How do we recall?

[bahman]

The data in the brain stored in a binary way, question and answer. There is a strong correlation between the location that a question is resides and the location of the answer. It is through this proximity that we are able to recall the answer to a question when a related question is asked. This proximity, however, is not perfect so we do mistakes.

[Terrapin Station]

There is a strong correlation between the location that a question is resides and the location of the answer.

What, pray tell, are you basing that claim on? Just how do you believe we're imaging "the location in the brain where a particular question resides?"

[commonsense]

In the brain, if an answer and question are associated, then there’s a connection called a neural pathway.

[bahman]

There is a strong correlation between the location that a question is resides and the location of the answer.

What, pray tell, are you basing that claim on?

Because the brain saves the information in form of electrochemical in itself. The duty of mind is to make a correlation between the information that we received in our whole life. This correlation itself saved as information which is the electrochemical connection between different sort of information.

Just how do you believe we're imaging "the location in the brain where a particular question resides?"

People can locate the electrochemical activity related to any form of imagination in the brain.

[bahman]

In the brain, if an answer and question are associated, then there’s a connection called a neural pathway.

Yes.

[Terrapin Station]

There is a strong correlation between the location that a question is resides and the location of the answer.

What, pray tell, are you basing that claim on?

Because the brain saves the information in form of electrochemical in itself. The duty of mind is to make a correlation between the information that we received in our whole life. This correlation itself saved as information which is the electrochemical connection between different sort of information.

Just how do you believe we're imaging "the location in the brain where a particular question resides?"

People can locate the electrochemical activity related to any form of imagination in the brain.

I'm not asking about imagination. I'm assuming that when you make a claim about the "location where a question resides" in the brain, you're making a claim based on imaging of some sort--a la an FMRI or something like that.

[Dimebag]

There is a saying in neuroscience, “cells that fire together, wire together”. This is talking about learning, which is a means of association between two or more things, concepts, or pieces of information.

Let’s take pavlov’s Dog as an example.

Every time Pavlov fed his dog supposedly, he would ring a bell. Over time, within the dogs brain, connections formed between hearing a bell noise and the presence of food.

There comes a point where, you can simply ring the bell, and the association between bell and food is so strong that the dogs mouth will salivate (presumably because they are now thinking of the food they will get) if the bell is ringing.

Now, to recall might be a similar process, but, it would depend on the information being recalled. There are different kinds of memory, which are encoded differently, with different propensities for recall.

I am going to post a quote here with some information regarding the process, which is explained in fairly rudimentary neuroscience terms.

Memory retrievalEdit

Memory networks can be fully or partially activated by associated stimuli, such as this picture of Friedrich Nietzsche
The basis of memory recall is a re-creation of that memory. As shown by the discussion of LTP in long-term memory, memories are stored as patterns of neural network activation across the brain, such that those networks encode the information of the event (information as in the sights, sounds, details, etc.). Once some sort of stimulus causes a part of one of these memory networks to become activated, the strength of the connections between members of that network cause the entire network to become activated too, thereby recalling the memory experience. In contrast to this full re-creation of the memory experience generated by complete activation of the memory network, partial activation of a network can lead to unconscious recognition or presque vu.

An example of recognition would be seeing a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche, then from that remembering his name, some basic facts about his life, etc. In this example, the picture acts as the stimulus which can crudely be seen as activating some part of your 'Friedrich Nietzsche network'. If the strength of the connections in this network is strong, then this stimulus will cause the whole network to reactivate, thus accounting for your ability to recall facts about Nietzsche, such as what books he wrote, when he lived, etc. If these connections are not as strong, there may only be partial activation of the Nietzsche network, leading to moments where the person's name is on the 'tip of your tongue', and the only way to access it is to try to activate more of the network. For example, just seeing Nietzsch's face may not be enough to trigger recall of his name, but add to that some vague recollection of 19th century philosophers, something about the word Übermensch, and then suddenly there is enough of the 'Nietzsche network' activated to be able to retrieve his name.

A secondary point which is worth mentioning is that because the brain is a dynamic, ever-changing system, memories are prone to be altered during recall. The reason behind this is that the memory network is being activated at the same time other networks are being activated by the present world. For example, you may recall a favorite camping trip you went on as a child at the same time you are happening to eat a graham cracker. If a neuron from the 'camping trip network' should form a strong connection during this time to a neuron associated with experiencing the graham cracker, then part of the experience of eating a graham cracker may accidentally fuse into the memory's network. So potentially years later when recalling that same camping trip, at the end you may distinctly remember eating graham crackers over the campfire, when in fact this never happened.|}

Taken from https://en.m.wikiversity.org/w/index.ph ... &section=5

[bahman]

There is a saying in neuroscience, “cells that fire together, wire together”. This is talking about learning, which is a means of association between two or more things, concepts, or pieces of information.

Let’s take pavlov’s Dog as an example.

Every time Pavlov fed his dog supposedly, he would ring a bell. Over time, within the dogs brain, connections formed between hearing a bell noise and the presence of food.

There comes a point where, you can simply ring the bell, and the association between bell and food is so strong that the dogs mouth will salivate (presumably because they are now thinking of the food they will get) if the bell is ringing.

Now, to recall might be a similar process, but, it would depend on the information being recalled. There are different kinds of memory, which are encoded differently, with different propensities for recall.

I am going to post a quote here with some information regarding the process, which is explained in fairly rudimentary neuroscience terms.

Memory retrievalEdit

Memory networks can be fully or partially activated by associated stimuli, such as this picture of Friedrich Nietzsche
The basis of memory recall is a re-creation of that memory. As shown by the discussion of LTP in long-term memory, memories are stored as patterns of neural network activation across the brain, such that those networks encode the information of the event (information as in the sights, sounds, details, etc.). Once some sort of stimulus causes a part of one of these memory networks to become activated, the strength of the connections between members of that network cause the entire network to become activated too, thereby recalling the memory experience. In contrast to this full re-creation of the memory experience generated by complete activation of the memory network, partial activation of a network can lead to unconscious recognition or presque vu.

An example of recognition would be seeing a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche, then from that remembering his name, some basic facts about his life, etc. In this example, the picture acts as the stimulus which can crudely be seen as activating some part of your 'Friedrich Nietzsche network'. If the strength of the connections in this network is strong, then this stimulus will cause the whole network to reactivate, thus accounting for your ability to recall facts about Nietzsche, such as what books he wrote, when he lived, etc. If these connections are not as strong, there may only be partial activation of the Nietzsche network, leading to moments where the person's name is on the 'tip of your tongue', and the only way to access it is to try to activate more of the network. For example, just seeing Nietzsch's face may not be enough to trigger recall of his name, but add to that some vague recollection of 19th century philosophers, something about the word Übermensch, and then suddenly there is enough of the 'Nietzsche network' activated to be able to retrieve his name.

A secondary point which is worth mentioning is that because the brain is a dynamic, ever-changing system, memories are prone to be altered during recall. The reason behind this is that the memory network is being activated at the same time other networks are being activated by the present world. For example, you may recall a favorite camping trip you went on as a child at the same time you are happening to eat a graham cracker. If a neuron from the 'camping trip network' should form a strong connection during this time to a neuron associated with experiencing the graham cracker, then part of the experience of eating a graham cracker may accidentally fuse into the memory's network. So potentially years later when recalling that same camping trip, at the end you may distinctly remember eating graham crackers over the campfire, when in fact this never happened.|}

Taken from https://en.m.wikiversity.org/w/index.ph ... &section=5

What is missing is the importance of the mind for any change which is made in the connections between neurons.

[Terrapin Station]

There is a saying in neuroscience, “cells that fire together, wire together”. This is talking about learning, which is a means of association between two or more things, concepts, or pieces of information.

Let’s take pavlov’s Dog as an example.

Every time Pavlov fed his dog supposedly, he would ring a bell. Over time, within the dogs brain, connections formed between hearing a bell noise and the presence of food.

There comes a point where, you can simply ring the bell, and the association between bell and food is so strong that the dogs mouth will salivate (presumably because they are now thinking of the food they will get) if the bell is ringing.

Now, to recall might be a similar process, but, it would depend on the information being recalled. There are different kinds of memory, which are encoded differently, with different propensities for recall.

I am going to post a quote here with some information regarding the process, which is explained in fairly rudimentary neuroscience terms.

Memory retrievalEdit

Memory networks can be fully or partially activated by associated stimuli, such as this picture of Friedrich Nietzsche
The basis of memory recall is a re-creation of that memory. As shown by the discussion of LTP in long-term memory, memories are stored as patterns of neural network activation across the brain, such that those networks encode the information of the event (information as in the sights, sounds, details, etc.). Once some sort of stimulus causes a part of one of these memory networks to become activated, the strength of the connections between members of that network cause the entire network to become activated too, thereby recalling the memory experience. In contrast to this full re-creation of the memory experience generated by complete activation of the memory network, partial activation of a network can lead to unconscious recognition or presque vu.

An example of recognition would be seeing a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche, then from that remembering his name, some basic facts about his life, etc. In this example, the picture acts as the stimulus which can crudely be seen as activating some part of your 'Friedrich Nietzsche network'. If the strength of the connections in this network is strong, then this stimulus will cause the whole network to reactivate, thus accounting for your ability to recall facts about Nietzsche, such as what books he wrote, when he lived, etc. If these connections are not as strong, there may only be partial activation of the Nietzsche network, leading to moments where the person's name is on the 'tip of your tongue', and the only way to access it is to try to activate more of the network. For example, just seeing Nietzsch's face may not be enough to trigger recall of his name, but add to that some vague recollection of 19th century philosophers, something about the word Übermensch, and then suddenly there is enough of the 'Nietzsche network' activated to be able to retrieve his name.

A secondary point which is worth mentioning is that because the brain is a dynamic, ever-changing system, memories are prone to be altered during recall. The reason behind this is that the memory network is being activated at the same time other networks are being activated by the present world. For example, you may recall a favorite camping trip you went on as a child at the same time you are happening to eat a graham cracker. If a neuron from the 'camping trip network' should form a strong connection during this time to a neuron associated with experiencing the graham cracker, then part of the experience of eating a graham cracker may accidentally fuse into the memory's network. So potentially years later when recalling that same camping trip, at the end you may distinctly remember eating graham crackers over the campfire, when in fact this never happened.|}

Taken from https://en.m.wikiversity.org/w/index.ph ... &section=5

Is this supposed to be about the "question location" imaging we're appealing to?

[Dimebag]

There is a saying in neuroscience, “cells that fire together, wire together”. This is talking about learning, which is a means of association between two or more things, concepts, or pieces of information.

Let’s take pavlov’s Dog as an example.

Every time Pavlov fed his dog supposedly, he would ring a bell. Over time, within the dogs brain, connections formed between hearing a bell noise and the presence of food.

There comes a point where, you can simply ring the bell, and the association between bell and food is so strong that the dogs mouth will salivate (presumably because they are now thinking of the food they will get) if the bell is ringing.

Now, to recall might be a similar process, but, it would depend on the information being recalled. There are different kinds of memory, which are encoded differently, with different propensities for recall.

I am going to post a quote here with some information regarding the process, which is explained in fairly rudimentary neuroscience terms.

Memory retrievalEdit

Memory networks can be fully or partially activated by associated stimuli, such as this picture of Friedrich Nietzsche
The basis of memory recall is a re-creation of that memory. As shown by the discussion of LTP in long-term memory, memories are stored as patterns of neural network activation across the brain, such that those networks encode the information of the event (information as in the sights, sounds, details, etc.). Once some sort of stimulus causes a part of one of these memory networks to become activated, the strength of the connections between members of that network cause the entire network to become activated too, thereby recalling the memory experience. In contrast to this full re-creation of the memory experience generated by complete activation of the memory network, partial activation of a network can lead to unconscious recognition or presque vu.

An example of recognition would be seeing a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche, then from that remembering his name, some basic facts about his life, etc. In this example, the picture acts as the stimulus which can crudely be seen as activating some part of your 'Friedrich Nietzsche network'. If the strength of the connections in this network is strong, then this stimulus will cause the whole network to reactivate, thus accounting for your ability to recall facts about Nietzsche, such as what books he wrote, when he lived, etc. If these connections are not as strong, there may only be partial activation of the Nietzsche network, leading to moments where the person's name is on the 'tip of your tongue', and the only way to access it is to try to activate more of the network. For example, just seeing Nietzsch's face may not be enough to trigger recall of his name, but add to that some vague recollection of 19th century philosophers, something about the word Übermensch, and then suddenly there is enough of the 'Nietzsche network' activated to be able to retrieve his name.

A secondary point which is worth mentioning is that because the brain is a dynamic, ever-changing system, memories are prone to be altered during recall. The reason behind this is that the memory network is being activated at the same time other networks are being activated by the present world. For example, you may recall a favorite camping trip you went on as a child at the same time you are happening to eat a graham cracker. If a neuron from the 'camping trip network' should form a strong connection during this time to a neuron associated with experiencing the graham cracker, then part of the experience of eating a graham cracker may accidentally fuse into the memory's network. So potentially years later when recalling that same camping trip, at the end you may distinctly remember eating graham crackers over the campfire, when in fact this never happened.|}

Taken from https://en.m.wikiversity.org/w/index.ph ... &section=5

Is this supposed to be about the "question location" imaging we're appealing to?

Not so much. Memories aren’t necessarily located in one single place in the brain, in fact, the hippocampus which is involved in storing memories for longer term doesn’t actually contain the memories, which are supposedly distributed throughout the cortex, depending on the content. Neuroscience doesn’t have that accurate a picture at the moment as to the actual locations of memories.

Recently I heard of a story which determined that by saying the word if the thing you are trying to remember, for instance, if you lost your keys and want to remember where they are, by saying the word, you actually improve your chance of finding it.

This would seem to give evidence towards the proposal that memory recall is aided by activation of the initial associations.

I can also personally testify that the conditions in which the initial memory was encoded in context of can aid in eliciting recall, for example if a song was playing when a particular memory was encoded, if that song plays again, it can elicit the recall of that memory again.

But, typically, if we are referring to “declarative memory”, for example, the capital city of France, the concepts or words France and Paris are associated, meaning when one of the concepts is activated in the brain, the related concepts will also be activated, such as “Europe”, “Eiffel tower”, “Baguette” etc. concepts are linked together in networks of associations, and by thinking of one, it will elicit the relations.

[Terrapin Station]

Not so much. Memories aren’t necessarily located in one single place in the brain, in fact, the hippocampus which is involved in storing memories for longer term doesn’t actually contain the memories, which are supposedly distributed throughout the cortex, depending on the content. Neuroscience doesn’t have that accurate a picture at the moment as to the actual locations of memories.

Right--and not just memories, but bahman actually made a claim about the location of questions

[bahman]

Not so much. Memories aren’t necessarily located in one single place in the brain, in fact, the hippocampus which is involved in storing memories for longer term doesn’t actually contain the memories, which are supposedly distributed throughout the cortex, depending on the content. Neuroscience doesn’t have that accurate a picture at the moment as to the actual locations of memories.

Right--and not just memories, but bahman actually made a claim about the location of questions

Bu location I didn't mean a point but an area.

[Terrapin Station]

Not so much. Memories aren’t necessarily located in one single place in the brain, in fact, the hippocampus which is involved in storing memories for longer term doesn’t actually contain the memories, which are supposedly distributed throughout the cortex, depending on the content. Neuroscience doesn’t have that accurate a picture at the moment as to the actual locations of memories.

Right--and not just memories, but bahman actually made a claim about the location of questions

Bu location I didn't mean a point but an area.

If the area is "the brain" that would work.

[bahman]

Right--and not just memories, but bahman actually made a claim about the location of questions

Bu location I didn't mean a point but an area.

If the area is "the brain" that would work.

Information is stored in a collection of neurons to be more precise. Each neuron has a location. Therefore, we are dealing with a volume (rather than area to be more precise).

[Terrapin Station]

Bu location I didn't mean a point but an area.

If the area is "the brain" that would work.

Information is stored in a collection of neurons to be more precise. Each neuron has a location. Therefore, we are dealing with a volume (rather than area to be more precise).

What do you take to be evidence that "information" is only stored in neurons?