Enduring memory

[Daniel V.]

Enduring memory

by Thomas R. Verny

Link here to essay at Aeon.co

__________

"In aggregate, the evidence suggests that aspects of intelligence and consciousness traditionally attributed to the brain have another source as well. Our memories, our tastes, our life knowledge, might owe just as much to embodied cells and tissues using the same molecular mechanisms for memory as the brain itself. The mind, I conclude, is fluid and adaptable, embodied but not enskulled." __ Thomas R. Verny

Interesting essay on different levels.

It's as if the cells and tissues have a system for registering information and that information is then relayed relatively intact to the brain. Thinking about that relay led me to what seems even more complex relays such as that of flowers attracting insects so the flowers' pollen can then be transported (relayed) to other flowers; and not only that, but flowers of its own kind. So, it would seem that not only could these relays be specific to a particular system but also 'inter-system', i.e., flowers and bees, birds, etc. Independent systems having knowledge (information) of the relays of other systems.

It's easy to free-associate from there and wonder just how extensive the relay system(s) may be:

Ocean water > Evaporation > Clouds > Rain

(Also other bodies of water and plants giving off evaporation)

Of course, a question there would be how much 'memory' is involved in such a relay. Is the memory of past evaporations, the coalescence of clouds, and then rain, stored in a drop of water? If so, then that is a vast memory circuit. Is 'Nature' just a vast memory festival? It seems like it is. Who knows, maybe there's something to the 'butterfly effect' after all.

One could extrapolate on this into other areas such as evolutionary effects on memory mechanisms, etc., and I figure the readers can easily explore extrapolations of their own.

But what immediately came to mind when reading the essay is, epigenetics. There is a video in this forum that I put up some time back: The Ghost In Your Genes. Now that gives a whole new take on, 'relay'.

Daniel V.

[JanSand]

As someone with no formal training in the field I have only myself to examine in detail to formulate the operational systems of my nervous systems. My formal training, aside from mostly obsolete high school and college technologies back in the early 1940's has been supplemented with my formal training in art and design which was inherently involved in the various creativities in these fields. My general impression of the interactions of my neuronic web was that it monitored the functions of my several sense connections to the outside world to create recorded patterns of these experiences from moment to moment, which were stored in memory in ways that created internal metaphors modified by associations of their import in emotional and past experiences along with whatever DNA also contributed in formalities regarding basic survival and proliferation. In general there seems to me to be two types of patters to be recorded, The first is the simple associations of the various sense inputs such as light, sound, scent, flavor, texture etc., and the second is the chain of successful or unsuccessful reactions to these inputs as in procedures to walk, talk, tie shoelaces, drive a car, operate a machine, etc. which must be learned and then collected in unconscious stored skills which become automatic tools. Beyond the original stored input of these patterns, the mind can general particulars of these storages which become generalized metaphors and these generalizations are the field within which creative thinking takes place, These generalized associations are automatic and permit the creation of classes from one dog to all dogs, from one aeroplane to all aircraft etc. Most people do not comprehend that this associative process is automatic and is the basis for all creative thinking. What is presumed a conscious process of thinking in the participation of the self is actually merely a matter of choice that the self makes from the automatic generalizations of basic neural functions. The conscious self is a mental creation for decisions of actions for survival and proliferation from the automatic choices of the mechanics of the general nervous system. as one ages (and at the age of almost 96 I am quite familiar with this) if these creative interconnections are rarely used, they decay in strength and eventually vanish which is one of the mechanisms of forgetting. There are others.

[Daniel V.]

..along with whatever DNA also contributed..

It is that "whatever" that is interesting and possibly beyond the individual's 'current' patterns.

The operational aspects are there as you have noted but it may be a deeper operation in that we're not just dealing with the sensorium per se and whatever patterns, associations and such, but also with information that precedes the sensorium.

The researchers in the Ghost in Your Genes documentary regard it as a relaying of experiences from ancestors to the present. The 'physical' aspects are focused upon because they are the most readily available in terms of genetic heritage but I can see how this will be expanded to include other areas such as the modes of interpreting religion, science, art, etc.

Even before I knew about epigenetics I wondered - as I think many others also thought - to what extent my ancestors contributed to who I am. Was it just my skin color, hair, eye color, and so on, or does it go deeper than that?

When I think about this, meditate on it, I do feel a sense of something deeper at play. Alas, I have no details to give on this but the feeling seems strangely present.

Daniel V.

[Gee]

Much depends on how one defines memory.
Even simple nonorganic systems do “remember” interactions, so when they are re-exposed to a specific interaction they re-act as they have learnt to.
For a detailed analysis of this process, which has to do with local energetic minima in dynamic dissipative systems, see Jeremy England’s work and book on the physics of life.
In this setting the memory is specific to the system and acquired. Consequently, inherent or inherited behaviors such as the prey specific heritable hunting behavior of the Portia spider would not qualify as memory and so wouldn’t the epigenetic mechanisms that are responsible for heritable behavior patterns in general.
There is generally several distinguishable aspects of what has been called memory. Memory that is reliant on a configuration of a system, memory that is stored separately and then retrieved and memory that is reconstructed. They are not the same, though they can combine.
The author of the essay in my view conflates behavior, learning, forgetting (which can also be an active process) and memory.
Behavior is an observable and learning a process, but memory is indirectly inferred from the first two. If you repeat an action through learning, you may have actively remembered how to to it and reconstruct it or your system may have changed so that this is now the preferred action. The issue is that the behavior is not discriminating between these states. Motor learning, moreover is more of the form of system change, declarative memory though is more associative and re-constructive.
The author conflates behavior, learning, forgetting and different types of memory. In addition, he neglects evidence contradicting his position in the references he gives. The main issue being that during times of extensive neuronal pruning memory is lost, whereas during times of neuronal preservation memory is retained, such as during associative learning in different stages of larval development.
Another issue is the assumption that conditioned behavior is actively remembered, rather than “programmed” behavior for which there is no need of retrieved memory.
In conclusion, if one does not give a clear definition of memory to start with, one can easily mix and match processes that superficially seem the same, but in fact are separable. To give an example: In AD the problem is initially declarative memory, motor memory and emotionally associated memory are not affected. As is widely known, long term memory is also less affected initially, but even short term memory loss does not necessarily mean loss of covert learning, as cuing and higher than chance guesses indicate. So learning and retrieving or reconstructing are separable processes. To extrapolate from the conditioned responses of caterpillars to this kind of behavior is a reach.

[Daniel V.]

I think the author doesn't conflate things as much as they are already conflated. Of course, I'm using conflate in the sense of 'blending', 'fusion', 'combining', etc., not in the way the word has acquired a negative connotation as it has in recent times in political discussions.

Specificities and even processes of any sort ultimately serve a larger context, an encompassing synthesis. A simple analogy would be that of a car with it's various specifics (components) and processes (fluid, electrical) all combining to deliver the effective result of the car's motion.

The essay's author, Thomas R. Verny, was intrigued as to how it was that when parts of the brain were removed processes that should have been altered or stopped actually continued and even remedied some condition. In the car analogy that would be like saying that some component of it was removed but the car still functioned as it should. Of course, the componency of the human body is far more sophisticated than that of a car

"In aggregate, the evidence suggests that aspects of intelligence and consciousness traditionally attributed to the brain have another source as well. Our memories, our tastes, our life knowledge, might owe just as much to embodied cells and tissues using the same molecular mechanisms for memory as the brain itself. The mind, I conclude, is fluid and adaptable, embodied but not enskulled." _ Thomas R. Verny

I do not have extensive knowledge in the medical field as for example a brain surgeon would have. The surgeon might say that 're-routing' of processes is already known but as to the part that memory plays in that is debatable.

"Another issue is the assumption that conditioned behavior is actively remembered, rather than “programmed” behavior for which there is no need of retrieved memory." _ Gee

Could you elaborate on how it is that programmed behavior has no need of retrieved memory? 'Programmed' seems to denote some type of memory usage whether in configuration, retention or reconstruction.

"Much depends on how one defines memory." _ Gee

Well, semantically, much depends on how one defines ________ (fill in the blank).

So, it could be said that the author is correct if it's a particular definition but not another. That right there puts the author's, yours, mine and others' interpretation of the matter on shaky ground. Whose definition? Why? Thankfully, many who participate in discussions whether online or in person have managed to control (at least relatively) those particular 'Lazy Susans'.

For myself and the epigenetic aspect of it I find it fascinating that memory in the genetic code can have more to it than just the relaying of physical traits. Each human being is like a cellular 'universe' and each cell a kind of hologram of the entirety. That's wild.