RandoymRandt

For the Brain, Remembering Is Like Reliving
NYT Science article
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: September 4, 2008

"Scientists have for the first time recorded individual brain cells in the act of summoning a spontaneous memory, revealing not only where a remembered experience is registered but also, in part, how the brain is able to recreate it.

The recordings, taken from the brains of epilepsy patients being prepared for surgery, demonstrate that these spontaneous memories reside in some of the same neurons that fired most furiously when the recalled event had been experienced.

Researchers had long theorized as much but until now had only indirect evidence..."

Holy shit! I think I heard something exactly like this discussed by a Chiropractor in some "pseudo science movie" everybody is so sure is 100% complete bunk...

"Filter out the bad water, but try to keep the baby"

Malachi

A good guess probably based on the long operating hypothesis in the the field of neuroanatomy that might have been said by a chiropractor in some film, doesn't rescue a field from junk science-hood.

Was that your point? If so, how can you tell what fraction of hokum is baby and which is bathwater?

RandoymRandt

Good question, actually. Again my point originally was to say that the movie could open some doors for people...and really not much more than that because some of it was pure edutainment.

But it made me LOOK for the truth, which was what I think most people don't do...they sorta wait for it to bite them on the ass instead of exploring the options, particularly the theories that might be harder to believe because they're "so new" (in my case, the use of meditation as part of studies in neuroscience and simiilar mind/body sciences are of particular interest to me: Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine).

That was my original point. Still is.

I am completely advocating for science, even when my wording is off, and I'm also advocating that in so many scientific fields of the last century (sometimes decade) or so, progress is incredibly slow, AND usually the bleeding edge IS in fact...mystical...and amazing...and should inspire us to wonder how much is really connected that we literally cannot see quite yet...but can only dream (like an Einstein)...

Midi Reifsnider

What film? (sorry is that a stupid question?)

__________________

RandoymRandt

HEH! No, nonono, I was avoiding saying it because last time I was gangbanged for merely bringing it up!

What the Bleep Do We Know.

Malachi

With good reason, because in the words of one reviewer it is such a comedy of misunderstanding that it is "not even wrong".

I actually bought this infomercial on impulse without knowing a thing about it. I think I got through the first 10 minutes before realizing that the filmmakers didn't know a bleeping thing.

Matty Luminos

I read once about a survey that was done on recollection of memories and it proved that you best recall things when you're in the same state you were when you first learned them. They tested a bunch of students, got half of them drunk, and gave them some stuff to learn. Then they waited until the drunk ones were sober again, and tested them all on what they'd learned. The ones who had been drunk performed worse. No real surprise there. Then they got ALL the students drunk and tested them again. This time the ones who'd been drunk in the beginning performed better.

__________________
meow.

Cindy Claveau

If you'll recall, during that discussion I pointed you to testimony from people who were interviewed for that nonsense film, who said they were taken out of context and portions of their statements were used to give the wrong impression.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to prove here, since brain science is a fascinating and growing field. The fact that memories are imprinted on our neural synapses has nothing to do with time travel or talking to 30,000 year old warriors.

RandoymRandt

Yeees, some of them did, some didn't, and either way, it doesn't surprise me that some of these scientists who are under such strict guidelines in their research and professional careers had 'buyers regret' for participating in this project. At all. I said that already.

I just didn't get so freaked out by this movie that I googled and found what I needed to disprove the entire thing as false.

Instead, I spent my time researching parts that seemed to have merit, and in fact, might hold truth, or provide a simple doorway to truth (i.e. NYT article).

That is a difference between us. I am looking for something useful from the plethora of information skimmed upon in it, and you are clearly not. Go figure.

YEASSSSSAH, Didn't I just say that exact thing AGAIN and again, from the beginning? *sigh* I'm "saying" (but apparently you're not reading what I'm writing) that there is information in that movie related to mind/body sciences, and peptides, how the brain processes information, etc, that (given the NYT article as one point of very recent information) has merit, and very very simply isn't bullshit, just because it might be a little to mystical for your average thinker. So is most of quantum physics, and neuroscience, and anything that is new to humankind in our generally weak-ass way of seeing the world.

Who said anything about time travel (huh? where was time travel in the movie? i missed that?) Who said anything about warriors? The woman you reference is someone I don't like for reasons beyond her claims of channeling, but, she was an one small part of the movie and apparently that part scares you. Who cares about her so much? If you don't like that part, and don't believe in it (which I also don't get into) then that is the bathwater, eh? Throw it out.

What I'm trying to say is that people are so certain all the information is so completely wrong in that movie (in this case, because you googled it and then read that it was at least as misguided as most of our media tends to be...on a website...coz clearly everything you read hasn't been edited for specific purposes just like the movie...shit I'm getting sarcastic now, sorry) when it literally and simply isn't all wrong, that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of your own prejudices.

You can filter something instead of trash it, keep the baby, throw out the bathwater...that was my point.

Simple enough, eh, what I'm saying, I hope? I'm sure there are more scientific and less entertaining movies and docs with similar information out there, so feel free, someone, to share them if you've got something that's tried and tested. I'd love to learn more!

Malachi

That stance is so disingenuous as to obviate further discussion.

If you find the flick enlightening, great. Just don't expect to post in Science and have other posters accept that it is other than junk dressed in scientistic terminology.

We aren't closed minded, we've just dealt with this species of crap enough that having a tiny piece of it possibly held true if your memory is correct and the described phenomena are actually related doesn't really alter the nature of the film in its entirety.

A stopped clock is correct twice a day, but that doesn't make it accurate or a valid timekeeping tool.