Memories

[Guest michael746]

This may be a completely absurd idea, so i apologise in advance but i heard somewhere that every conscious moment is stored as a memory in your mind somewhere. That if you just tapped into the right place through hynosis or whatever, that you could recall something 10 or 20 years ago that wasnt even particularly striking at the time.

 

For example i read an article in a credible science magazine that special advanced hynotists could get crime witnesses to remember what they say years previous even if they didnt think they took in any detail of the event.

 

In other words, that everything you've ever seen/been conscious of is stored somewhere in your mind?

 

Firstly is this true?

And if so, is it hypothetically possible to transfer these to visuals or audio using a super computer?

 

Sounds like a bizarre idea but then they once thought the idea of the world being round was bizarre!

[Guest michael746]

and i apologise dramatically as i have posted in the wrong forum... sorry but i'm new here

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Can a mod move this?

Anyway... It is not possible using current technology to transfer these to a computer. We cannot interpret these until a study is done where someone remembers something (while his/her mind is monitored) and descibes it vividly. The EEGs can be used to try and interpret that, along with their description. But then, to access the memory, the person has to be able to remember it, so the computer can read it.

Not every moment is stored, only "ques", or single images and things that let you visualise what happened. That is how you can have someone describe something about when you were 1 (which you don't remember) and if they keep describing it it seems that you remember it. It is only the "que" of their description.

However, through hypnosis, it is possible to remember things much more clearly that you "forgot". You do not forget, you just do not remember where it is in your brain. You "lost" it. So a hypnotist can make you remember your wife's anniversary!

Oh, about the earth being flat... http://www.flat-earth.org

[blike]

I moved it to the right place, no worries man

 

As far as your first question, I believe Glider would be most appropriate to answer. Obviously, we do not have the technology to do "brain scans", but some feel the technology is not in the too-distant future. All aspects of our person (memories, personality, etc) are physically stored in the brain. If we had the technology to read this storage, then sure, it could be possible. Ray Kurzweil raises some interesting questions regarding brain transferring in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" (see: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/memelist.html?m=15).

[Kevin Conti]

To a very large degree our brains are evolutionary equipped to analyze everything in our environment that presented before us (colours, people, noises etc) and subsequent to that there is a form of higher order analysis, where only the relevant information getting into consciousness. If you search for theories of attention you will see several views relating to this process, some processing different methods of course. The way in which we can prove (to an extent) some of these mechanisms is through experiments such as the cocktail and through monitoring brain regions when more than one sensory input are presented to individuals

 

Nevertheless, the evolutionary significance of such a system is very important. We are subconsciously always evaluating our surrounding searching for the slightest sight of danger, and if that danger comes then our limbic system is preprogrammed to take over immediately (e.g. loud explosion results in fight or flight response).

 

But the question is do we neurologically store all the information we take in? I think no, but what I will say is that studies of memory tell us that sometimes information is in memory but the inaccessible is due deficient retrieval. I am relatively sure that there is a memory theory called the "decay" one and that proposes that after a while information we possess disintegrates unless rehearsed. In addition, studies of STM show that it only has a very short life span.

 

You said that hypnosis could be used as a tool to test such a theory; I would have to disagree as it is prone to encourage individual’s false accounts in cases of uncertainty.

 

Kev

[iglak]

Kevin Conti said in post # :

But the question is do we neurologically store all the information we take in? I think no, but what I will say is that studies of memory tell us that sometimes information is in memory but the inaccessible is due deficient retrieval.

i would think we do store all of the information we take in (in a compact form). not only do we take in this informaiton subconsciously, but the more "experience" we have, the more we are able to subconsciously evaluate this information accurately. this is, IMO, what most of the recorded ESP is. our subconscious brains can recognize patterns very well and can use those patterns to predict things quite accurately.

[Skye]

Show me the money!

[BrainMan]

It depends, fisrt of all, on what is meant by "stored". If you mean an accurate and detailed memory of a past event, then most definitiely not. If you mean that past events do not erase themselves- such that a life where the event happened and one where it didn't would be identical, with no way to distinguish between them- then perhaps.

 

The hypnosis stuff is bunk. Dont buy it.

[Radical Edward]

wouldn't this coincide with a recording mechanism that started every time we had an attention response in the brain. Interestingly this attention response is also seen in flies. I have a fascinating article in the New Scientist about this.

[Kevin Conti]

To furher add on what i've said, recent study on my part has revealed what you are talking about is known as the "tape recorder theory" of memory The evidence for it, specifically concerning the question of whether or not individuals store every memory and past happening is non existent. Essentially, what i've said is backed up, attention is very selective and memory information decays over time. This can be due to pro or re-active interference, i.e when old and new memories affect current ones, or it can be down to metabolic processes affecting memory processes eventually leading to their disintegration (animal study support for this).

 

Furthermore, without going into detail memory retrieval is very much due to cognitive reconstructions, and due to that, memories can be an inaccurate reflection of what really happened. Consider, leading questions in hypnosis in in courts. What effect do they have on cognitive reconstructions? confabulations are likely...

 

This also applies to the strongest form of memories, flashbuild ones.

[BrainMan]

The idea that a memory "decays", to me, sounds like it implies that an event was accurately recorded (represented) in the first place, and degrades over time. But if memories are bits and pieces in the first place, and are reconstructed later, then how are you trying to support the notion of decaying memory?

 

Does that question make sense? And I just off base here?

[Kevin Conti]

Once again, this is not my own theory, it is central to the whole of psychological knowledge on the memory process. If something decays it does not necessary imply that the information is accurate. Rather, the traces of the reconstruction of a specific memory just deteriorate meaning that it cannot be retrieved accurately or inaccurately at a later date.

[BrainMan]

But how are you distinguishing between the reconstruction becoming less acurate over time (due to, say, false information), and the memory actually decaying? Or are you jus identifying the two? Are you basically saying that if a memory is not stored perfectly acurately, then ipso facto the decay theory is true?