Dr. Stephen Braude – your memories aren’t in your brain|318|

There are shamans who exist in modern civilization - they even use iPhones. Did Alex actually say shamanism should replace science, or merely that in our efforts to understand the world shamanism might play a role along with science?



What's the flaw in the argument? I'm looking at the paper so if you could point out what makes no sense we can see if the argument has a flaw.

As for the physical facts seems they would only be observed correlations and cause/effect relationships? Is there any discovery in neuroscience that could only apply to consciousness as produced, rather than transmitted? As such would not the same be true of memory?

The impression I got was that Alex was suggesting that miracles or shamanism were as good explanations as science
But perhaps I was mistaken

I will get back to you on the tennis ball argument

I have no idea what you are saying in your final paragraph
Maybe you could elaborate ?
 
Why do people with a damaged hippocampus have difficulty forming new long term memories? A further thought. If what you think is true why is there a hippocampus to begin with?

One reason could be that the hippocampus is essential to processing long term memories while embodied and functioning through the brain
in other words in the normal embodied waking state
But that does not necessarily mean the memories are stored in the hippocampus or elsewhere in the brain

NDEs show that consciousness which is disembodied still has access to personal long term memories
which would seem to suggests that the memories are not stored in the brain
And that a brain is not necessarily required to access them

Seems to me some other mechanism is functioning in the out-of-body state

Does anyone know of an NDE account by someone who has a damaged hippocampus and compromised long term memory in their normal waking state
I wonder if such a person would experience more access to their long term memory during their experience
and if their NDE account might indicate that
??
 
Why do people with a damaged hippocampus have difficulty forming new long term memories? A further thought. If what you think is true why is there a hippocampus to begin with?

We don't know whether the memories are stored in the hippo or accessed through the hippo. I would guess accessed due to NDE reports. Maybe it plays a key role in the quantum computing code breaker function.

Going with the simulation hypothesis, there would be a record or memory somewhere or somewhen of everything that's ever happened and this record can be accessed in different ways depending on your identity and/or level of access.
 
One reason could be that the hippocampus is essential to processing long term memories while embodied and functioning through the brain
in other words in the normal embodied waking state
But that does not necessarily mean the memories are stored in the hippocampus or elsewhere in the brain

NDEs show that consciousness which is disembodied still has access to personal long term memories
which would seem to suggests that the memories are not stored in the brain
And that a brain is not necessarily required to access them

Seems to me some other mechanism is functioning in the out-of-body state

Does anyone know of an NDE account by someone who has a damaged hippocampus and compromised long term memory in their normal waking state
I wonder if such a person would experience more access to their long term memory during their experience
and if their NDE account might indicate that
??
Stored where?
 
Stored where?

I don't know. If this reality is a projection that would imply the data is stored elsewhere in some other form. Or the matter of the universe itself could be considered the information storage if it is possible to move around in time. In other words everything that has happened is still accessible because it still exists.

Information storage is meaning in-formed into symbol which has a relatively low rate of change. So the tree outside could be considered to be the experience of a tree in-formed into matter. Light hits the tree and is decoded by the eye into electrical signals and these are decoded into a visual experience of the tree, like light hitting a CD and decoding into electrical signals and back to light signals. The tree changes slowly so that enables the assignment of identity to it and identity is a necessary part of memory.
 
Stored where?

I dont know!
But the NDE data indicates that it is not in the brain

The human psyche and personality can function without the body
So perhaps there is some other mechanism or substance or substrate which supports the psyche and the functioning of memory?

My own guess is that in the afterlife we have bodies which are composed of the material substance of the spirit realms
From all I have read I would say the material substance of the spirit realms is of a different nature than the matter in this realm
But that is merely a speculation based on what I have studied thus far
 
Stephen Braude said in the podcast:

So we know for example, in cases of hypnotic regression that people have not been genuinely regressed. Martin Orne a number of years ago did some very interesting experiments in regression. He hypnotized one person and ostensibly regressed him to the age of six, and then asked him to write down the sentences he uttered. The person wrote in very child-like handwriting but correctly spelled all the polysyllabic words that no six-year-old would know. So what we’re getting there is dramatic creativity that was elicited in a hypnotic state. Unless we start taking that kind of stuff seriously we really don’t know what’s going on in cases that seem to suggest survival.


Just a note on this topic. I'm not aware of these experiments, but just going on this anecdote I don't find it convincing to conclude definitively that the subject was not "genuinely regressed". If regression means being able to tap into earlier memories (rather than one's entire personally actually shifting to an earlier age), accurate memories could be accessed while still being filtered though the current adult personality. That there would be correctly spelled "polysyllabic words that no six-year-old would know" could mean the current personality is influencing the memories without those memories necessarily being bunk.
 
Just a note on this topic. I'm not aware of these experiments, but just going on this anecdote I don't find it convincing to conclude definitively that the subject was not "genuinely regressed". If regression means being able to tap into earlier memories (rather than one's entire personally actually shifting to an earlier age), accurate memories could be accessed while still being filtered though the current adult personality. That there would be correctly spelled "polysyllabic words that no six-year-old would know" could mean the current personality is influencing the memories without those memories necessarily being bunk.
This echoes the way sometimes people seek to discredit say OBEs or PSI or mediumship or reincarnation, by laying down rules about the way something must work, and then rejecting the phenomena because it doesn't conform to some predefined set of ideas. What seems very obvious, but is often ignored, is that perhaps it is theories and preconceptions which need to be discarded, rather than keeping those preconceptions and discarding the phenomena,

Perhaps relevant here is a phrase I came across recently on the nature of distant memory, "Facts Fade and Feelings Remain". Often there is an emphasis on facts, such things as names or numbers or dates rather than a broader narrative and its emotional content, and this can have the effect of obscuring or hiding what is in plain sight.
 
hey guys new to the form but i just found this on twitter and it is sayign they found well read it and get back to me alexs and any body here and we can have a talk about it http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

The author was interviewed by Alex here:

http://www.skeptiko.com/246-michael-graziano-near-death-experience-astrology/

Forum thread:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...r-death-experience-research-to-astrology.911/
 
This echoes the way sometimes people seek to discredit say OBEs or PSI or mediumship or reincarnation, by laying down rules about the way something must work, and then rejecting the phenomena because it doesn't conform to some predefined set of ideas. What seems very obvious, but is often ignored, is that perhaps it is theories and preconceptions which need to be discarded, rather than keeping those preconceptions and discarding the phenomena,

Perhaps relevant here is a phrase I came across recently on the nature of distant memory, "Facts Fade and Feelings Remain". Often there is an emphasis on facts, such things as names or numbers or dates rather than a broader narrative and its emotional content, and this can have the effect of obscuring or hiding what is in plain sight.

I agree. It's very easy to challenge the idea of the separation of memory and brain if we simply ignore the evidence that contradicts us.

There's clearly a connection between the ability to recall and the function of the brain. Then again there's a clear relationship between pretty much everything we do, say and think and our brain. I don't think anyone here argues against the brain mediating our relationship with the physical world. If that was all the evidence we had, there's probably no need for a non-physical explanation for anything we see in the world around us.

However, it isn't all the evidence we have. Since we presently do not know where and how memory is stored, if in fact it is stored anywhere, then discussion about whether or not memories are formed seems to me somewhat pointless. I can't see how we can say much about it other than the mechanism for retrieval appears to be either 'working' or 'not working'.
 
Last edited:
I agree. It's very easy to challenge the idea of the separation of memory and brain if we simply ignore the evidence that contradicts us.

There's clearly a connection between the ability to recall and the function of the brain. Then again there's a clear relationship between pretty much everything we do, say and think and our brain. I don't think anyone here argues against the brain mediating our relationship with the physical world. If that was all the evidence we had, there's probably no need for a non-physical explanation for anything we see in the world around us.

However, it isn't all the evidence we have. Since we presently do not know where and how memory is stored, if in fact it is stored anywhere, then discussion about whether or not memories are formed seems to me somewhat pointless. I can't see how we can say much about it other than the mechanism for retrieval appears to be either 'working' or 'not working'.
When I read the underlined, ( not saying it's you), it leads me to wonder if people take as much time keeping up with neuroscience as they do over the stuff they believe is true?
 
When I read the underlined, ( not saying it's you), it leads me to wonder if people take as much time keeping up with neuroscience as they do over the stuff they believe is true?

I think it depends where people's interests lie. I don't think neuroscience necessarily conflicts with the evidence I refer to, in fact a lot of the research has been conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists, before 'neuroscience' was even recognised as a discipline. Neuroscience cannot discount the evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance and other phenomena that people have both documented and experienced for themselves in controlled conditions. If it could explain the phenomena by purely physical mechanism then it would be hard to discount. It can't.

What I am trying to say is that proposing a model which ignores phenomena which are well-documented and for which there is a significant body of evidence is never going to work.
 
One of the abiding themes in the interviews and on the forums is precisely this matter of people ignoring evidence which contradicts what they believe
The evidence of mainstream neuroscience is not all the data on the issues discussed here
Most neuroscience practitioners and advocates simply ignore the the contrary or anomalous data
When asked about it they usually reply there is no point in looking at the anomalous data because it cannot be true or useful
But it is likewise true that many people on the other side of the debate can fall into a similar trap
which leads them to argue for positions which also ignore or eliminate much of the data
and in some cases, positions which question whether science is valid at all
 
I think it depends where people's interests lie. I don't think neuroscience necessarily conflicts with the evidence I refer to, in fact a lot of the research has been conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists, before 'neuroscience' was even recognised as a discipline. Neuroscience cannot discount the evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance and other phenomena that people have both documented and experienced for themselves in controlled conditions. If it could explain the phenomena by purely physical mechanism then it would be hard to discount. It can't.
It shouldn't concern itself anymore than biology should with creationism.
Never say the word can't. It has such an absolute connotation.

What I am trying to say is that proposing a model which ignores phenomena which are well-documented and for which there is a significant body of evidence is never going to work.
Perhaps the evidence is misunderstood?
Perhaps there's another explanation which no one has thought of.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't concern itself anymore than biology should with creationism.
Never say the word can't. It has such an absolute connotation.


Perhaps the evidence is misunderstood?
Perhaps there another explanation which no one has thought of.
Well you're welcome to review it and say something novel.

I take your point about the word "can't". "Hasn't" would be better.
The evidence for the phenomena I refer to is observations by reputable witnesses under controlled conditions. The comparison between biology and creationism is a red herring - as I think you know, or would if you'd read much of it.

This is starting to sound like the usual circular argumentation I've see you participate in before. It gets us no further. I'll leave you to it.
 
Back
Top