Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Where are memories stored in the brain ?


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

That is one of the most inane, ironic, hypocritical and ridiculous things you have ever said on here.

99.999999999999999999% of the data says that memories are created by and stored in the brain.

And you come in, with absolutely no actual data, to say that Deepak Chopra says it's not. And posting links about non-locality and refusing to explain what it has to do with anything. 

You are the one dismissing pretty much all of the data and science to contend otherwise.

Where is all if this scientific data and studies relating to people knowing things they couldn't have possibly known?

Where are the studies of NDEs that prove it was impossible for people to have been aware of their surroundings on some level?

Where are all the Nobel prizes for Deepak or any others from your side in regards to the brain and the functions it performs?

I'll give you a hint. The answer is none.

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/nobel.html

 

Remember all science can do at this time is observe physical activity that occurs. The resultant experience of consciousness and memory they cannot directly detect.

But anyway, in my mind the physical storage theory in the brain cannot be the final answer unless it can explain things such as:

1. How people can experience memory during Near Death Experiences when all higher level functioning of the brain is not occurring.

2. Documented cases of verifiable reincarnation memories. 

3. Mediumistic and telepathic communication from the long departed that shows their memories as their former selves.

Here are some well-documented cases of the above and more Beyond the Brain The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death

 

All I hear from the proponents of the materialist model of memory is weak emotional attacks against this body of data and collected cases. There is the strong desire to emotionally attack any data that doesn't fit their theory. It is more an emotional response I'm hearing and with the quality of the collected cases I would label it evidence denial.

I'll repeat my humorous yet serious quote: If you ignore all data that doesn't fit, the data fits nicely

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

1. How people can experience memory during Near Death Experiences when all higher level functioning of the brain is not occurring.

Prove that this is actually occurring.

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

2. Documented cases of verifiable reincarnation memories. 

Prove that this is actually occuring.

18 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

3. Mediumistic and telepathic communication from the long departed that shows their memories as their former selves.

Prove that this is actually occurring.

25 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Here are some well-documented cases of the above and more Beyond the Brain The Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death

That's what amounts to a 98 page blog post that contains hundreds of hours of YouTube videos.

You've posted it before and it's mostly unverifiable hearsay stories. They are nowhere near well documented. They are stories.

I asked for scientific studies.

The ones that show brain dead people and the resultant information they obtained.

This is the main problem.

You are claiming that these stories are true, but at the same time impossible to provide evidence for.

32 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

All I hear from the proponents of the materialist model of memory is weak emotional attacks against this body of data and collected cases.

And all I hear from people like you is that it's currently impossible to provide tangible evidence to back up your claims because it happens at a different frequency, on a seperate plane of existence and/or by non-physical means.

Which is gibberish.

It's a collection of stories. Hardly acceptable as "a body of data" on which to draw conclusions.

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There is the strong desire to emotionally attack any data that doesn't fit their theory. It is more an emotional response I'm hearing and with the quality of the collected cases I would label it evidence denial.

This is an absolute garbage strawman you and others use to try and justify people not agreeing with you.

It's not an emotional reaction. It completely proportional to the claims and evidence provided.

You've just as much admitted there's no definitive evidence one way or another.

The fact that you can't point out any one incident or study that supports your case is indicative of this.

So with nothing but unverifiable, unsubstantiated, unsupported stories there's no good reason to believe otherwise.

Once again you've failed to address the relationship between non-locality and memory. You are the one that brought it up. Remember?

You are a terrible interlocutor.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Prove that this is actually occurring.

Prove that this is actually occuring.

Prove that this is actually occurring.

That's what amounts to a 98 page blog post that contains hundreds of hours of YouTube videos.

You've posted it before and it's mostly unverifiable hearsay stories. They are nowhere near well documented. They are stories.

I asked for scientific studies.

The ones that show brain dead people and the resultant information they obtained.

This is the main problem.

You are claiming that these stories are true, but at the same time impossible to provide evidence for.

And all I hear from people like you is that it's currently impossible to provide tangible evidence to back up your claims because it happens at a different frequency, on a seperate plane of existence and/or by non-physical means.

Which is gibberish.

It's a collection of stories. Hardly acceptable as "a body of data" on which to draw conclusions.

This is an absolute garbage strawman you and others use to try and justify people not agreeing with you.

It's not an emotional reaction. It completely proportional to the claims and evidence provided.

You've just as much admitted there's no definitive evidence one way or another.

The fact that you can't point out any one incident or study that supports your case is indicative of this.

So with nothing but unverifiable, unsubstantiated, unsupported stories there's no good reason to believe otherwise.

Once again you've failed to address the relationship between non-locality and memory. You are the one that brought it up. Remember?

You are a terrible interlocutor.

 

We each have to go through the body of cases and fairly ask ourselves if all this fits in a materialistic model of consciousness and memory. My rational position is that that this body of cases cannot be explained by a materialist concept of consciousness and memory but is quite consistent with explanations given in other spiritual wisdom traditions. 

If you honestly feel the materialist model of consciousness best explains this body of cases, then hold to that model. Personally, I think this body of data/evidence/anecdotes/experiences/etcetera cannot be explained by a materialist model beyond reasonable doubt

You might once again say it doesn't matter what I believe but in the end that is all any of us has; our own position. I am not just interested in science but also in the question: all things considered what is most reasonable for me to believe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Guilty as charged.

You're right though

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

1. How people can experience memory during Near Death Experiences when all higher level functioning of the brain is not occurring.

They don’t experience memory during near death experience.  Upon awaking they have a memory of a supposed experience.  An experience I would hasten to add occurring during a period of abnormal chemical. sensory and traumatic conditions.  NDE is in no way an experience that supports this remote memory hypothesis.

 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

2. Documented cases of verifiable reincarnation memories.

If we were able to 100% verify past life memory it would change the world, shocker, it remains as unverified as this remote memory theory.  But again, that a person may be reincarnated and keep some memories wouldn’t necessarily be confirmation of remote memory storage, just that memory remains unique to an individual.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

3. Mediumistic and telepathic communication from the long departed that shows their memories as their former selves.

How does that prove the point?  Are you saying that mediums do not contact the dead, but instead tap into this memory storage realm?

 

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

All I hear from the proponents of the materialist model of memory is weak emotional attacks against this body of data and collected cases. There is the strong desire to emotionally attack any data that doesn't fit their theory. It is more an emotional response I'm hearing and with the quality of the collected cases I would label it evidence denial.

We deal with the things we can measure. What do you want serious academics to do with the stories you offer as evidence?  There is no emotion save for the exasperation that one might experience when faced with the expectation to uncover a hidden side of nature from a story that is unverifiable.

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I'll repeat my humorous yet serious quote: If you ignore all data that doesn't fit, the data fits nicely

It’s a nice quote, but I think we can all accept that our understanding of the universe and nature is incomplete.  Data needs to be verified as correct before attempting to make it fit.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

They don’t experience memory during near death experience.  Upon awaking they have a memory of a supposed experience.  An experience I would hasten to add occurring during a period of abnormal chemical. sensory and traumatic conditions.  NDE is in no way an experience that supports this remote memory hypothesis.

I guess we have a different position on what occurs during an NDE. I believe the astral/mental body separates from the physical body. In that state the experiencer has memory of who they are and who those around them are even though no higher physical brain functioning is occurring.

4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

If we were able to 100% verify past life memory it would change the world, shocker, it remains as unverified as this remote memory theory.  But again, that a person may be reincarnated and keep some memories wouldn’t necessarily be confirmation of remote memory storage, just that memory remains unique to an individual.

I feel some past life memories have been verified by researchers (such as Dr. Ian Stevenson) as well as can be expected. If memories only existed in the brain of the deceased person, then one would expect verifiable reincarnation memories to be impossible. Yet, they seem to occur. It is possible too to speculate on some other type of 'memory transfer'.

4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

How does that prove the point?  Are you saying that mediums do not contact the dead, but instead tap into this memory storage realm?

 No, what I was saying is that the discarnate that is communicating with the medium still has memories of people and events of his last life. This would not be possible if memory was only stored locally in the brain.

4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

We deal with the things we can measure. What do you want serious academics to do with the stories you offer as evidence?  There is no emotion save for the exasperation that one might experience when faced with the expectation to uncover a hidden side of nature from a story that is unverifiable.

The human reasoning ability can deal with more than things which can be measured. As for the academics I would ask that they consider explanatory models of other spiritual wisdom traditions and the full body of the human experience. 'Consider' implies neither blind acceptance nor blind dismissal. They can each form their positions as I have.

4 hours ago, Grey Area said:

It’s a nice quote, but I think we can all accept that our understanding of the universe and nature is incomplete.  Data needs to be verified as correct before attempting to make it fit.

Yes, part of 'consideration' would be trying to verify as best as possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.