It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is memory recall evidence that suggests a spiritual reality?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:26 PM
You have several things working in favor of idealism and a spiritual reality and this is one of them. Let's look at the science behind memory recall.

The anterior cingulate cortex, globus pallidus, thalamus, and cerebellum show higher activation during recall than during recognition which suggests that these components of the cerebello-frontal pathway play a role in recall processes that they do not in recognition. Although recall and recognition are considered separate processes, it should be noted that they are both most likely constitute components of distributed networks of brain regions.[25]

According to neuroimaging data, PET studies on recall and recognition have consistently found increases in regional cerebral blood flow (RCBF) in the following six brain regions: (1) the prefrontal cortex, particularly on the right hemisphere; (2) the hippocampal and parahippocampal regions of the medial temporal lobe; (3) the anterior cingulate cortex; (4) the posterior midline area that includes posterior cingulate, retrosplenial (see retrosplenial region), precuneus, and cuneus regions; (5) the inferior parietal cortex, especially on the right hemisphere; and (6) the cerebellum, particularly on the left.[26][27]

The specific role of each of the six main regions in episodic retrieval is still unclear, but some ideas have been suggested. The right prefrontal cortex has been related to retrieval attempt;[26][27] the medial temporal lobes to conscious recollection;[28] the anterior cingulate to response selection;[29] the posterior midline region to imagery;[26][29][30][31] the inferior parietal to awareness of space;[32] and the cerebellum to self-initiated retrieval .[33]

This tells you what happens after memory recall is initiated. This gives you the mechanics of the machine but not the spirit on how the machine is used. For instance, I can show which parts of a DVD player are active when you play a DVD. The DVD player doesn't tell you why I picked Wedding Singers or Star Wars.

This is the same with recall of memories. It tells you what happens after memory recall is initiated and it tells you the mechanics of the machine but it doesn't give you the spirit on how the machine(brain) is used.

The machine doesn't tell you how the recall of a specific memory is initiated. The mechanics of the machine doesn't tell you why I wish to recall a specific memory from the Army or a specific memory from High School? How does the machine know which specific memory I wish to recall? How does the machine know the difference between specific memories?

So science can explain the mechanics of the machine(brain) but not the spirit or the subjective way the machine is used.

You tie this into psi experiments that show that intention can make random systems behave in a non random way and the evidence is mounting.
edit on 11-4-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

What I would like to know is how come the brain can remember things that physically never existed/happened. Not just dreams, but also premonition visions (and I know they exist - I had both).

How can people be in clinical brain death but still see events, images (a tunnel in some cases, a whole universe in some other cases).

The only answer could be that our mind can tap into other, parallel realities - something which the founder of Multiverse Theory, Hugh Evrett himself, seemed to support.

edit on 11-4-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:45 PM
A program can know which memory it has or which things it is related to by a part of the memory being info about it - can be directly or indirectly within it. Alternatively the position of the memory can tell things about it.

I would probably disagree on a lot of the science theory of brains, as on most science claims.
Not sure what you tried to explain exactly, but either way a self aware program could know a reason for why it has chosen an action by saving a state and choosing actions depending on it.
If an external user tells it something to do, it can guess or reverse engineer parts of the thoughts, like a human.

That wouldn't disprove the existence of what you meant, however.
I guess by spiritual reality you mean a shared thought world in this case.

In infinite room or space there just have to be constructs some time or someplace that are able to keep a feeling of being there. The brains current perception dividing you from any other feeling of others, even if you are them - at the same time.

I could scientifically prove that your thoughts are transfered to others, however by explaining that I would give another opening for unwise to harm us using that knowledge.
a) It's questionable if we can understand those thoughts or how much.
b) There might be yet another way to perceive anything of another body. Though then the question again if you will lose what you just went through, never knowing it in this brain.
- Perhaps you can partially feel the feeling of "all" at any time by a little. Perhaps completely by focusing on a specific place. After all I can focus on places outside my body as if in my body.

And I would also say the brain is larger than most might think. Nerves through your whole body might count to it - and the organs that hurt or feel good depending on the complications and feelings of those you think about and who knows what else expands it.
edit on 11-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:46 PM
Yes but I forget why.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by swanne

What I would like to know is how come the brain can remember things that physically never existed/happened. Not just dreams, but also premonition visions (and I know they exist - I had both).

The brain is just a piece of meat with electrical signals running though it...

Such memories come from something science knows little to nothing about... that being, what actually runs the body

Which of course is the spirit within... all of which is ONE... connected to all

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

As you can see the latest neuro- scientific theories on memory in the brain are still "unclear".
This is because they do not understand the brain and attribute it with functions of the mind.
The mind is not physical so they know little about it and most neuroscienctists ignore or confuse the mind with, as Akragon calls it the brain meat machine. As they know they do not know neuroscientists are still having another decade of the brain(they still cannot stop, fix or repair memory loss and it bothers them) this does not mean we should share their fixation on mortal body parts if it is that we wish to know God.
Mind 1)Manas( *registering and storing sensory impressions)
2)Buddhi(understanding,intelligence,correct views)
3)Ahamkara(self will,seperateness)

Spiritual reality, you are, I can say I am, that is my reality.
Socrates said "Know thyself" not know how memory in the meat machine works and mistake it for spirituality.
edit on 11-4-2014 by BDBinc because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by swanne

Good points.

The mind is non local and not bound by space-time like the material brain. The mind may even be a higher dimensional reality. A good book to read on this subject is The Extra-Dimensional Universe.

There's no reason why we can't recall the future the same way we recall the past. The main difference is you have a material brain that experienced the collection of nows you call the past. If you think about it, the past has no distinction from the future outside of your subjective experiences. This is why Einstein said the distinction between the past, present and future is a persistent illusion.

There's plenty written about sensing the future and and human intention causing random systems to behave randomly.

PROFESSOR Dick Bierman sits hunched over his computer in a darkened room. The gentle whirring of machinery can be heard faintly in the background. He smiles and presses a grubby-looking red button. In the next room, a patient slips slowly inside a hospital brain scanner. If it wasn’t for the strange smiles and grimaces that flicker across the woman’s face, you could be forgiven for thinking this was just a normal health check.

But this scanner is engaged in one of the most profound paranormal experiments of all time, one that may well prove whether or not it is possible to predict the future.

Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Cambridge University, says: ‘So far, the evidence seems compelling. What seems to be happening is that information is coming from the future.

‘In fact, it’s not clear in physics why you can’t see the future. In physics, you certainly cannot completely rule out this effect.’ Virtually all the great scientific formulae which explain how the world works allow information to flow backwards and forwards through time – they can work either way, regardless.

You have Daryl Bem. Pseudoskeptics seem to scream loudly about any failed Bem replication but you never hear about the successful replications.

There are, in fact - and this seems not to be widely known - quite a few positive replications of Bem's research. I was hoping you could bring these replications to light, so that public audiences interested in this matter will get all the facts regarding the issue of replicating Bem (2011), and recognize the bias in the view propagated by many pseudoskeptical journalists. If this information was more widely available, the "climate" surrounding the Bem controversy would, perhaps, be a bit different.

Here is a list of several positive Bem replications - these are not all extant conceptually similar "implicit precognition" experiments (which Dean Radin says are under meta-analytic review, presently), but only those studies that specifically replicate the experimental paradigms in Bem (2011):

Batthyany, A. (2010). Retrocausal Habituation and Induction of Boredom: A Successful Replication of Bem (2010; Studies 5 and 7). Social Science Research Network, Working Paper Series.


Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict online roulette spins. A talk presented at the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Washington D.C., U.S.A., October, 2011.


Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict random binary events in an applied setting. A talk presented at Towards a Science of Consciousness, Stockholm, Sweden, May, 2011. [more recently: Franklin, M., and Schooler, J. (2012). Using retrocausal practice effects to predict random binary events in an applied setting. Toward a Science of Consciousness, Tucson X].

Tressoldi, P. E., Masserdotti, F., & Marana C. (2012). Feeling the future: an exact replication of the Retroactive Facilitation of Recall II and Retroactive Priming experiments with Italian participants, Universita di Padova, Italy

Subbotsky, E. (2012). Sensing the future: The Non-standard observer effect on an ESP task. Lancaster University, UK

Bijl, A. & Bierman, D. (2013). Retroactive training of rational v.s. intuitive thinkers. Proceedings of the 56th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. (Link)

Parker, A., & Sjödén, B. (2010). Do some of us habituate to future emotional events? Journal of Parapsychology, 74, 99–115.


Savva, L., Child, R. & Smith, M. D. (2004). The Precognitive Habituation Effect: An Adaptation Using Spider Stimuli. The Parapsychological Association Convention 2004, pp. 223 – 229. (Link)

[Regarding Savva (2004): In 2003, Bem presented preliminary data for this paradigm that would later be subsumed in his now infamously controversial 2011 publication, under "Experiment 5". The latter citation above by Savva et al. was a replication of this.]

There are several important findings in some these studies (besides the fact that they are positive). Franklin and Schooler (especially the latter) are two distinguished, mainstream scientists; in their research, they demonstrate an ability to utilize the precognitive habituation effect in "real world" events. Subbotsky found evidence of a psi-mediated experimenter effect. In Parker (2010), only participants who showed a standard habituation effect showed psi-mediated precognitive habituation. The correlation between the two was highly significant.

The article from red orbit goes on to talk about 9-11 and premonitions. You have things like PEAR Labs but I also have a personal experience. I will never forget the dream I had before 9-11. I was on a plane that couldn't land. No matter what city we flew to, the plane couldn't land and I remember panicking in the dream because I couldn't understand why we couldn't land the plane. I was awakened and told to turn on the TV because a Plane just ran into one of the Towers.

This just didn't happen with me. There's others with similar stories.

It seems are higher dimensional minds have access to information from the past and future of our time lines, so our minds are aware of decisions we will make before we make them. So we have free will to make these decisions but the higher dimensional mind can get information from the future about which decisions we're going to make.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 06:50 PM
We cannot imagine what we have never seen or heard.
edit on 11-4-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 08:19 PM
Not only does memory recall support a spiritual reality but the act of thinking supports it as well.

Think of a pink giraffe, what is that you are looking at or seeing? Is it touchable and physical? If not then it must be of the spiritual realm.

The act of living is evidence in itself as well. There is something different about me compared to a rock. The rock only has a physical or material form, I on the other have consciousness which is immaterial AND a body which is material.

posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 09:38 PM
Blinding! ........ Yes ......... Almost

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Good point.

This goes to thinking, ideas and more. These are subjective experiences by the user. The machine(brain) just allows the user to have these subjective experiences.

For instance the DVD player lets you play Wedding Singers or Star Wars but it doesn't give the user the subjective experience of watching the Wedding Singer or Star Wars.

The most Science can show is what parts of the brain are active when the user has a subjective experience just like I can show you what parts of the DVD player are active when I play a DVD.

This is evidence of an immaterial mind.

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by neoholographic

I'll pose it a different way: Is spiritual reality dependent on memory?
Or is it that the world and the 'person' does?

Thoughts are also immaterial, do they prove the existence of what is . 'Materialists' just don't seem to want to grasp that the un manifested is and do not care about things they cannot yet see with their minds eye.

I like the example of space, you can't see it but no materialists doubt its existence.Or silence you can't hear anything but no materialists argue that silence does not exist.

top topics


log in