Researchers May Have Discovered How Memories Are Encoded In the Brain 185
Zothecula writes "While it's generally accepted that memories are stored somewhere, somehow in our brains, the exact process has never been entirely understood. Strengthened synaptic connections between neurons definitely have something to do with it, although the synaptic membranes involved are constantly degrading and being replaced – this seems to be somewhat at odds with the fact that some memories can last for a person's lifetime. Now, a team of scientists believe that they may have figured out what's going on. Their findings could have huge implications for the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer's."
first application will be .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pick one
a) therapy, erasing bad memories
b) therapy, implanting good memories
c) health, perserving function
d) personal, perserving cherished memories
e) learning
f) porn
Place your bets!!
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The brain does not store memories (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an interesting conjectgure, but fallacious. There are probably between 80 and 120 billion bit-neurons in the human brain, and a finitely non-discrete number of synapses, all of which act as de facto logic gates/memory bits. Since the brain is constantly purging anything it finds irrelevant, and since it has mechanisms for reconstructing meaningful memories from very limited data, there's no reason to assume that this massive memory-loaded processor has to have some (essentially) off-site location for actually long-term storing this data. The fallacy is that you're assuming that this transient storage is A) unacceptable for long-term storage and B) that the transmission and processing of this data is somehow analogous to a hard drive cable, which itself is neither capable of storing nor processing data. The closest analogy would be to a processor that has gigabytes of onboard memory with built-in disposal and propagation mechanisms, neither of which are present in any current processor. Assuming something far-fetched and backing it up with less-than-robust analogies is, at best, a very weak way to argue well, much less actually be right.