16 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyIn a perfect world, I guess. And I agree with the comment about how recalling math formulas does strengthen the ability to recall them again. I guess that the type of memory makes a difference, because it is well known how flaky memory in general can get. Witness recall, for example. Or the size of that fish you caught.
"re-consolidating and strengthening " a memory doesn't equate with "changing" a memory. Recalling a memory of, say, an equation,faster and with less mental strain doesn't mean the equation you recollect is made to be different.
16 Jun 17
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistRubbish! I remember perfectly well how massive the fish was that I caught; it was a million times bigger than my fishing boat I easily managed to fit it in inside with missives and missives of room to spare.
it is well known how flaky memory in general can get. Witness recall, for example. Or the size of that fish you caught.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyThat's the spirit! Although, it took at least four pages to describe the size of that fish? Impressive.
Rubbish! I remember perfectly well how massive the fish was that I caught; it was a million times bigger than my fishing boat I easily managed to fit it in inside with missives and missives of room to spare.
19 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyMemories aren't trustworthy. Fake news exists in your head. It would be really cool if we could understand how it works, why it works etc. According to some, the memory consolidation mechanisms are partly to blame. For instance, a "good" therapist can lead you to convince yourself that something happened to you in your past that, in fact, did not happen. The consolidation part of your brain is trying to improve the memory recall in that area. It doesn't exist, but repetitive recall can create that "memory" in your brain.
Rubbish! I remember perfectly well how massive the fish was that I caught; it was a million times bigger than my fishing boat I easily managed to fit it in inside with missives and missives of room to spare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
20 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhitehead...the cells involved in reproduction are nowhere near the brain.
Almost certainly absolute nonsense given that the cells involved in reproduction are nowhere near the brain. You would need to have a mechanism where 'intelligence' is somehow passed on the the foetus via the placenta. Now there is a very small chance that thought stimulated mice produce more of certain hormones that stimulate brain cell development and t ...[text shortened]... ggest that this has anything whatsoever to do with memories being stored is definitely nonsense.
That's probably true for most of us.
30 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps not actual DNA, which being double helix would be more resistant to chemical manipulation or change, but maybe a type of short chain t-RNA might work better for this.
No.
There is a lot more to DNA than the order of the base pairs. It is changes to the higher order structure that they are discussing which affects the expression of genes and other processes.
From a memory retention point of view, we really want to know whether these changes are analog or digital and whether they are simply feeding into other mechanism ...[text shortened]... ed for memory retention) or are they the actual site of permanent change that stores the memory.
30 Jun 17
Originally posted by SuzianneThe order of the base pairs in DNA are highly conserved and we have many mechanisms designed to maintain that order. But the larger structure does undergo major changes and many molecules get attached to the DNA controlling how and when genes are transcribed into proteins, when replication takes place, repair work and more. The exact changes differ in different types of cells (which is what makes the cells behave differently) and also in different environments. So it is unsurprising if this mechanism plays a role in memory retention.
Perhaps not actual DNA, which being double helix would be more resistant to chemical manipulation or change, but maybe a type of short chain t-RNA might work better for this.
But, from the point of view of studying how the brain works logically, all one would need to know is that a given cell stores a given state. It is irrelevant how it does it. So there are two sides to studying the brain, there is the logical mechanisms and the physical mechanisms. Both are worth studying.