Memories may be stored outside the brain

If memories were stored entirely in the brain than it would be 100% impossible for people who have NDEs to come back to relate what they experience as they technically had zero brain activity to be able to store this information.

However, if you look at the brain as a receiver of thought, memory, and consciousness, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that once a person is revived, and their brain resumes normal operation, that those memories that they created while the brain was shut down, can now be accessed and assimilated as a memory in the human body.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it is most likely genetically stored.
it makes more sense that the location of a spawning ground is similarly stored and passed on through genetics.

Richard Dawkins has a good book on this topic of genetics defining things that happen outside a creature's body.
The Extended Phenotype (1982)

Interesting for sure. Parasites do apparently alter the behavior of the host. Ants committing suicide and whatnot.
It does seem to me that genes dictate more than cellular reproduction.

Originally posted by InSolace

Originally posted by TKDRL
I find that a lot of scientists seem to have morphed into fundamentalists. This attitude is a limiting factor, it is causing science to stagnate. Study some of the greatest scientists from history, they were a lot like little kids. Curious, open minded, and having a lot of fun learning new things. That is where the breakthroughs occur. Also, science has really seemed to have gone to the dark side. A whole lot more money and man hours put into creating destruction in new and terrifying ways, instead of creating real solutions to problems. Why solve problems when you can just blow the problems up?

Strawman fallacy. Einstein took months/years pondering his problems, so I wouldn't exactly say he had the impatience of "little boys". I do agree there was a curiousity and openmindedness to his speculations, though he understood that in order not to be disproven easily by his scientist peers he had to have some solid grounds to his speculations. I'm not going to do a straw man and mock you because you are using more parapsychology than established scientific theories to build your arguments.

Originally posted by TKDRL
When it comes to the "paranormal", that is where the real fundamentalism starts showing. They would rather explain away things with halfassed theories, or outright deny the existence and ridicule, than learn about it. Swamp gas comes to mind here.

Coming back to the "careful" part. There is a basis for mental phenomena and alot of faith is put into neuroscience to explain these. I may be scientifically oriented but I have had many experiences and fascinations surrounding the occult. My opinion is that in time science will explain these phenomena, whether its methods of measurement & detection have developed or not. Your subjective experience says it's "fantastic", meanwhile the objective truth may be that your mind is subjectively responding to something as normal and boring as dirt. I do not know that, and the fact that I don't KNOW fascinates me.

Originally posted by TKDRL
I have personally experienced prophetic dreams before, nothing amazing like predicting a huge event, but dreaming of a place I have never been to, and who went there with me, then later going to that place. It was eerily similar to the dream. Plenty in my life I cannot explain, but I refuse to stick my head in the sand and pretend it never happened. How boring would that be, life is mundane enough, without purposefully making it duller

I haven't experienced prophetic dreams (what I'd initially call "normal dreams getting something right for once"). My approach would first be to figure out the odds for the same happening three nights in a row, and then I'd be fascinated. Again, I've had UFOs scare the crap out of me and ghost experiences from way back but I'm still not going to make crackpot theories when I have no scientific data to base it on. I keep them to myself until I have something good, unless I allow myself to be speculative, which I also have been on these forums.

The question is, are you being speculative or are you actually trying to tie a scientific experiment to a mental phenomenon? If you're attempting the last then you need to have valid data for anyone to question the common paradigm or your legitimacy plummets. That's just the way it is, and that's how it's been in academia over the past millennium.

I'm offtopic once more. This time thanks to you.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: changed "solid data" to "valid data"

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: removed an apostrophe in "its'"

I would double star if I could.

Originally posted by InSolace

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by kmb08753

 

I have always believed that there is knowledge locked away in your dna...who teaches a spider to make a web, its a very complex structure yet we know they don't learn it from watching mommy spider

There is actually some basis to your belief. For example, a couple of years ago scientists conducted an experiment which resulted in pretty solid data for hereditary facial expressions within families. Why DNA does this I don't know, but it's fascinating nonetheless!

As we are a social species structures for decoding have likely evolved where we inherit an expression which is familial to anger (for example) to be able to communicate these emotions "from the crib". Spiders actually have a learning curve when it comes to successfully making webs, though human expressions may have one as well.

phys.org link

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: Added a speculative paragraph.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: (no reason given)

Cool. Interesting study and actually somewhat on topic.
Thank you.

Originally posted by InSolace

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by kmb08753

 

I have always believed that there is knowledge locked away in your dna...who teaches a spider to make a web, its a very complex structure yet we know they don't learn it from watching mommy spider

There is actually some basis to your belief. For example, a couple of years ago scientists conducted an experiment which resulted in pretty solid data for hereditary facial expressions within families. Why DNA does this I don't know, but it's fascinating nonetheless!

As we are a social species structures for decoding have likely evolved where we inherit an expression which is familial to anger (for example) to be able to communicate these emotions "from the crib". Spiders actually have a learning curve when it comes to successfully making webs, though human expressions may have one as well.

phys.org link

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: Added a speculative paragraph.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: (no reason given)

Cool. Interesting study and actually somewhat on topic.
Thank you.

Originally posted by mrkeen
I find the notion that memories could be stored in DNA laughable. Seriously, human DNA sequence is about 50 MBytes when compressed in a RAR file, do you believe anything as extensive as human memory can be compressed into one 50 MB archive? It's obvious that DNA is highly redundant for the sake of error-correction and mainly contains instructions on how to produce proteins. DNA is overly mystified, so anything unexplained tends to pop up in some sort of 'it must be stored in the DNA' argument.

edit on 21-7-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)

50mb, that seems low. Here is one article of many claiming MUCH larger capacity. This one is 700 terabytes.

www.extremetech.com...

reply to post by InSolace

Strawman fallacy. Einstein took months/years pondering his problems, so I wouldn't exactly say he had the impatience of "little boys". I do agree there was a curiousity and openmindedness to his speculations, though he understood that in order not to be disproven easily by his scientist peers he had to have some solid grounds to his speculations. I'm not going to do a straw man and mock you because you are using more parapsychology than established scientific theories to build your arguments.

What is the strawman fallacy? I said a lot like little kids, as in their attitude towards their work, not that they were exactly like little kids. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, there were things I was interested in, and took months working on. Treeforts, snowforts, our little skate parks, etc etc. We didn't have all the distractions we have today, and what distraction we did have, a lot wasn't really interesting to me. TV for example was for stormy days when we couldn't go out, and no friend was available to come over and play, or to go to their house.

If you were speaking about the fundamentalism, well it is a lot alike. It seems a lot of the debunkers are very interested in science, but only academically. If it is not in a text book, then it doesn't exist. And if it is in a text book then it is set in stone, end of story. Very similar to people that worship the bible, or whatever holy book, no?

Coming back to the "careful" part. There is a basis for mental phenomena and alot of faith is put into neuroscience to explain these. I may be scientifically oriented but I have had many experiences and fascinations surrounding the occult. My opinion is that in time science will explain these phenomena, whether its methods of measurement & detection have developed or not. Your subjective experience says it's "fantastic", meanwhile the objective truth may be that your mind is subjectively responding to something as normal and boring as dirt. I do not know that, and the fact that I don't KNOW fascinates me.

Not knowing is fascinating, and scary at the same time for me.
As for crackpot theories, name a theory that was not ridiculed at first. Lots bashed the wright brothers and their crackpot theory, is the one that comes to mind off the top of my head

Originally posted by Iamschist
Here is an article that supports what you are saying OP, it involves transplanted organs. I had heard of people with transplants having new and odd memories. www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

From the article

However, living systems theory explicitly posits that all living cells possess "memory" and "decider" functional subsystems within them.4 Moreover, the recent integration of systems theory with the concept of energy (termed dynamical energy systems theory) provides compelling logic that leads to the prediction that all dynamical systems store information and energy to various degrees.

Here is another article about heart transplant recipients, not sure about the source.. www.naturalnews.com...

Can the same thing be said about blood transfusions?

reply to post by kmb08753


The title says 700 tb per gram, now imagine how little a single DNA molecule weighs compared to a gram
an attogram, according to this article
That's a gram with 10 to the power of -18 gram x 10 to the power of 14 tB

1 gram = 10 to the power of 18 attogram
700 tB = 10 to the power of 14 byte

To me it doesn't add up, wouldn't it mean that:
10^18 - 10^14 = 10^-4 byte? Only a ten-thousandth of a byte fits into a DNA molecule...?

Either something's fishy about the numbers or I need to be corrected.

Originally posted by InSolace
reply to post by kmb08753

 

The title says 700 tb per gram, now imagine how little a single DNA molecule weighs compared to a gram
an attogram, according to this article
That's a gram with 10 to the power of -18 gram x 10 to the power of 14 tB

1 gram = 10 to the power of 18 attogram
700 tB = 10 to the power of 14 byte

To me it doesn't add up, wouldn't it mean that:
10^18 - 10^14 = 10^-4 byte? Only a ten-thousandth of a byte fits into a DNA molecule...?

Either something's fishy about the numbers or I need to be corrected.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: added some extra shortenings

not sure about those numbers. i would have to look into it to verify if those are indeed the actual numbers as well as how the scientific process of gaining these calculations was performed. but in the overall premise of observing this issue. science will encounter infinity which causes a crash or divide by zero which produces false values in the final result. this is also occuring in the carbon dating process and method. why there is no definition in testing, causing scientists to take a 'most feasible guess' approach based on which layer in the earth's crust fossils are found. the occurence of infinity occuring in the calculation is the link to consciousness becoming de-occulted. thus, singly logic minded computation simply takes the base number/value/result represented by what was initiated by consciousness. because the base numbers are proven to work in technological application, science assumes that all aspects of existence can be explained using those base numbers. but the logical only arises out of there first being the illogical present.. to act as a blackboard, or blank page where anything is possible. what is desired is then chiseled into the framework creating the desired structure. because consciousness is molding reality for its aspect of material existence, allowing the material existence to be represented by the base numbers and calculation, science must realize that material links back to consciousness. out of consciousness the material is fed and willed to take particular form in particles and waves.

this is the problem with stagnation. as we approach deeper into understanding of our environment and the various aspects of science, we approach consciousness. or are coming closer to God. then we try to break down God into mathematics as tho it is an unconscious robot.. lol. this is because of the scientific method, which is a process of breaking down and rebuilding and testing to confirm completed understanding of the subject we are analyzing to learn of its operation. can u imagine us lower beings attempting to build our own God and worship it? this is what science is attempting to do.. and why it denies everything that alludes to a higher consciousness on purpose. it is a religion, and has taken task to preach to its flock of there being no God and that we can build God ourselves and not need our original Creator. this accounts for the atheist movement within science, which is largely political unknown to many.

the bible speaks of these things in literal detail with no need for interpretation or risk of misconception.

doesnt anyone realize that science would have to create consciousness? not from just arranging a dna chain and seeing it come alive. that's cheating. use ur own material and create consciousness, not what was already present for u to make use of. understanding this is understanding that logic only is able to build and construct when materials are provided, but is instructed through creativity by consciousness of its design and process.

in my eyes it is all a logical progression. it may seem like i am prophecying in some of my posts on science. but 3,6,9,12.. and from this i can observe a progression and calculate and envision the pattern that develops from that progression. science is a logical beast. and in this way can be analyzed. unlike consciousness. consciousness must be interacted with.

Originally posted by InSolace
reply to post by kmb08753

 

The title says 700 tb per gram, now imagine how little a single DNA molecule weighs compared to a gram
an attogram, according to this article
That's a gram with 10 to the power of -18 gram x 10 to the power of 14 tB

1 gram = 10 to the power of 18 attogram
700 tB = 10 to the power of 14 byte

To me it doesn't add up, wouldn't it mean that:
10^18 - 10^14 = 10^-4 byte? Only a ten-thousandth of a byte fits into a DNA molecule...?

Either something's fishy about the numbers or I need to be corrected.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: added some extra shortenings

Maybe 700 terabytes is too high then. I found this page where Yevgeniy Grigoryev tries to answer this very question.

bitesizebio.com...

4 base pairs equal one byte, according to Yevgeniy. The human genome includes, roughly 6×10^9 base pairs.
then he does some math...

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes

So one chromosome is roughly equivalent to 1.5 GB. Besides chromosomes, aren't there other types of genes involved in the daily maintenance of the human body? Like RNA and all that.

A simplified calculation to be sure, but 1.5GB is much more than 50mb. Still not enough to contain all our memories, but maybe enough to contain base instincts/reactions.

i tell you if you rely on science and logic only you will be a logical beast. holding no compassion, empathy. mercy. these qualities are the powers that make us human. the abilities a robot is not capable of. these true feelings are felt from the source of consciousness. God's Love.

see the inhumane beast that is a science and logic driven society upon the earth. the abomination it would create. it's regard for its people believed to have no soul. to be worthless and temporary meaningless effigments that can be replicated and replaced. expendable. no God Given Constitutional Rights.. for there is no God.

Understand!

The brain is more of a big processor and communication device than it is a storage module. I'm sure a lot of what we know is stored in the brain but I am also sure that there are other storage places in our body. Since brain is similar to fat, I would guess fat cells, as long as they aren't filled with toxic chemistry. Bone may also be able to store memories.. It would help is scientists would open their minds and actually research these things instead of denying they exist because they think it is not possible. Assuming that the brain is the only storage place for memories is not even close to what science is supposed to be about.

Originally posted by filledcup
i tell you if you rely on science and logic only you will be a logical beast. holding no compassion, empathy. mercy. these qualities are the powers that make us human. the abilities a robot is not capable of. these true feelings are felt from the source of consciousness. God's Love.

see the inhumane beast that is a science and logic driven society upon the earth. the abomination it would create. it's regard for its people believed to have no soul. to be worthless and temporary meaningless effigments that can be replicated and replaced. expendable. no God Given Constitutional Rights.. for there is no God.

Understand!

I am trying hard to stay on topic in this thread. But to say I have no compassion or empathy because I try to approach life with real-world reason and logic is insulting and flies in the face of modern psychology and neuroscience. It is logical to work for the benefit of society and biologically advantageous.

The real-world may very well may contain a god or über intelligence, but if so we should eventually understand exactly what that is.

Inhumane beasts exist within all flavors of belief. Selfishness and greed is universal.

reply to post by filledcup


Sorry to be conscise, but:

Relax man. Both science and religion have been created by humans, and they both contain flaws.

I have an unusual take on this, because I have an eidetic memory. It's taken me years to come to terms with it, because it isn't always a blessing. Most people, as I understand it, have the ability to filter their memories and can block the really traumatic ones. I don't have those filters.

My recall is not 100% perfect and mine is more auditory than visual... so photographic? No... well not entirely. More autobiographical... I still don't really know how to explain it, nor do I know HOW I do it. I just do.

But, it is interesting how it relates to this thread and it brings up some interesting questions.

Where my memories are usually triggered by sounds, locations can sometimes trigger them as well. Example: I spent some time in my hometown last year... first time I had done so for over 20 years. One day I decide to do a bit of fishing, and drove to a spot that I hadn't been to since my childhood. It's about a 50 yard hike from where I parked... and as soon as I saw the place it all hit me. That's how it works sometimes. I could close my eyes and in an instant remember every detail of the place, every single time I had ever been there. I can still hear every song that ever played on the little transistor radio my mom dragged along with us everywhere... and every detail of every day spent there.

So... are my memories of that place in my mind? Or, are they stored in that location somehow and I have just figured out how to access them? Maybe, there is a visual component to my memory that is more subtle... maybe my memory relies on sound, but I store visual cues more discreetly. So, when I returned to this place, my mind picked up visual references and triggered everything else. What if, however, those memories are stored externally somehow? What if being in that area was enough to trigger what my mind left "behind"?

Could places that are "haunted" actually be instances of memories left by others that are so strong that they resonate in that place for a long time. Maybe our DNA serves as a "BIOS" for how the CPU that is our brain processes what we perceive as "reality"... which is why people always see things from a slightly different POV?

It really is fascinating how our minds operate. How we store, process, recall, form opinions, biases... how we feel... how we then imagine... mind blowing, really...

Originally posted by kmb08753

Originally posted by InSolace
reply to post by kmb08753

 

The title says 700 tb per gram, now imagine how little a single DNA molecule weighs compared to a gram
an attogram, according to this article
That's a gram with 10 to the power of -18 gram x 10 to the power of 14 tB

1 gram = 10 to the power of 18 attogram
700 tB = 10 to the power of 14 byte

To me it doesn't add up, wouldn't it mean that:
10^18 - 10^14 = 10^-4 byte? Only a ten-thousandth of a byte fits into a DNA molecule...?

Either something's fishy about the numbers or I need to be corrected.

edit on 21-7-2013 by InSolace because: added some extra shortenings

Maybe 700 terabytes is too high then. I found this page where Yevgeniy Grigoryev tries to answer this very question.

bitesizebio.com...

4 base pairs equal one byte, according to Yevgeniy. The human genome includes, roughly 6×10^9 base pairs.
then he does some math...

6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5×10^9 bytes or 1.5 Gigabytes

So one chromosome is roughly equivalent to 1.5 GB. Besides chromosomes, aren't there other types of genes involved in the daily maintenance of the human body? Like RNA and all that.

A simplified calculation to be sure, but 1.5GB is much more than 50mb. Still not enough to contain all our memories, but maybe enough to contain base instincts/reactions.

edit on 21-7-2013 by kmb08753 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2013 by kmb08753 because: (no reason given)

hmm looks complex..

look here:
60 x 10^9 = 60 billion base pairs
60,000,000,000 bytes
60,000,000 kilobytes
60,000 megabytes
60 gigabytes
edit: 60 / 4 base pairs = 15 gigabytes

that is based on ur numbers. but i still havent studied the process of genetic formation as described by science. nor have i seen the process as it occurs.

i understand that the atoms in a sperm are linked at the subatomic level by a will of consciousness. it creates a magnetic field which is able to survive in a certain environment for a period of time. it must interact with its equal opposite (the female egg) which also carries it's own field. and the two become one and the fields are merged. now producing the calculation for the generating of a field that accounts for the soul of a human child. this new field is now an upgrade from what the sperm was. it has evolved. and can now survive in that environment for extended period of time and until he outgrows that environment and enter this one. and we have further still to go in these such environments. A mini God making machine this place is.

this is what God did with his Supreme Consciousness. He carved on a portion it the design and operation which attributes consciousness to entertain various materializations to form physical matter and existence. some appointed to the form of hydrogen atoms. some of it to the form of carbon atoms, some to forces etc. and all the ways that will excite them from inert and their particular behaviours as they interact. and from matter taking particular shape as the atoms are being shaped to form the molecular structure.. produces an entity capable of independently sustained timeless existence in a spectrum that is invisible to the frequency adjustment of standard 2 human eyes.



we see here too a magical link in the frequency receptors in calling them 'occular receptors'. with the word 'occult' meaning 'hidden'. the occult is the study of the hidden eye. it sees the other frequencies/spectrums. 3rd eye, eye of Horus, krishna third eye, keter in the jewish sephirot, symbolized in a golden crown with a large centerpiece jewel for priceless nature. the wisdom of a KinG. Buddhism, shamanism, yoga, christianity, islam, hindu, jewish, baptist, satanist, paganism.. all is eye. light the eye, open the eye and be saved.

I don't have time to dig up the info, but this genetic memory is proven to exist in Salmon. There are different types of Salmon, and each breed takes a different path to get North of Canada. One breed takes the Atlantic while the other takes the Pacific. Concern has arisen because Salmon farms has allowed them to copulate, which has created Salmon that stray from the group and take a different path. For instance if the Pacific Salmon breeds with the Atlantic Salmon, the offspring will choose a path based on the dominant allele. Interesting to say the least, SF. By the way, I think that this study may have just shown that the cluster of ganglionic cells aren't fully understood, and that they don't retain memory as once thought. Flatworms are Plathelminthes, so the entire body probably works as a neurtransmitter. If this is possible in fish and other animals, I am almost certain that genetic memory can occur in humans. You no, like traits such as tinkerer, neat, or other kinds of traits that we sometimes don't give enough thought.

reply to post by cbaskins


Which is also interesting. But with salmon, is it a genetic memory, or a collective one? Do animals like salmon, geese etc. migrate because they carry an individual genetic memory that drives them to do so, or is it a collective memory that is triggered which is why they migrate as a group?

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by cbaskins

 

Which is also interesting. But with salmon, is it a genetic memory, or a collective one? Do animals like salmon, geese etc. migrate because they carry an individual genetic memory that drives them to do so, or is it a collective memory that is triggered which is why they migrate as a group?

Let's change some of the genes and see if the fish change their behavior. Take note of the difference between the two groups of salmon. Change some of one group to match the other and see if they now go to a different spawning location.

A few million dollars, some geneticists and time.