Ah it seems there might be a connection to memory:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714379
And there does seem to be a possible connection to those rhythms as well? ->
What does this all mean?
Ah it seems there might be a connection to memory:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714379
And there does seem to be a possible connection to those rhythms as well? ->
What does this all mean?
There's a theory for how consciousness arises called Orch-OR. The idea is that quantum-level vibrations in a part of the body called microtubules calls that are responsible for consciousness which has two big implications - one is that Mind is a fundamental aspect of reality, and the other is that computers as currently designed are not capable of consciousness.
Right now there's some mystery about how memory and anesthesia work. The two links I mention suggest Orch-OR can explain both.
Additionally if the way Orch-OR works is not by storing memories, it would suggest the possibility that memories exist by connecting Past & Present. That would be a link between consciousness and time.
I thought Hameroff was suggesting that memory was encoded by CaMKII phosphorylation of microtubules... sort of like miniature stickle bricks stuck to the walls of the microtubules... an idea which I thought was *particularly* unpromising...
Hmmm...actually I think you might be right about that. I should ask him exactly what he means - in Mind, Memory, and Time Carl Gunther thinks the brain's "traces" are actually pointers to the past which still exist in a state akin to the "block universe".
Since Hammerofff thinks consciousness is woven into space-time he might think of something similar.
Dunno, it didn't sound very good to me. But i've got no problem with spatial structures in the brain being a way of 'accessing' memory... because I dunno how you can practically move access to information through time (in the same relative space) other than storing access to it as spatial patterns of matter. Indeed if it's percieved as being stored purely spatially, then I believe it's been processed temporally (past summed to present), and vice versa.
By the way seems you're right, he refers to memory traces here (page "156" as marked, page 12 of the actual doc).
Dunno, it didn't sound very good to me. But i've got no problem with spatial structures in the brain being a way of 'accessing' memory... because I dunno how you can practically move access to information through time (in the same relative space) other than storing access to it as spatial patterns of matter. Indeed if it's percieved as being stored purely spatially, then I believe it's been processed temporally (past summed to present), and vice versa.
Why doesn't this idea sound good to you?
Well I've fleshed it out a bit more in a following post (above), but Hameroff seems to think about memory in only a very classical way. It doesn't offer any clues about why we sometimes obtain other people's memories, or how we share things in an everyday sense.
Ah - I thought you meant you didn't like it!
Didn't like what?
There's a theory for how consciousness arises called Orch-OR. The idea is that quantum-level vibrations in a part of the body called microtubules calls that are responsible for consciousness which has two big implications - one is that Mind is a fundamental aspect of reality, and the other is that computers as currently designed are not capable of consciousness.
Right now there's some mystery about how memory and anesthesia work. The two links I mention suggest Orch-OR can explain both.
Additionally if the way Orch-OR works is not by storing memories, it would suggest the possibility that memories exist by connecting Past & Present. That would be a link between consciousness and time.
Finally, one of the authors of Orch-OR, Dr. Stuart Hammeroff, suggests if the theory is true there might be a soul that survives the body's death.
As a threat to materialism and the investments in artificial intelligence, you'll find the Wikipedia page has been manipulated so that even the discoveries that support the theory aren't mentioned while lots of criticisms are allowed. (So called "skeptics", really materialists trying to protect belief in their chosen religion of matter, do a lot of this kind of Wikipedia manipulation.)
Hameroff's ideas on memory!
I don't like them.
I get that haha. But as in you don't like the idea of them being right or you don't want them to be right?
Do you not like the theory because you think it's wrong, or do you not like it because it doesn't appeal to you?
Eh? My previous posts should make it clear why I don't like his idea about memory?
Is experience stored in the brain? The answer to this question is critical, for it strongly constrains possible theories of the nature and origin of consciousness.
If the answer is “yes,” conscious experience must be generated from stored “elements” within the neural structure.
If the answer is “no,” Searle’s principle of neurobiological sufficiency, as one example, carries no force.
On the other hand, a theory of direct perception can be construed to actually require a “no” answer, but then would require a theory of memory not reliant on brain storage. Perception research is reviewed which describes the invariance laws defining the elementary, time-extended, perceived events that must be “stored” and which speaks simultaneously to the nature of the qualia of these events. To support this description of perceived, external events, a model of “direct memory” is described, wherein the brain is viewed as supporting a modulated reconstructive wave passing through a holographic matter-field. The modulation pattern is determined or driven by the invariance laws defining external events. The model is applied to several areas of memory theory in cued-recall, to include verbal paired-associate learning, concreteness and imagery, subject performed tasks and priming. Some implications are reviewed for cognition in general, mental imagery, eye-witness phenomena and the question of whether everything experienced is “stored.” The model is predictive and at the very least holds its own relative to current theory without appealing to storage of experience within the brain.