If The Brain Had a Memory Storage Code, We Would Have Found It Long Ago

One of the dogmas of modern biologists is that memories are stored in the brain. No one has ever produced any direct evidence establishing this claim, and there are many strong reasons for disbelieving it. One of these reasons is the lack of any plausible theory that explains how humans are able to instantly remember specific pieces of information when given some prompt such as the photo of someone's face or that person's name. Another reason is that there is no plausible theory that explains how humans could remember things for 50 years, such as humans can. The most popular theory of memory storage is that memories are stored in synapses, but we know that the proteins in synapses have short lifetimes, and they last for less than a month. No one has given a credible explanation of how memories could be stored for 50 years in synapses if there is such high protein turnover in synapses.

But despite these very grave difficulties, our neuroscientists keep telling us that our memories are stored in the brain. Neuroscientists do not claim that this alleged act of memory storage is some simple flow like the flow that occurs when you pour milk from your milk carton into your cereal bowl. Instead, neuroscientists claim that something called “encoding” occurs. We are told that the things we learn or experience are somehow translated into neural states, perhaps by some process that involves chemicals, electricity, or microscopic changes in the brain. But no neuroscientist has ever given anything resembling an exact description of how this encoding could occur.

The wikipedia.org article on “Encoding, memory” tells us that “The process of encoding is not yet well understood, however key advances have shed light on the nature of these mechanisms.” But no such advances have actually occurred. The article then mentions “the modification of neural synapses, modification of proteins, creation of new synapses, activation of gene expression and new protein synthesis.” But none of these things shed any light on how human experiences or learned concepts could ever be encoded as neural states, chemical states or electrical states. The wikipedia article in question gives us only bluffing and digressions, without doing anything to convince us that scientists have any understanding of how memories could be encoded as neural changes, chemical changes or electrical changes.

One reason for doubting that memories are encoded in brains is that such a thing would require for there to exist (still undiscovered) a set of encoding protocols so complex that they would be a miracle of design if they existed. Encoding always requires some set of translation rules. For example, human DNA uses a set of translation rules called the genetic code to encode information; American writers use the encoding protocols of the English language and the alphabet to encode information stored on paper; and computers use the encoding protocol known as the ASCII code to encode information stored in a computer. As argued here, it would seem that a brain could only store memories if it used a whole series of encoding protocols far more complex than the ASCII code or the genetic code; and the origin of so many sophisticated protocols would be impossible to naturally explain.

Consider only a few of the types of things that can be stored in a human memory:

• Memories of daily experiences, such as what you were doing on some day
• Facts you learned in school, such as the fact that Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theater
• Sequences of numbers such as your social security number
• Sequences of words, such as the dialog an actor has to recite in a play
• Sequences of musical notes, such as the notes an opera singer has to sing
• Abstract concepts that you have learned
• Memories of particular non-visual sensations such as sounds, food tastes, smells, pain, and physical pleasure
• Memories of how to do physical things, such as how to ride a bicycle
• Memories of how you felt at emotional moments of your life
• Rules and principles, such as “look both ways before crossing the street”
• Memories of visual information, such as what a particular person's face looks like

How could all of these very different types of information ever be translated into neural states or synapse states so that a brain could store them? If such encoding were to occur, it would be a miracle of complex design.  Very oddly, the same people who tell us (without any sound basis) that such an encoding occurs are the same people denying design in biological organisms. 

There is another very strong reason for doubting that memories are encoded in the brain: if the brain used a system of memory encoding, we would have already discovered direct evidence of such a code; but we have not discovered any such thing. Specifically:

1. If brains actually stored encoded information, we would see regularities and repetitions that would be signs of encoded information, such as we see in the nucleotide base pairs of DNA, where encoded information is stored; but we see no signs of any such repetitions or regularities that might be the hallmarks of encoded stored memories in the brain.
2. If brains actually stored encoded information, there would have to be many genes that support such encoding, such as the hundreds of genes that support the transfer RNA molecules needed to carry out the protein encoding used by DNA and the genetic code; but we see no signs of any such memory-encoding genes in the human genome.

Let me explain the first of these points. Encoded information has regularities and repetitions that allow someone to tell that it is encoded information. For example, before Europeans were able to read hieroglyphics, they were sure that it was some type of encoded information, because of the large amount of repetition of symbols. When scientists first started to unravel DNA, they quickly figured out it was some type of encoded information, because there was a very high amount of symbol repetition. If we were to get radio signals from intelligent extraterrestrials, it might be years before we would be able to decipher such signals. But soon after we received signals, we would at least be able to tell that they were from intelligent beings and the signals contained encoded information, because of the great number of regularities and repetitions we would see in the signals.

It therefore stands to reason that if some part of the brain (other than DNA) contained encoded information, we would be able to see physical evidence of such an encoding. When scanning neurons and synapses with our electron microscopes, we would see regularities and repetitions that would be the sign of encoded information. But we see no such thing. If you look here, you can see electron microscope photographs of tiny synapses smaller than a neuron. You will see no sign of anything that looks like encoded information. Advanced chemical analysis also have shown no signs of anything that had the regularities and repetitions that are the hallmarks of encoded information.

Some may claim that the brain has encoded memory information, but that it's just too tiny for us to see. Such a claim has little credibility. Scientists were able to discover the microscopic encoded information in DNA in the 1950's. Can we believe that 65 years later science and medical technology is not advanced enough to discover encoded memory information in the brain?

We know exactly what is in synapses, because we can view them with very high-resolution electron microscopes. Below we see a 2013 close-up electron microscope photograph of a synapse head, from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (link).  At the bottom we see a unit that has a length of 100 nanometers (billionths of a meter). 

There is no sign of any encoded information in such synapses.  We see none of the symbol repetition or token repetition that is a sign of encoded information. The little round things are balls of chemicals called vesicles.  The vesicles are almost all the same size and shape.  The vesicles are not stable, and travel across the dark line shown in the center of the photo (which is called a synaptic gap), as a nerve impulse travels.  No one has credibly proposed any method by which such vesicles could represent stable encoded information.  If we were to look at the same synapse head the next day, the arrangement of vesicles would be much different. Synapses bear no resemblance to any system for storing permanent learned information or long-term memories lasting for years.  Synapses no more resemble a system for storing encoded information than do the snow drifts outside of a house in Alaska. 

There is another place that we would expect to see a large sign of a neural code for memories if it existed. If such a thing existed, we would expect that there would be genes supporting such a facility. But no such genes have been found.

Let's consider a comparatively simple case of encoded information stored in the body, the case of the encoded information in DNA. DNA mainly consists of nucleotide base pairs, and particular combinations of such pairs represent particular amino acids. This very simple type of use of encoded information requires hundreds of genes, what are called tRNA genes. 

If human brains were to actually be translating thoughts and sensory experiences so that they can be stored as memory traces in the brain, such a gigantic job would require a huge number of genes – probably many times more than the 500 or so "tRNA" genes that are used for the very simple encoding job of translating DNA nucleotide base pairs into amino acids.  But we see no sign of any such memory encoding genes in the human genome.

There is a study that claims to have found possible evidence of memory encoding genes, but its methodology is ridiculous, and involved the absurd procedure of looking for weak correlations between a set of data extracted from one group of people and another set of data retrieved from an entirely different group of people. See the end of this post for reasons we can't take the study as good evidence of anything. There is not one single gene that a scientist can point to and say, “I am sure this gene is involved in memory encoding, and I can explain exactly how it works to help translate human knowledge or experience into engrams or memory traces.” But if human memories were actually stored in brains, there would have to be many hundreds or thousands of such genes.

The pie chart below shows human proteins by function:

This is a Wikipedia Commons file, and the page for the file gives the following table with the data used for the chart:

Function	Number of genes	Percent of genome
extracellular matrix protein	72	0.40%
protease	476	2.80%
cytoskeletal protein	441	2.60%
transporter	1098	6.40%
transmembrane receptor regulatory/adaptor protein	84	0.50%
transferase	1512	8.80%
oxidoreductase	550	3.20%
lyase	104	0.60%
cell adhesion molecule	93	0.50%
ligase	260	1.50%
nucleic acid binding	1466	8.50%
signaling molecule	961	5.60%
enzyme modulator	857	5.00%
viral protein	7	0.00%
calcium-binding protein	63	0.40%
defense/immunity protein	107	0.60%
hydrolase	454	2.60%
transfer/carrier protein	248	1.40%
membrane traffic protein	321	1.90%
phosphatase	230	1.30%
transcription factor	2067	12.00%
chaperone	130	0.80%
cell junction protein	67	0.40%
surfactant	15	0.10%
structural protein	280	1.60%
storage protein	15	0.10%
receptor	1076	6.30%
isomerase	94	0.50%
unclassified	4061	23.60%
Total	17209	100.00%

Notice that there is no mention at all of any such category as "memory encoding proteins," nor any mention of "memory storage proteins" nor any mention of "memory retrieval proteins."  The 15 proteins listed as "storage proteins" have nothing to do with memory storage. The wikipedia.org article on storage proteins describes them merely as "biological reserves of metal ions and amino acids." 

If human episodic memories and human learned knowledge were to be translated into brain states, such a marvel of translation would require a massive number of proteins dedicated to such a task. But no such proteins have been discovered or identified. 

Let's imagine a woman named Joan who is dating a man named Jack. Jack claims that he's one of the nation's most successful corn farmers.  But one day Joan notices something very suspicious. At Jack's home there are no signs of any of the things that Jack would need to have to be a successful corn farmer. Joan notices that Jack's home merely has a modest back yard, and does not have any large field for growing corn. Joan notices that Jack does not own a tractor for planting corn or any other piece of farming equipment,  and that in Jack's garage there are no signs of anything like food storage bins or seed sacks.  Joan should suspect that Jack is not telling the truth when he claims to be one of the nation's most successful corn farmer.  

Jack is similar to neuroscientists, and Jack's home and land is similar to the human brain.  The human brain does not have the things it would need to have if the neural memory storage claims made by neuroscientists are correct.  If it were true that the human brain stored memories, the human brain would need to have all of the following things:

• Some specialized physical biology in the brain capable of writing memories.
• Some specialized physical biology in the brain capable of reading memories.
• Some specialized physical biology in the brain capable of reliably storing memories for decades.
• Some specialized physical biology in the brain capable of retrieving memories instantly based on the most fragmentary hints.
• A huge number of proteins in the human body dedicated to accomplishing the incredibly difficult task of translating human episodic memories and human learned information into neural states or synapse states.

None of these things exist in the human brain. So the claims of today's neuroscientists are very much like the claims of Jack, claims that are contrary to the physical facts. Just as Jack's home bears no resemblance to a very successful corn farm, the human brain bears no resemblance to a device for permanently storing and instantly retrieving learned information. 

Postscript: Below are some quotes:

• "There is no such thing as encoding a perception...There is no such thing as a neural code...Nothing that one might find in the brain could possibly be a representation of the fact that one was told that Hastings was fought in 1066." -- M. R.  Bennett, Professor of Physiology at the University of Sydney (link).
• "No sense has been given to the idea of encoding or representing factual information in the neurons and synapses of the brain." -- M. R. Bennett, Professor of Physiology at the University of Sydney (link).