4 ms·
From my reading it seems as if a rather large subset of neurologist do not believe that memory is stored at all. In fact, I have a book written by a computer sc
by Bodell 6y ago
From my reading it seems as if a rather large subset of neurologist do not believe that memory is stored at all. In fact, I have a book written by a computer scientist and neurologist, intending to be a very long argument for why memory must be stored in the brain, weather by neurons or something else. I happened to read a review published in a neurology journal that was brutally dismissive of the book and near made fun of it. Despite the fact that the reviewer failed at providing any answers for logic problems outlined in the book. The reviewer even mistook a logic gate feed back structure for a dual input (the review quoted a study done that cut the “front processor” of the visual cortex to prove that a back connection also existed, I.e. the poor monkey did not lose sight until they severed both the front and back of his brain.)
The claim as I understand it is that there is no “memory” at all. What we experience as memories are simply input parameters that signal our brain to begin a particular function. In the way a neural net does not “remember” the training data but carries out what it “learned” anyway. I have problems explaining this idea as I think it is full of holes and would require some fundamental changes in how we think about feedback structures (I mean this neurologically as well as mathematical/computational).
Either way if most people don’t doubt memory storage in neurons then they are very quite about it. I’ve rarely ever read an argument for memory storage mechanisms in the brain. A good reason for this is simply the question: Where is it then? Neurons individually can’t really provide this sort of expansive data storage. And what they seem to be able to account for is too little and too widely spaced apart. Interestingly this spacing also provides a counter argument against the complex processing that would be required if there wasn’t a memory mechanism.
Personally I think the dismissal of memory comes with a lot of hubris attached, as well as a total lack of understanding information theory. Information theory itself seems to be popularly bemoaned by neuroscientist as well. But it’s hard to see the alternative and is a bit paradoxical since the only way I can seem to understand the “no memory” claim is by using a computer neural net metaphor.
- knolax 6y agoCan you name the book and the reviews? I'd like to read more but don't know which terms to Google.
- Bodell 6y agoSorry about that. It was late when I posted this. Book: [0]Memory and the Computational Brain, C. R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King You can read the main thesis here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444310498.fmatter https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/978144431049... Review: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262093114_Man_as_Machine_A_Review_of_Memory_and_the_Computational_Brain_Why_Cognitive_Science_Will_Transform_Neuroscience_By_C_R_Gallistel_And_A_P_King https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262093114_Man_as_Ma... Also please take all my comments with a grain of salt. I am not expert, I'm just trying to restate what I've read and understood.
- ithkuil 6y agoWhen a neural network "learns" something, it ends up with knowledge encoded in the network parameters. If that's not memory, we're using terminology in a different way.
- Bodell 6y agoI don't disagree that this is a possible way of viewing memory. I'm am simply restating the argument that I've heard the best I know how. That usually comes with a "memory is an illusion" caveat. If you want to argue that that is memory instead of a typical "hard drive" sort of situation then sure, okay, but this is not what most people think of when they think "memory". They believe it is something in which individual memories could perhaps be extracted, implanted, etc. I personally believe it's a valid theory, however it lacks experimental evidence and has yet to account for the fact that we can recall individual "training data". To account for this I do think it would require fundamental changes in how we view "computation". If you believe that artificial neural network structures can account for the brains real neuron processing I suggest checking out the book I mentioned, not because it cant be true but that there are still big unknowns left to discover before we know for sure if this is correct.[0] [0]Memory and the Computational Brain, C. R. Gallistel and Adam Philip King You can read the main thesis here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781444310498.fmatter https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/978144431049...
- ithkuil 6y agoI have no idea; this is not my field. Just pointing out it's quite possible people are just talking through each other. Human language is like that, full of ambiguity, of implicit baggage. If you feel "memory" means a recording of an event, or a photo book, then faced with the discovery that brains actually don't work like that you may want to state "neurons don't store memories!".
- Zebrakopf 6y agoI am sorry in advance if I misunderstood your sentence. Are you claiming there is a large subset of neurologists how do not believe in long-term potentiation and other plasticity processes driving long-term retention of memoranda? If so, could you please show me to these crowds?
- Bodell 6y agoI'm sorry, after the fact, if I've been unclear. Long-term potentiality is not the point of disagreement. The disagreement is that individual memories are not recalled, as they are not stored, per se. The idea is that neurons acclimate to inputs, so that when we "recall" them we are not retrieving a "memory" from a storage location but instead are being activated in a way that allows us to preform a learned action. I imagine those marble/cardboard diagrams of logic gates, where the cardboard flap will be left in a particular position after a marble has passed. In this way you can add numbers by dropping marbles into the appropriate input slots. Yet in this way, one could not derive prior calculations, as it does not store this information anywhere.