The credibility of claims that memory recollections come from brains is inversely proportional to the speed and capacity and reliability at which things can be memorized and things can be recalled. There are numerous signal slowing factors in the brain, such as the relatively slow speed of dendrites, and the cumulative effect of synaptic delays in which signals have to travel over relatively slow chemical synapses (by far the most common type of synapse in the brain). As explained in my post here, such physical factors should cause brain signals to move at a typical speed very many times slower than the often cited figure of 100 meters per second: a sluggish "snail's pace" speed of only about a centimeter per second (about half an inch per second). Ordinary everyday evidence of very fast thinking and instant recall is therefore evidence against claims that memory recall occurs because of brain activity, particularly because the brain is totally lacking in the things humans add to constructed objects to allow fast recall (things such as sorting and addressing and indexes). Chemical synapses in the brain do not even reliably transmit signals. Scientific papers say that each time a signal is transmitted across a chemical synapse, it is transmitted with a reliability of 50% or less. (A paper states, "Several recent studies have documented the unreliability of central nervous system synapses: typically, a postsynaptic response is produced less than half of the time when a presynaptic nerve impulse arrives at a synapse." Another scientific paper says, "In the cortex, individual synapses seem to be extremely unreliable: the probability of transmitter release in response to a single action potential can be as low as 0.1 or lower.") The more evidence we have of very fast and very accurate and very capacious recall (what a computer expert might call high-speed high-throughput retrieval), the stronger is the evidence against the claim that memory recall occurs from brain activity.
It is therefore very important to collect and study all cases of exceptional human memory performance. The more such cases we find, and the more dramatic such cases are, the stronger is the case against the claim that memory is a neural phenomenon. Or to put it another way, the credibility of claims that memory is a brain phenomenon is inversely proportional to the speed and reliability and capacity of the best cases of human mental performance. The more cases that can be found of humans that seem to recall too quickly for a noisy address-free brain to ever do, or humans that seem to recall too well for a noisy, index-free, signal-mangling brain to ever do, the stronger is the case that memory is not a neural phenomenon but instead a spiritual or psychic or metaphysical phenomenon. In part 1 of this post, I gave many newspaper clips giving examples of such exceptional human memory performance. Let us now look at some more of such newspaper clips.
Below is part of an 1886 newspaper that describes what seems like what is now called Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM), also called hyperthymesia.
A 1905 news article tells of a man who only developed amazing powers of memory after a severe brain injury (the man was named J. A. Bottle, or W. J. M. Bottle, but used a stage name of Datas):
Below is an obituary of the prodigy called Blind Tom. The reported ability to replay any composition after having heard it only once is an ability known to exist in today's world, having been demonstrated repeatedly by Derek Paravicini.
You can read the full account below:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86090233/1908-07-09/ed-1/seq-8/
No comments:
Post a Comment