KFA - Krishnamurti Foundation of America

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

joe wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Does the analogy memory :: reflex work for you?

not so great, no, at least not at first glance...your body reflexes are an evolutionarily developed function, to keep the species alive.  Reaction in this sense is fairly healthy and necessary.  The memory (psychological) is not necessarily a 'needed' function, it is an adaptation of the center to maintain itself.  What do you think about that?

Bohm's use of reflex for memory works well for me in the sense that both are involuntary.

Your insight also resonates: that physiological reflexes serve a positive evolutionary purpose, but psychological reflexes don't (necessarily). Bohm would argue, I think, that it's exactly at this point that the human brain-mind started to go tragically wrong. The reflexes of memory/thought grew way past their usefulness for the organism.

But to say memory is involuntary seems a bit off to me.  Reflex yes but memory?  If fed, memory grows and distorts, while the knee reflex remains exactly as it has always been.

joe wrote:

But to say memory is involuntary seems a bit off to me.  Reflex yes but memory?  If fed, memory grows and distorts, while the knee reflex remains exactly as it has always been.

Bohm would probably argue that the reflexes don't change so much as they stack up. A low-level reflex might fire, followed immediately by another reflex, then another, etc., in what can sometimes be a long sequence. The growth and distortion of memory is caused, to a large extent, by adding "qualifying" reflexes to those already in place.

To avoid getting stuck in a "Pablo representing/defending (his interpretation of) Bohm" trap, which would I think *not* serve this discussion so well, how about we just drop the reflex term. It's just a word, after all ... right?

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

joe wrote:

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Does science tell us that the brain does, in fact, continually record everything it is registering?

I am not learned enough on the subject to make much commentary, I'm afraid.  Do you know the answer to your question?

No. The bit of research I just did suggested that most scientists believe the brain records a great deal, but not all, of what it takes in. The reason we can't recall most of these recordings is that they fail to get "indexed." So the brain's memory palace is like a gigantic multimedia library with most of the writings/images/sounds untitled and lying around in haphazard piles. Or maybe closer: It's like a William Burroughs cut-up novel.

Ok, so let's talk about the indexing process, seems ripe.

excellent! Tie the research into your everyday life and let's see what shakes out...

Here in a nutshell's nutshell, is (my interpretation) of what science has to say on how a memory is formed and retrieved. It's a three-phase process:

When you create a memory, the brain encodes information (sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions) into a construct that can be stored. The brain then stores this construct as a network of neurons. When you recall a memory, the brain retrieves this construct and decodes the information it contains.

Relatively little is known about exactly how each of these phases works.

A couple of interesting things:

It can happen that a retrieved memory of an event reproduces almost exactly the sensory experience of the original event. So when we relive a memory, it can feel just as real and immediate as the original.

Being able to remember past events is a key part of being able to imagine future events. Humans are said to be able to perform "mental time travel" by moving, in thought, from past, through present, to future.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Here in a nutshell's nutshell, is (my interpretation) of what science has to say on how a memory is formed and retrieved. It's a three-phase process:

When you create a memory, the brain encodes information (sensory perceptions, thoughts, emotions) into a construct that can be stored. The brain then stores this construct as a network of neurons. When you recall a memory, the brain retrieves this construct and decodes the information it contains.

Creating a memory is done by recording process. Is attention a recording process? It is not. If the mind attends continually, it does not collect memories. Is that true?

It can happen that a retrieved memory of an event reproduces almost exactly the sensory experience of the original event. So when we relive a memory, it can feel just as real and immediate as the original.

It follows that when memory is necessarily empty by the brain's quality of attention, there is not much of reliving a memory.

Being able to remember past events is a key part of being able to imagine future events. Humans are said to be able to perform "mental time travel" by moving, in thought, from past, through present, to future.

It also follows that the future is the past in the sense they share the same mechanism. Without memory, time travel is not active. The so called presence also loses its normal sense as recognition of the past, the memory, and there is a different sense of presence which does not feel time.

Dementia is different because the brain is dying, or partly dead. But when a healthy brain is not filled up, loaded with constant memory activities, the brain is quiet.

snguyen wrote:

Creating a memory is done by recording process. Is attention a recording process? It is not. If the mind attends continually, it does not collect memories. Is that true?

Hi snguyen. :-) Afaik the more attention one gives to an event, the more likely the brain is to store it as a memory. This would mean that if the mind attends continually to events, the brain would store more (not fewer) as memories. 

It follows that when memory is necessarily empty by the brain's quality of attention, there is not much of reliving a memory.

If what I've written above is true, this doesn't hold.

But I know what you mean. Often, my most intensely experienced moments leave almost no trace in (conscious) memory. Maybe the kind of attention that science says increases the likelihood of creating memories is different from the kind of attention that you and Krishnamurti are talking about?

Si wrote:

… It follows that when memory is necessarily empty by the brain's quality of attention, there is not much of reliving a memory. …

I will second that notion. Every self-memory I can scare up now is visual only, with no sensations attached.

I can stir nothing up from the past that creates a sensation other than the sense of longing to fill again certain scenes that arise; and all those scenes have to do with the time spent backpacking in the Sierras.

When that severed connection was alive, that desire to refill the remembered more than likely drives the engine of desire. Perhaps the desire of youth turns into the nostalgia of age…

So what do the various different types of memories do?

Practical memories (everyday stats/skills) enable us to survive in the world. Signing his name on the dotted line buys Jack a nice new car.

Emotional memories (joys, sorrows, fears, childhood traumas, etc.) determine how we meet the world emotionally/psychologically. Having an abusive father makes Jack tend to fear powerful men.

Self-building memories (internal autobiographical movie scripts) give us a sense of self/identity. Having grown up in a rich family makes Jack think of himself as privileged.

Last edited by Pablo Sitauskis (2012-08-13 08:43:24)

Cool. I'll swing by and pick you guys up. Dinner's on me if you get the bar tab.

It's always worked for me.

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Some types of memory clearly do no harm, are in fact needed to function in the world. Jack needs to remember his name and how to write to buy himself a car.

Some types of memory are clearly harmful. The memory of his abusive father makes Jack fear all his male bosses, which screws up his relationship with them, and by extension, his career, his marriage, etc.

And some types of memory are in-between. The memory of his father's abusiveness helps him recognize when his father is in an abusive mood, but also prevents him from feeling comfortable with powerful men.

This suggests that, when a memory arises, it can be beneficial to evaluate it (benefit vs. harm) before reacting to it. Is this possible? Is there enough time between arising and reacting to evaluate? Are some memories so powerful that they can't be evaluated?

As I see it, reaction is inseparable from memory. Without memory, there is no reaction. The memory that prompts the reaction may not be seen clearly but what is clearly seen is the reaction and the reaction is "me" - there is no "me" other than the reaction.

Memory - whatever type it is - is not in itself conflictual. What creates conflict is self-image, the belief in a self which is separate from what it observes, a self which evaluates and analyzes.

I can't in any case willfully wipe out memories. I can try to bury them, repress them, ignore them - which is both a waste of energy and another source of conflict: the memories remain in consciousness no matter how hard I try to shake them off.

Anything can be remembered without division and conflict. Memories can be jogged and surface but I think that it's only when there's an "I" that is separate from memory that there's conflict, when the thinking brain puts together the "autonomous I" entity.

It seems to me that this then raises some questions: What if anything is there beyond the self and time; What guides action if not the self; What observes and is aware if not the self; Who can answer if not the self?

Pablo Sitauskis wrote:

Some types of memory clearly do no harm, are in fact needed to function in the world. Jack needs to remember his name and how to write to buy himself a car.

Some types of memory are clearly harmful. The memory of his abusive father makes Jack fear all his male bosses, which screws up his relationship with them, and by extension, his career, his marriage, etc.

And some types of memory are in-between. The memory of his father's abusiveness helps him recognize when his father is in an abusive mood, but also prevents him from feeling comfortable with powerful men.

This suggests that, when a memory arises, it can be beneficial to evaluate it (benefit vs. harm) before reacting to it. Is this possible?  Is there enough time between arising and reacting to evaluate?

The conscious mind is always slightly behind the action, right?  It is just a reporter, basically.  Having an understanding in place is the key component, an understanding of what is happening within ones thinking.  With that understanding in place, for example of how and what the brain stores, the lag between what happens and the conscious minds awareness of what happens shortens.  Then it is primarily the understanding that is acting.

pablo wrote:

Are some memories so powerful that they can't be evaluated?

Let's find out...