Memory

[dalilamahammer]

I have been wondering for a while now, idk if scientist have figured it out or not. But how does the brain store all its memory? Like in the form of electric current in the brain or in the form of cells? Or is there some other form I don't know of?

[Bill Davis]

A few articles that might help are:
Scientific American-Where Are Old Memories Stored in the Brain? 2009
Science Daily,Researchers Unlock Key To Memory Storage In Brain 2007
How are Memories Stored? 2007

I hope this helps.

[owleye]

Don't know if this has been asked before, and I didn't find it in the articles referenced by Bill Davis, but I get the impression that memory storage is a bit fragile in so far as it is intended to reflect some original experience. The fragility I'm thinking of here is that while we might be able to use the content of memory to tell us when we originally had the experience now stored, I have to say I get confused when I recall something that I know I've recalled before. My confusion is in what I'm recalling. Is it the prior recollection or is it the original memory. I'm thinking here that recollection affects what's stored in memory. And it might even have the effect of becoming a new experience that is stored.

James

[Bill Davis]

Don't know if this has been asked before, and I didn't find it in the articles referenced by Bill Davis, but I get the impression that memory storage is a bit fragile in so far as it is intended to reflect some original experience. The fragility I'm thinking of here is that while we might be able to use the content of memory to tell us when we originally had the experience now stored, I have to say I get confused when I recall something that I know I've recalled before. My confusion is in what I'm recalling. Is it the prior recollection or is it the original memory. I'm thinking here that recollection affects what's stored in memory. And it might even have the effect of becoming a new experience that is stored.

James

You are right on it. When we recall a memory we combine the traces (memories) from around the brain that relate to the experience with traces related to the condition of recall. Thus things get both modified and extended with each act of recall. It does not take much for the patterns of proteins first storing a memory to be reworked into, as you note, memories of the original memory.

It is a bit of an exaggeration; but, there is that descriptor of memories: the only pure memory is one we have not accessed, since in accessing it we modify it.

[owleye]

You are right on it. When we recall a memory we combine the traces (memories) from around the brain that relate to the experience with traces related to the condition of recall. Thus things get both modified and extended with each act of recall. It does not take much for the patterns of proteins first storing a memory to be reworked into, as you note, memories of the original memory.

It is a bit of an exaggeration; but, there is that descriptor of memories: the only pure memory is one we have not accessed, since in accessing it we modify it.

Thanks. It makes me wonder the value of prepping a witness for trial. Should the guidelines be that on the stand we precede the testimony with "as I had recalled when asked by the attorney...." :-? After all, we are sworn to tell the truth, etc. I've never been called in this way, but I'd been evaluated by a court appointed psychologist who wanted to get into some of my memories and I recall responding to him about those memories in the way I've indicated in my original post.

James

[dalilamahammer]

Yeah I understand that the memories are stored throughout the brain in different parts, its just that I guess what i was trying to ask was, is there a code that the brain uses to make these memories or is it the neurons that do it?

[Bill Davis]

You are right on it. When we recall a memory we combine the traces (memories) from around the brain that relate to the experience with traces related to the condition of recall. Thus things get both modified and extended with each act of recall. It does not take much for the patterns of proteins first storing a memory to be reworked into, as you note, memories of the original memory.

It is a bit of an exaggeration; but, there is that descriptor of memories: the only pure memory is one we have not accessed, since in accessing it we modify it.

Thanks. It makes me wonder the value of prepping a witness for trial. Should the guidelines be that on the stand we precede the testimony with "as I had recalled when asked by the attorney...." :-? After all, we are sworn to tell the truth, etc. I've never been called in this way, but I'd been evaluated by a court appointed psychologist who wanted to get into some of my memories and I recall responding to him about those memories in the way I've indicated in my original post.

James

The most honest person will appear to a jury as the least honest in many cases. They will note their personal limitations. Skilled lawyers are often skilled at picking this up and can turn reason on its head rather quickly. What is worse is we have a social acceptance that the notion;"all you have is circumstantial evidence and no real witnesses" is enough to cast doubt on a case. When it is the circumstantial evidence (something we can verify like fingerprints, DNA, shoeprint matches, clothing fibers, etc... that are far more reliable than witness testimony. Even worse is how quickly we can implant memories in others, especially children and adults supposedly recalling childhood events.

One of the reasons so many people have been freed from prison due to the Freedom Project's DNA work is despite extensive circumstances to the contrary, people tend to believe the eyewitness.

[Bill Davis]

Yeah I understand that the memories are stored throughout the brain in different parts, its just that I guess what i was trying to ask was, is there a code that the brain uses to make these memories or is it the neurons that do it?

Sort of both. In a way it is like forming a scab then scar when you are cut. The actual cutting material and eventually even the cut is gone; but, the trace remains. When we "recall" something we reassemble it through reengaging the neurons that were affected at the time and then roughly reassemble it.

There are differences between types of memory though and most memory is without conscious assemblage. Often we loose the original trace of the event and just store the mechanism of response... which is more useful as a survival tool (I do not recall when I learned to duck from a thrown object; but, I have a response trained as a result of an experience.)

[owleye]

James

The most honest person will appear to a jury as the least honest in many cases. They will note their personal limitations. Skilled lawyers are often skilled at picking this up and can turn reason on its head rather quickly. What is worse is we have a social acceptance that the notion;"all you have is circumstantial evidence and no real witnesses" is enough to cast doubt on a case. When it is the circumstantial evidence (something we can verify like fingerprints, DNA, shoeprint matches, clothing fibers, etc... that are far more reliable than witness testimony. Even worse is how quickly we can implant memories in others, especially children and adults supposedly recalling childhood events.

One of the reasons so many people have been freed from prison due to the Freedom Project's DNA work is despite extensive circumstances to the contrary, people tend to believe the eyewitness.[/quote]

I wasn't going to respond to this fearing that it would take the discussion away from the topic of memory. But seeing as how I've recently had the opportunity to sit on a jury, your claim in the last paragraph prompts me to make a comment or two. There are undoubtedly experts that have studied jury panels though I know of none or their studies, and of course having had but one experience doesn't entitle me to be an expert, but I must say that there is so much that goes on it would seem almost an intractable area to garner any solid conclusions about. I will say that the outcome in our case was based largely on what we gained from the testimony of the those brought to the witness stand. What the lawyers had to say was generally ignored, and was thought to be rather silly. The judge seemed to be stuck on relying on certain principles and I didn't think he was particularly competent. The defense attorneys seemed like sleaze bags and hardly offered much resistance. The jury instructions were written in such a narrow way that the task we were given was essentially to judge one thing (though there were several counts each of which we had to pass judgment about individually.) There were a few expert witnesses, and while helpful, in at least this instance weren't the best ones that could have been called and we had no access to what they relied on. Though the jury considered it, it wasn't crucial to our judgment. Exhibits though we saw some of them during testimony were not available for our deliberation, excepting a few photos. This led to some frustration.

But apart from that, a lot goes into judging a witness and his or her testimony. The major difficulty in most juries, I can imagine, comes in trying to convince one or two holdouts that prevent a unanimous jury. (Of course if the holdouts had good reason for their holdout and could convey it, the convincing could go the other way.) In our case, we had a stubborn holdout who'd made up his mind and that was that. In the interest of getting out earlier than later I took the opportunity of presenting a case (for guilt) in a step by step manner such that at each step agreement could easily be reached, stripping the argument of all peripheral issues not relevant to the guilt or innocence. (By the way, for some reason I was incredibly nervous about all this and was shaking throughout my presentation.) The major hurdle was to move from likely guilt, or even highly likely guilt, to beyond a reasonable doubt. This was accomplished by isolating the alleged victim's testimony from all the rest of the testimony, and showing from this that it was highly likely, and, using the fact that the victim's testimony corroborated that result, moved to regard the credibility of the witness as the key ingredient that cemented the reasonable doubt standard. Once we got into this, the last holdout who had told us he held out because he couldn't believe the alleged victim, suddenly burst out that he had overnight changed his mind and now believes the guilt. (And that was that.)

James

[Bill Davis]

But apart from that, a lot goes into judging a witness and his or her testimony. The major difficulty in most juries, I can imagine, comes in trying to convince one or two holdouts that prevent a unanimous jury. (Of course if the holdouts had good reason for their holdout and could convey it, the convincing could go the other way.)

This is not actually much of a deviation. The same mechanisms that we use to rebuild a conscious memory are the ones we use to decide what is truth. When we seek to recall something we continually question ourselves as to the reasonableness of what we are recalling. This can cause memories to be completely reformed. It is also the basis of making memories much more stable as we review them appending additional details that serve to make the memory more meaningful and memorable.

[owleye]

This is not actually much of a deviation. The same mechanisms that we use to rebuild a conscious memory are the ones we use to decide what is truth. When we seek to recall something we continually question ourselves as to the reasonableness of what we are recalling. This can cause memories to be completely reformed. It is also the basis of making memories much more stable as we review them appending additional details that serve to make the memory more meaningful and memorable.

My take away from this is that memory serves not to provide us with a history of past events as isolated entities, but rather with a history that is a narrative, interweaving significant aspects of our lives that represent what we've learned about it. This is off the top of my head and if I went farther with it I'd probably find much that was wrong about it.

But rather than do that, the main reason I responded was to thank you again for your insights and knowledge in this area and to let you know that (because of the small project I'd been working on in another thread -- On the relationship of the mind to the body), it prompted me to consider a more encompassing issue, namely the evolution of consciousness, where I address the issue of what advantage consciousness introduces. The conjecture I have is that its value is in making memory possible. (The topic will be entitled: On the Evolution of Consciousness -- a Conjecture where I will present my reasoning to support it). I recognize the topic is too big for me to handle, but this is what I like to do, so I do it. (It is also a topic I suspect has a mountain of material devoted to it, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this idea has already been offered, and by folks more competent than I.)

James