I've recently come to have a whole new perspective on the concept of memory. Unfortunately it would be difficult to share because I gained this insight from having watched several lectures on neurobiology as well as a lecture by Deepak Chopra where he mentioned the same thing. But then again, Deepak Chopra is a M.D. who is well-versed in neurobiology.

Anyway, to try to just give a brief synopsis it goes something like this:

The current scientific theory concerning memory in the human brain is not that memories are "stored" in memory. Especially not in a fashion that is used by digital computers. Instead, memory is believed to consist of some form of 'reconstitution' of sensory input in a very complex way that brings into question the very notion that anything specific was ever stored in the first place.

It's difficult to explain, but it made sense in the neurobiology lecture. They even used specific examples of how the memory of Alzheimer's patients deteriorates. Based on their studies we don't actually lose our 'memory', instead what we lose is our ability to 'reconstitute' images in our mind via the use of intent.

I'm sure this sounds quite vague in this post, but it was elaborated on in the lecture quite well.

Deepak took this to the spiritual level of cosmic consciousness and intent. He gave, what I thought, was a very good and intuitive explanation of how the cosmic consciousness reconstitutes an image in the mind's eye.

He also suggested that the only difference between daydreaming, or (fabricating fantasy images) and memory is intent. Other than that the process is identical. So what we think of as memory is actually nothing more than an intent to fabric an image of what we have experienced before. So in this view, there is no actual 'memory' in the brain. The brain is nothing more than a projector that can be used to fabric images. Any images at all.

So from this point of view, Deepak is suggesting that any 'memory' that actually exists, exists in the intent of spirit, and not in the brain anyway.

The scientific neurobiologists are coming to a similar conclusion, only without the spiritual explanation. In other words, they are recognizing that there is no memory in the brain, and that all the brain can do is construct images, or RE-construct images based on stimuli (symbols, words, experiences) by associating those words, not with a particular memory, but with an intent to construct a particular image.

They are at a loss to explain how that intent is manifest.

In other words, the scientific neurobiologists have recognized that the brain is merely a projector. But they can't figure out who's running it or where the plots for the movies come from.

I guess you can say, they found the projector, but they can't find the film?

Also their study of how Alzheimer's patients lose their ability to run the projector implies that there is no film. The film doesn't exist. All that exists is the projector and operator.

In other word, with Alzheimer's disease, it's not the film that's deteriorating. It's the projector that's failing.

There doesn't appear to be any film. Just an operator and a projector.

Oh well, that's the best I can do to describe this.

It's seems a lot like quantum mechanics in a way. All we keep doing is finding projectors with no film that are being operated by operators we can't seem to find unless we turn inward and look at our very own consciousness as being the source of intent and creation.

All signs point within. And now it appears to be happening again in the science of neurobiology.

But do you think that the memory in a person can be overwritten?

I'm getting very curious now.

So, where do dreams come from?

I'm sure there isn't any intent while you are asleep.

And it wouldn't explain deja vu either, because I can't see any intent in it either.

James wrote:


Thank you James!

This is what I mean when I say that our reality is simply a three dimensional projection, very similar to a holographic image that we create via our projector. Consciousness is the projector.

There are several levels to this reality, one of them is digital. All that you see is a projection. Everything you see and experience is just vibration as it is decoded by the brain.

Invisible wrote:


By "stored memory" I am not referring to the projected images James is talking about. I am referring to the programing of the mind stuff. (Things, objects, bodies etc.) Just as in the movie "The Matrix" each thing has its own programing that functions as its operating system.

The brain, as he says, does not hold onto memories of a person's life after that person is dead. Memories don't exist there. The only information in the brain is the programing contained in the cells that function as the operating system for those cells. (Even if a person could "hack" the material of the brain, if the person is dead, their memories will not be found in the brain.)

I don't want to get into my theory about the psyche's that exist within "the person" here but there is a lot more to memory than this.

It does exist on the spiritual level and all memory is stored and organized by the universal mind. In that respect, it can never be "overwritten."

The "person" on the other hand is the machine of the body and like any machine it can be deprogrammed and reprogrammed. This is what brainwashing is all about and MK Ultra goes even further than that and messes with the inner psyches to reprogram the body via trauma induced experiences.

As for the dreams, why would you say that is no 'intent'?

clearly if you are having a dream you must be aware of it on some conscious level. Could you not also have intent on that same conscious level?

When Deepak says 'intent' I don't think he's necessarily referring to premeditated waking conscious intent with a specific goal in mind. In fact, I can safely say that this is definitely not what he's referring to.

Intent, in the sense that Deepak means, does not imply, "motive".

Pehaps a better word might simply be 'will'. We 'will' things into being.

I think that's what he means by 'intent'.

The intent of conciousness is 'will'.

And will is present at all levels of conciousness, whether it is waking consciouness or subconsciousness.

We 'will' things into existence including our dreams.

I'm not sure about the deja vu thing. That could be something entirely different. That could be due to some kind of cosmic psychic waves interacting at faster than lightspeed.

I have no clue, that's just a guess of the top of my consciousness.

P.S.

"The Person" is the body or the incarnated expression of consciousness. It is not the whole of the true self. It is just a manifestation of the self. As long as you are trapped in THE MIND you will probably think of the "body," or the "person" you are in this life as the "self." This is only a small part of the true self.

"Deja vu" is interesting in that even the most hard core skeptics have experienced this on occasion. I'm sure they rationalized it to suit their belief system too.

I believe deja vu has something to do with the non existence of time and space and the sensing of an event vibration on the subconscious level before it happens by our personal energy field. Then, when the event rolls around in real time, we remember having been there and seen that exact thing.

I had a particularly strong deja vu once where I entered a restaurant for the first time, but I remembered having been there before and I remembered that exact moment. The deja vu lasted for an extended time. It was as if I was revisiting a place in my past. But one thing was missing. The electric train that followed a path around the wall near the ceiling was not running. I was with my sister who had also never been to that restaurant. When the waitress came to get our order, I asked her: "Is there a train in here? Where is the train?" Of course my sister thought I had gone bonkers. The waitress nonchalantly answered: "Yes, but it has not been turned on yet."

A few minutes later, an electric train came out from somewhere and began making its way around the track along the wall. My sister asked me how I knew. She did not believe that I had never been there before.

Thank you Jeannie and James for your patience.

Well, I was talking specially about internal memory and conjuring up images within our mind's eye.

I personally don't believe that we project the physical atomic structure of the universe. At least not via our biological brains.

I think the physical manifestation of the universe, including our brains, is done though some cosmic subconscious mechanism associated with the quantum field and standing waves.

What affect we can have on that via consciouness alone I'm not sure. I believe we can have some affect on it and this is what people call 'magick' and 'miracles'.

But even when we have that affect I think it's done internally (internal to consciousness itself). No brain required. In other words, it's done directly throught the cosmic consciousness and not through an individual's brain projector.

You're quite welcome.

I would be interesting in hearing how you think of memory. Can you describe it in words or is it a deeply intuitive notion that's hard to put into words?

We don't project the structure itself, we decode the existing vibrations (structure) then interpret and project an image of it.

In truth, there is no real structure. Nothing is solid. A particle is simply a standing wave. All is vibrational.



Yes it is. Including our brains which are holographic 'machines' or programs with their own function and purpose. Their function and purpose is to decode incoming vibrations and project the images that we see according to that programing.

WE ARE COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS.



Agreed. "We" (as persons in physical form) are just a small part of consciousness. Our effect on the body of the whole from this state of consciousness would be minimal at best on an individual basis, especially if we are operating from the mind level within a human consciousness.

One example is to try to imagine how another creature might see the world. Their brains are not the same as ours and neither is their level of consciousness. The way another creature's brain might decode the vibrations it receives via its sensory organs might be totally different from ours. They will see the world totally different than we do. They may see things we can't see, and they may not be able to see things we can see.

Well, this is a bit of an oxymoron though, is it not?

I mean, you say there is no structure and that all is vibration. But they you also accept that vibrations is (structure).

I agree that all is vibration, but I also agree that vibration is structure. So in that sense there is "real structure" in the form of vibrations.

You also say that "nothing is solid". But what does solid even mean, other than the idea that things cannot pass through each other, or occupy the same space at the same time?

Well, this is actually true of standing waves that exhibit the Pauli Exclusion principle. It is the fact that certain kinds of standing waves cannot vibrate in the same place at the same time that gives rise to the very phenomonen of solidity.

The fact that those same waves could be canceled out entirely in certain situations (i.e. matter anti-matter collisions) doesn't change the fact that in other situations those similar type so waves cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

Just because the entire universe is made of vibrations doesn't mean that it has no 'substance'. The substance may be due to vibrations and their properties but the results are the same.

In other words, does it really matter whether what's 'out there' is hard billard ball-like particles, or just standing waves of energy that behave like hard billard ball-like particles in certain situations?

The final result is the same in both cases. A genuine 'structure' of some sort has become manifest. A vibration with specific properties is a 'structure'.

I also feel that the term 'Holographic Projection' is not a precise analogy to what's actually going on. But that's probably because I understand how holographics projectiongs are done, and I don't see that as being the same mechanism of subatomic vibrations. Those vibrations don't appear to be 'projections' so much as they appear to be disturbances within a medium (the medium being the quantum field).

Well, I suppose you could think of the 'projection' being the disturbance itself being 'projected out' of the quantum field. But that would be a totally different type of projection than is created by holographic technology.

In other words, the projector itself would need to be omnipresent. That's not the way that conventional holography works. So in that sense it's a misleading analogy.



Yes, I certainly understand that. But they still seem to be dealing with the same vibrations.

In other words, if you go for a walk in the woods and take your dog. You're dog will go around the same trees you see. The dog isn't going to pass through the trees that you see.

Therefore the dog must be seeing the same trees as you do.

For the dog, those trees may appear to be quite different, and the dog may perceive the trees to be different. But ultiamtely the dog must see the same basic shapes. Otherwise the dog would just walk through the trees that you see because it would be seeing something totally different.

Clearly that's not the case.

The trees are actually 'out there' no matter how differently they may be percieved by different minds.

In fact you could do the same thing with other humans.

When you invite someone to your house they don't typically sit down in your kitchen sink and say, "Oh in my mind this is a sofa".



I mean there must be some common truth to the reality of the cosmic vibrational manifestation.

From my point of view that truth must arise from the cosmic subconciouss mind which we call the 'quantum field'.

Precisely how our conscious minds can communicate and affect the manifestation of that subconcious cosmic mind is an interesting question that is often the topic of books on 'magick' or other types of spiritual transformation techniques.

Interesting change of focus here...

This applies all too well.


The Word by Stefan George

Wonder or dream from distant land
I carried to my country's strand

And waited til the twilit norn
Had found the name within her born-

Then I could grasp it close and strong
It blooms and shines now the front along...

Once I returned from happy sail,
I had a prize so rich and frail,

She sought for long and tidings told:
"No like of this these depths unfold."

And stright it vanished from my hand,
The treasure never graced my land...

So I renounced and sadly see:
Where word breaks off no thing may be.

Yes, vibration is the only "structure" we have.

Q: What does "solid" mean?

In the sense of what we observe, it is the interaction of objects with each other which hold their vibration and shape in tact so that they do not pass through each other or disappear from our site (vanish). Because of this integrity, we say that these things are "real." We decide that they are real. They are our reality.

Q "What does it matter?"

It only matters if and when we decide to "tamper" with the fabric of reality.

"Holographic"

Of course what we know of 'holographic' is only a sample of the attributes of what might be holographic in nature concerning our personal projections.

In my dreams I project objects too, and they don't pass through each other. I was even stabbed by a person 40 times in a dream and I felt the knife enter my dream body. When I woke up I actually checked for wounds, the dream had been so vivid.

I certainly don't disagree with this. I also believe that there are fields within fields and fields around each person and thing.

Nice poem but it went over my head.

Unless, like I suspect, "The Word" represents vibration.

Where understanding breaks off no thing may be...

That is how I took it.

As if it is referring to what we know and how we come to know it.

I have to go back and really read and "listen" to what was written in a few of the earlier posts about this. I am going to look for a link I had on my PC at one time that spoke about our memory.

From what I recall, it talked of memory starting in the "gut", then the heart, and last of all, the brain. The article spoke of the sheer number of "emeory receptors" in the area of the gut being the greatest number in the body. When a person "feels" a gut instinct, they may not be able to "know" exactly what made them feel like something was wrong/bad/scary/etc or something was right/good/pleasant. It took the mind some time to bring all the pieces together to get that.."Oh yea...now I remember"... I know that a pavlovian type of response was discussed as well.

when I worked with people with Alzhiemers, and other diseases that took part of their cognitive abilities, there were certain times in their life that they seemed to be able to recolect perfectly...while they did not know the name of their children or spouse.

I personally had a very serious illness and was in a coma state for a number of days with some swelling of the meninges of the brain, which initially made it very difficult for me to recall all the pieces of a situation to have it make sense. Most of the function has returned, however, I still have difficulty at times with certain things and certain times in my life.

I hope I can find the source of my rant...it was very interesting to me. I thought of people with schizophrenia that I had worked with over the years...and it was like their story was based in some recall of things that had gotten all mixed in the brain at some point, but if I worked with them long enough, it seemed that you could find a "real" cause to their delusions...it was very interesting. (see, that was the second time I said that...)

It is also interesting that some of the people/survivors of horrific abuse have "blocked" much of the memory out of their mind/life...yet, have a very strong startle response...

ok...so I need to go back and read what people have written about this now...

Thanks!!

lighthouse wrote...



Interesting indeed!