousness that simply refers to memories written down somewhere? My computer runs its OS in active memory, and the hard drive can store information for said OS to run later on, even though the hard drive itself isn't capable of "being" the OS.

(Not that I'm suggesting that what we call "conscious experience" can't be explained by physical structure, of course)

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

We normally think of memories as being conscious

When you say this, do you mean that the memories themselves are conscious, or that they're memories of events experienced through our conscious?

Also, you seem to be suggesting that "we" (whoever that is) don't tend to think of instincts and "subconscious" stuff being recorded in the brain. Who doesn't think this? Where else would such things be stored?

[FastEddieB]

We normally think of memories as being conscious...

I wouldn't say that about stored memories.

For instance, and oldie station may play a song I instantly recognize from a long time ago. But I'm aware that had that song not played, I would likely NEVER have had it intrude on my consciousness. Ever.

So, in that respect memories can be subconscious - right? In fact, I imagine at any given moment most are.