Is this how memory works?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you struggle with analogies as well as basic logic I see.

[b]What are the molecular underpinnings of memory? If the computer wasn't invented, but rather evolved, and just showed up on your doorstep, wouldn't you want to know how it works?
Of course.

You're glossing over the entire purpose of basic science.
No, I am just pointing out ...[text shortened]... ty to changing magnetisation on the disc and work on spin-dependent electron scattering.[/quote][/b]

If that's an analogy, it was very poorly developed and confusing. What does the electron represent? Molecules? Electrons = molecules?

I still don't know what you meant by saying I was "confusing layers of complexity"

Originally posted by wildgrass
If that's an analogy, it was very poorly developed and confusing.

I beg to differ.

What does the electron represent? Molecules? Electrons = molecules?
No. It represents a detail. Try and think about what I was saying overall.

I still don't know what you meant by saying I was "confusing layers of complexity"
When you study the works of Shakespeare, do you care about what type of paper it is written on?
When you study climate change, do you care about the mechanics of a combustion engine?
When you study how the heart works, do you care about the proteins on the inside of red blood cells?

A computer is an information processing and storage tool. How it works physically is largely separate from how it works logically.

The brain is an information processing and storage tool. How it works at the level of DNA is largely separate from how it works at the level of memory. The DNA changes in your OP are about the details of storing one bit, analogous to how a transistor is able to store a bit of information via charge.
FabianFnas's question about PI would not have arisen if you weren't mixing up levels of detail. The brain does not store PI in one neuron. It stores it over a complex array of neurons and connections. Sure, the molecular workings of those neurons are important, but its a completely different topic from the logical aspect of how PI is stored in the brain.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Here you go: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/5/1496.long

Lots of talk about memory formation here, and the methods seem well-established and controlled. They suggest a mechanism related to an augmented transgenerational cell signaling cascade.

Something poorly understood is not necessarily nonsense.

Lots of talk of memory yes, but if you had bothered to actually read it, ZERO talk of memories being passed on.
It is as I suggested, the passing on of certain hormones / chemicals that encourage neuron growth.
There may even be other plausible explanations such as the parents being healthier as a result of their stimulation and thus resulting in healthier offspring.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I beg to differ.

[b]What does the electron represent? Molecules? Electrons = molecules?
No. It represents a detail. Try and think about what I was saying overall.

I still don't know what you meant by saying I was "confusing layers of complexity"
When you study the works of Shakespeare, do you care about what type of paper it is written ...[text shortened]... , but its a completely different topic from the logical aspect of how PI is stored in the brain.[/b]

Your Shakespeare analogy is MUCH better. Yes, you are right, the paper on which the play is written isn't really important. We can call that the DNA. But at least in the article presented, they are talking more about the language in which the play was written (The histone modifications that are written on the DNA, representing the letters on the page). These letters are translated into meaningful words and sentences by the transcriptional and translational machinery in each cell. The actors in the play (the neurons), are reading and interpreting the information in the play, and acting it out on the stage of life.

It seems like what you're saying is that you can understand the play without knowing the language.

p.s. red blood cell disorders such as b thalassemia, caused by hemoglobin mutations, result in major major defects in cardiovascular health.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lots of talk of memory yes, but if you had bothered to actually read it, ZERO talk of memories being passed on.
It is as I suggested, the passing on of certain hormones / chemicals that encourage neuron growth.
There may even be other plausible explanations such as the parents being healthier as a result of their stimulation and thus resulting in healthier offspring.

Yikes calm down. Of course there's zero talk of memories being passed on. That would be silly.

Originally posted by wildgrass
Yikes calm down. Of course there's zero talk of memories being passed on. That would be silly.

Good to know you realise that.
Which makes one wonder why you mentioned the article at all.

Originally posted by wildgrass
The actors in the play (the neurons), are reading and interpreting the information in the play, and acting it out on the stage of life.

No. In all the works of Shakespeare, there are no actors. Actors are used when performing his works.
The neurons are the ink and the paper.

It seems like what you're saying is that you can understand the play without knowing the language.
No, I am saying his plays are still great in any language, and that the paper they are printed on and the colour of the ink is irrelevant.

p.s. red blood cell disorders such as b thalassemia, caused by hemoglobin mutations, result in major major defects in cardiovascular health.
Sure. An bad solder joints or capacitors can result in a computer failing (as one of mine did recently). But titling a thread on the properties of solder with 'this is how JavaScript works' is only going to lead to confusion.

Not specifically about the op, but there is an interesting aspect of human memory that I want to share. The general view seems to be that a memory is stored (whether in a particular place or else 'spread out' somehow in the neural network), and we can perhaps recall that memory (ie copy it into short-term memory). But it seems instead that something else happens, and with ramifications:

http://www.human-memory.net/processes_recall.html

Because of the way memories are encoded and stored, memory recall is effectively an on-the-fly reconstruction of elements scattered throughout various areas of our brains. Memories are not stored in our brains like books on library shelves, or even as a collection of self-contained recordings or pictures or video clips, but may be better thought of as a kind of collage or a jigsaw puzzle, involving different elements stored in disparate parts of the brain linked together by associations and neural networks. Memory retrieval therefore requires re-visiting the nerve pathways the brain formed when encoding the memory, and the strength of those pathways determines how quickly the memory can be recalled. Recall effectively returns a memory from long-term storage to short-term or working memory, where it can be accessed, in a kind of mirror image of the encoding process. It is then re-stored back in long-term memory, thus re-consolidating and strengthening it.

My bolding there at the end. I'd say the while the memory may be re-consolidated or strengthened, perhaps more likely it is altered, changed, diluted or amended, affected by current pathway buzz that wasn't present when the memory was first laid down.

Every time we recall a memory, we change it.

Originally posted by apathist
. I'd say the while the memory may be re-consolidated or strengthened, perhaps more likely it is [b]altered, changed, diluted or amended, affected by current pathway buzz that wasn't present when the memory was first laid down.

Every time we recall a memory, we change it.[/b]

"re-consolidating and strengthening " a memory doesn't equate with "changing" a memory. Recalling a memory of, say, an equation,faster and with less mental strain doesn't mean the equation you recollect is made to be different.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. In all the works of Shakespeare, there are no actors. Actors are used when performing his works.
The neurons are the ink and the paper.

[b]It seems like what you're saying is that you can understand the play without knowing the language.
No, I am saying his plays are still great in any language, and that the paper they are printed on and the ...[text shortened]... the properties of solder with 'this is how JavaScript works' is only going to lead to confusion.[/b]

You should not need the analogies to point out the layers of complexity. What exactly is confusing you?

Making comments like ... "titling a thread on the properties of solder with 'this is how JavaScript works' is only going to lead to confusion." is leading to confusion. What is this? Your computer analogies are incoherent. Electrons seem to be representing some layer of complexity, not molecules but "details". Although it seems that they're really just electrons, which makes the analogy pointless. Then when I try to assign details to the "layer of complexity" that you think is confusing from the OP, you change the analogy to talk about solder and javascript. I am still not comprehending how this has anything to do with the "confused layers of complexity."

If the neurons are the ink and the paper, then as you understand the mechanism you think that replacing individual neurons with different neurons would not fundamentally change the memory? Because it would. The article indicates that even if just the chromatin architecture in the nucleus was swapped out for different chromatin architecture, the memory stored in that neuron would change. It is not at all like ink or paper on which Shakespeare plays are printed. Its a lot more analogous to the language.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good to know you realise that.
Which makes one wonder why you mentioned the article at all.

I was clearly responding to a question about whether the memory can be passed on. It cannot, but it did prompt me to remember that intelligence can be inherited through epigenetic mechanisms. I stated it clearly in my post, and it seemed relevant to the question; I don't know why you insist on calling it nonsense.

Originally posted by humy
"re-consolidating and strengthening " a memory doesn't equate with "changing" a memory. Recalling a memory of, say, an equation,faster and with less mental strain doesn't mean the equation you recollect is made to be different.

The reconsolidation and strengthening does change memories. This is why eye-witness accounts are so unreliable. Memories are stories, being edited and rewritten each time you read it.

With an F=ma equation, there isn't much to rewrite. The equation itself doesn't change; what does change is your memory of that equation and what you associate with it. I remember high school physics. ugh.

Originally posted by wildgrass
You should not need the analogies to point out the layers of complexity.

You couldn't understand it without an analogy. Then you couldn't understand it WITH and analogy.

Your computer analogies are incoherent.
No, they are not.
Look up 'incoherent' in a dictionary.

I am still not comprehending how this has anything to do with the "confused layers of complexity."
And you seem to be trying very hard not to understand.

Originally posted by wildgrass
The reconsolidation and strengthening does change memories.

not in the sense that they are 'changed' to be necessarily false as apathist seemed to implied. You are not following that conversation. I may not recall an equation as quickly and easily as I once did or I may with revision recall the equation faster and with greater clarity but either way I may still recall it perfectly correctly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You couldn't understand it without an analogy. Then you couldn't understand it WITH and analogy.

[b]Your computer analogies are incoherent.
No, they are not.
Look up 'incoherent' in a dictionary.

I am still not comprehending how this has anything to do with the "confused layers of complexity."
And you seem to be trying very hard not to understand.[/b]

In the OP I wanted to discuss whether the molecular underpinnings of memory could be found within the subnuclear DNA modifications. I think it is an intriguing hypothesis, and I thought it was clearly articulated. As the article notes:

Previous studies suggest that, after birth, histone acetylation in mature neurons is associated strongly with memory formation. Chromatin becomes acetylated in specific regions of the brain, such as the hippo campus, in response to neuronal activity or behavioural training in rodents. Such acetylation correlates with the increased expression of a set of ‘immediate early’ genes, which encode proteins that broadly mediate changes in the strength of connec-tions between neurons, therefore facilitating memory consolidation.

You still have not clarified how I have confused different levels of complexity. By incoherent in this context, I meant unclear or confusing. In the Shakespeare analogy, it is unclear why you think that neurons are the paper of memory. In the computer analogy, it is unclear what biological structures you think that electrons/solder/javascript represent. Please clarify what you're talking about, and why you took such umbrage with my OP. If I am fundamentally not understanding this problem, I'd like to know about it.