Memory without trace

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.

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.)
 
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...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. :eek: 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.
 
Dunno, it didn't sound very good to me. :eek: 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).
 
By the way seems you're right, he refers to memory traces here (page "156" as marked, page 12 of the actual doc).

Yeah, he seems to think those stickle bricks play a big role, when stuck to the wall of microtubules... As I recall, I thought he had got sort of trapped by implying they could explain it all, and homed in on the MT vibration idea as the key point.

I remember seeing those stickle bricks a few years ago, physically moving around and sticking to the MT's (and yes I'm sure they will play a role). But I thought it was far too early to be selecting the 'winning' processes... Particularly a process that reminds me more of a classical abacus, that just doesn't really cut it in terms of actual phenomena that I experience - My childhood OBE for example.

I dunno why they went out on a limb with all that stuff... Because Hameroff used to talk about hydrophobic pits being affected by anesthetics, to explain their action, but again, it was all envisaged to be a bit classical, with QM vibrations being the main point.

We now have Luca's tunnelling (he and Hameroff seem to dislike each other), and it's simply a better idea, it does s far better job of explaining smell, and now he's suggested tunnelling disrupts the electrons in those hydrophobic MT pits, allowing them to tunnel out where they shouldn't normally be. Luca also likes Cilia too.

We also have centrioles that Albrecht-Buehler seems to show might play a massive role ( I think they do). I dunno why his work isn't mentioned more, because it shows intelligence etc without any neurons (classic idea of a brain), so slices through most of the polarised ideas on here talking about brains.

We also have McFadden's ideas about em fields in the brain (Hameroff gave that a bit of a hard time too). And loads of other new stuff coming to light, like behavioural effects of hyper-weak magnetic fields that the Russian's also link to hydrophobic protein cavities. McFadden wouldnt like that, because he claims the brain is EM isolated, of course he's flat out wrong there.
 
Last edited:
Dunno, it didn't sound very good to me. :eek: 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!

The idea of consciousness/memory being quantum and interacting with each other appeals to me and may allow for all the different phenomenon that we discuss here.
 
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.)

It winds me up that the so called 'objective' skeptics do that. What are they afraid of? Why are they doing this? Some people, like myself, do not like their worldview and find it gives little comfort. We should be able to see alternative theories instead of them being removed systematically like that.
 
Another long one (100 pages) that I've been trying to make my through.

On the Possibility of Direct 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.
 
Back
Top