[
Replying to post 59 by DrNoGods]
Yes - I was thinking how I can remember my neighborhood, and generally any event which had some significance - and also some events I had forgotten about but for some reason remembered again.
The events which had the most significant impact on me are the ones which I remember the clearest.
[
Replying to post 61 by Divine Insight]
You need to keep in mind that when studies like these are done they are done on a group of individuals. So when the result says that memory is not reliable it is speaking in general terms. Some individuals have better memory capabilities than others.
Yes - I thought as much. It focuses upon general memory rather than specific. Brains don't store memory - at least not in a specific manner...but something is happening and something is able to cause recall and reconstruct adequately.
I can map out the neighborhood I grew up in. I can put names to faces. Are we to believe that this is just a construct and that the names don't match the faces, or the map is incorrect?
I remember the color of the paint and what type of material the house I lived in was. I remember the layout of the rooms.
Am I to believe that I have simply constructed something to accommodate me but which in truth, was not the case?
I can even now see a mental image of the house...is this to say that unless I have specific recall then my memory is faulty because my brain did not store the information in a specific manner?
Or is it acceptable that a general memory of events is sufficient.
In fact some individuals have what is called a "photographic memory". They're ability to reconstruct visual images as mental images is so profound they can recall extreme details with a very high degree of accuracy.
I read up on that recently and the impression I got is that photographic memory is more myth than matter of fact. But if it is fact, then this could be seen as brains (or some other source) are able to somehow store memory of events and reconstruct them as non physical images in the head.
I think this is yet another example that favors the materialistic view.
Is there any example of anything which favors the "spiritual' view that you can think of?
All brains are not equally efficient at things like memory or reconstructing images. Why should that be the case if we are all "spiritual souls" who do the memorizing and image recalling?
I recall hearing a claim that a person drowning sees their whole life flashing before their eyes....
... just googled "does a drowning person see their whole life flashing before their eyes?" ...nothing on drowning specifically but much on going through the proces of dying but for one reason or the other, surviving the experience.
A myriad of interesting reading but very suggestive of something - either the brain itself or some other unknown 'spiritual' storage facility keeping the memories intact and by many accounts, vividly so.
I would think that if we are all "spiritual souls" who do this, then we should all be able to do it with precisely the same level of competence.
Unless the physical human body suppresses that ability.
That's clearly not the case, so this favors the materialistic view that brains simply develop differently as they grow and produce a wider range of capabilities and efficiencies.
I don't think it is 'clearly not the case' for the reason I suggested above. We know that each body is unique and some are better at some things than others, but this in itself does not force one to suppose that it is all about materialism.
As to your question about continually recalling a specific memory. I would think that by doing so your are "burning" that memory into your brain over and over again.
Okay. So the brain (or some other attribute) can store memory if impressed upon.
This also fits in with a materialistic view of the brain. After all, why should a "soul" need to continually reconstruct a memory? In fact, how does a "soul" remember anything?
If we are spiritual souls and spirit is what's doing the memorizing, then shouldn't we all be able to remember everything that ever happens perfectly forever? Why should the memory of a non-physical spirit ever be faulty?
As someone who heavily leans toward the materialistic world view, your questions are natural enough but is it presumptuous to think of souls and spiritual things as having to be perfect? Or even if they were far better than human forms and could store every detail of every moment of ones lifetime, why presume that such an attribute should be utilized in the human experience.
Perhaps the design of the human bodies was purposeful in that regard.
How would you know? My understanding of the soul is that it is a storage facility and what it stores is the total data of experience of the individual.
If we are spiritual beings why would we incarnate into physical containers which are unpredictably unique for their strengths and weaknesses?
Perhaps it is for the experience of being vulnerable and captivated?
Point being, I can appreciate your tendency to continually advocate materialism, but find your reasons for doing so have to include presuming things about the spiritual which tend to point at the probability that the spiritual most likely doesn't exist. This might help strengthen your resolve to eventually embrace materialism completely - I mean - it seems to suit you well enough from what I can gather in your posts - or do you think that your will never be quite sure enough and there will always be some doubt and that is why you remain - in name at least - an agnostic?
I think agnosticism should remain in the relative position of neither/nor but I am sure you could agree with me that you are definitely someone who leans toward materialism and consistently advocates materialism as the best option, all said and done.
I think thoughts are also non physical. Yes I understand that in relation to the physical universe, we are within the human experience and so cannot avoid physicality - the physical aspect of being physical...so the brain has something to do with the process, but is that to say that it has
everything to do with the process. Materialists say 'yes'.
Yet thoughts are not always physical. If they were, wouldn't we be able to read each others without having to actually read them?
There is a whole private universe within our individual experience which is non physical. Only a tiny fraction of that makes it to the physical surface-tobe viewed under the lens of materialism.
