Philosophical Speculations

can there be any mechanism for storing information in biological structures other than storing it in in the synaptic neural networks? In theory yes, perhaps it can be stored on the molecular level, we know that an enormous amount of information can be stored in DNAs and RNAs, so in principle the memory could work in a similar way, but there has been no evidence of such alternative mechanisms so far

Yes, here we have a case where a brain was thought to be fully dissolved, and yet, the organism has retained a learned behavior. Where and how is memory stored?

If it can be proven that that neuronal structures are fully dissolved in this case, it points neuroscience in an entirely different direction. The structure of how neurons are connected would not be responsible for forming memories -- but perhaps only how they are accessed?

When I think of the richness of all the information that has passed through consciousness and how much of it can still be recalled, I have serious doubt in the ability of a few billion neurons to store that kind of information. Either it is stored in smaller structures -- or a material paradigm is inadequate for describing the memory process in its relation to consciousness.

Laufmann wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:04 pm When I think of the richness of all the information that has passed through consciousness and how much of it can still be recalled, I have serious doubt in the ability of a few billion neurons to store that kind of information. Either it is stored in smaller structures -- or a material paradigm is inadequate for describing the memory process in its relation to consciousness.

I agree

See epigenetic memory - most likely what is happening here.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/epigenetic-memory

https://www.evolvingsciences.com/Geneti ... ry%20.html

See epigenetic memory - most likely what is happening here.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/epigenetic-memory

https://www.evolvingsciences.com/Geneti ... ry%20.html

Great articles!

While epigenetic memory is an interesting concept, I don't think our current understanding of it is enough to explain some of the incredible behaviors it hopes to explain. Our current understanding may be enough to explain things like 'increased stress levels' from generation to generation, but some inherited behaviors are quite complex. Butterfly migrations that take generations to complete! I love that one. I think it will take humans generations to work out the science behind that. As the article states, I wish we could just ask these creatures how they know to do the things they do.

It might be useful to learn of learning and memory defined the broadest terms as like the food pyramid.

At the base is genetics that represents evolutionary learning, develops and changes slowly.

Next is epigenetic learning that works through changing the expression of genes and works from one generation to next and can persist for generations.

Next is associative learning which is found even in single cell organisms but lasts only for short periods of time not longer than the lifetime of the organism.

The top is complex learning and memory that involves combining complex sequences of behaviors into adaptive behavior. This is what we usually think of as learning and memory and lasts for the lifetime of the organisms.

If we think of learning to be patterns of perception and behavior, then we all come with some built-in patterns from our species, some inherited, and some learned during our lifetime.

Methods of storage of memory are different at different levels but there likely are ways of moving memories from one form to another, like the brain does when it moves memories from short-term to long-term. In general, evolution may prefer to locate learning and memory at the lower levels since those are more persistent and automatic as long as their usefulness is likely to last. This would be analogous to how learning things like a riding a bicycle can require a lot of concentration and energy initially but then become automatic.

In this case of the butterfly, probably associative learning in one generation became encoded epigenetically. So there was inherited propensity to react in a certain way. Migrations may have elements of genetic and epigenetic learning.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who- ... sciousness

This is a no brainer sorry

Reminds me of those Wiley Coyote cartoons when he goes over the edge of the cliff, but physical reality only impacts when he looks down!
Maybe subjective experience isn't just what an empirical exterior feels like from within, but also what we BELIEVE ourselves to be.

It might be useful to learn of learning and memory defined the broadest terms as like the food pyramid.

Yes, there are certainly different ways of encoding information in the body that effect behavior in different ways.

My skepticism comes when I think about the information passing through consciousness (the top of the pyramid). The human mind is processing tons of information every second -- much of it from external stimuli, but also integrated with information from memory. The human brain looks very much like a processor of information -- its neural networks learning to translate vast amounts of information into simpler, symbolic concepts that can also be fed again through neural networks to translate into yet finer concepts. The building and refining of these neural networks is certainly a way of encoding information in neurons. But this information works more like a software program -- other information flows through this system to generate new ideas. To me, the brain works like a computer processor (albeit of a more sophisticated, neural net type) along with some of the RAM needed for establishing relationships between neurons in this neural net, but where's the hard drive? I don't think most of the instantaneous information recall is being pulled from DNA coding or epigenetic memory.

Nor do I think the linkages between neurons are storing the incoming information from stimuli nor the outgoing symbols and concepts after processing it. They certainly rearrange their linkages in response to information flowing through them -- they are learning to process better and come up with new concepts and ideas, but I don't think they are storing the ideas themselves. The information flows through the brain only long enough to process it into something else.

Maybe the answer is that we are not, in fact, storing memories at all -- only the relationships and connections our neurons formed as they processed past experiences into new concepts and ideas. Our memories are just ghost imprints that fade over time as neuron linkages shift and change from new stimuli and ideas.

Maybe our brains are just one big reality filter, simplifying information into symbols and concepts encompassing broader and more global swaths of reality over time.

Consciousness, though, seems like it's inside that information, inside those symbols and concepts. And if that information is just a simplification, symbolization of reality in the first place, what the hell is our brain anyway? I think I've just spun this one into a circular reference, which probably means I'm getting too close to an ontological primitive (consciousness?) where causality starts to break down.

Bottom line: At least some of memory is stored in something other than the structure of the brain.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who- ... sciousness

This is a no brainer sorry

Great article! Love this stuff.

Who would have thought that a civil servant needed a brain?

The case has been variously marveled at and misinterpreted.

That the brain is filled with fluid by itself does not mean that the cortex is missing but rather it has been compressed and has taken on a different shape. In other words, the brain is fundamentally intact but in an abnormal shape.

Presumably, functioning of the neural network of
he brain does not depend on the volume of fluid that
surrounds its structures provided that certain physical
parameters are met. The main requirement is that the
behavior of this fluid does not interfere with the function of the brain structures, including the cortical neural network

If the behavior of cerebrospinal fluid in a
hydrocephalic subject meets all three conditions (5),
that is constancy of velocity, normal cerebrocranial
pressure, and comparatively low density (in the range
of 1.003–1.008 g/mL) of the fluid (or specific weight,
which is the same), then the overfilling of the brain
with CSF does not limit the efficient functioning of all
parts of the brain, including the cortex. This explains
the fact that the patients with hydrocephalus who meet
these conditions can exist and develop normally

https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 0918020136

Good evening to you all! This is my first post here. I've just finished writing an article with a very related topic and thought it would be worth feeding the ideas into this discussion.

Laufmann wrote that maybe there's no storing of memories at all. I think one can argue for this even on the basis of our current neuroscientific understanding of "memory-encoding". What seems to happen at 'encoding' is that neuronal groups acquire a disposition to activate in a certain pattern. That is, in a pattern that will be a re-enactment of the pattern that was active during the 'encoded' episode. But a disposition is all that they seem to acquire. In other words, the so-called memory-traces are not really contentful entities (that is, entities that can store content). They are dispositions to bring about contentful states (like remembering). Therefore, even the case of perfectly ordinary memory seems to be an issue for physicalism for if there is no content stored, it is not clear how the re-enactment of the past episode is supported. Or so it seems looking at it from the neuronal level.

This no-content-view, by the way, is gaining attention in the philosophy of memory, although its possible anti-physicalistic implications are not yet considered.