# GQ as GD: Facts vs. opinions re: the afterlife and other unprovable stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876 "2010-12-03T23:30:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/461 "2010-12-12T21:52:03Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Define “artform” 🙂 Taking “debate” lessons from Kozmik, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/462 "2010-12-12T21:58:28Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Define “artform” 🙂 🙂 It’s gotta have _soul_, baby. 😃 But seriously, off the top of my head, I’d define artform as a heightened mode of expression, via a particular medium, which proceeds by a set of generally accepted rules, but which can be intensified even more by the deliberate stretching or breaking of those rules. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/463 "2010-12-12T22:23:30Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m not going to continue to address anyone telling me what I believe if it isn’t what I believe, what my position is if it isn’t my position, there’s no point. > > I’m also not interested in continuing to debate or discuss anything as long as the ONLY cites you offer are cites that argue with mine…I could offer those, too, and that would be fine, except that no one has offered any cites for their own assertions. Start by showing me where _your_ position comes from, because until you validate yours, tearing down mine is pointless. I’m perfectly aware that there’s all kinds of debate over various details. But your opinions and assertions don’t rise to the level of being considered proof of squat, so I’m done treating them like valid offsets, they aren’t. > > My position, which I can state more succinctly thanks to this thread, is that “The mind/body problem” is not considered solved, so stating that it has been is stating a personal opinion, not a fact. Depending on the opinion and what information was used to form it, it may or may not be a reasonable opinion. (i.e. “solved by the bible” not a reasonable opinion. “solved by research which suggests that the brain is the source of consciousness” reasonable opinion.) But it’s still opinion. > > That was my initial thought in writing the OP, and it remains my purpose and thought. If you think it’s something else and want to discuss that, it’s on you. If you think it’s this and want to discuss this, but wish to do so by stating in some fashing that it is a fact that the mind/body problem has been solved, I will be happy to discuss it when you show me that that is true. No one has cited anything, so I went and looked up what I was being told was a “fact” over and over again and discovered that it was not a fact, it was at best, a well-reasoned hypothesis. What I discovered is that all kinds of research on consciousness is going on, and that it’s generally agreed that no one has hit on any facts leading to solid conclusions, but that there are lots of interesting ideas floating around. > > So, one last time: you tell me you know it’s a fact that the mind/body problem is settled and solved, great! Can’t wait to see something other than your words. > > Now I must leave you, for I have been using this as a very effective means of avoiding less entertaining tasks… Your momentum has kept us from accurately determining your position. 😃 And **Jackmanii** has pointed that The Lancet has, in fact, been known to publish junk. You have been asked many times by different posters to define soul and afterlife. You haven’t bothered to do so. I have given you an abridged reading list of sources that contain the facts from which I am comfortable drawing my conclusion that there is no afterlife. Oh, and just because scientists are researching consciousness doesn’t mean that they give any credence to the idea of an afterlife. I’m not a scientist – I’m simply an aging doorman who has always loved to read, but I’m extremely interested in knowing the exact mechanisms by which consciousness appears in the meat, and I hope we find out during my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/464 "2010-12-12T22:40:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Running away and ignoring uneasy truths isn’t a good way to reduce that feeling. > [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > You have been asked many times by different posters to define soul and afterlife. You haven’t bothered to do so. And **Lobo** hasn’t bothered to define “uneasy truths”. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/465 "2010-12-12T22:50:48Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > And **Lobo** hasn’t bothered to define “uneasy truths”. And Kozmik hasn’t bothered to form a cogent post in this thread. Until this one, that is. The truths are those I spoke about in the thread. Read my last few posts. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/466 "2010-12-12T23:18:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And Kozmik hasn’t bothered to form a cogent post in this thread. > > Until this one, that is. The truths are those I spoke about in the thread. Read my last few posts. I read all your posts. Including this one: > [@Lobohan](#): > > The reality I’m interested in is the one that exists. Not the fairy stories you need to get through the day. What are uneasy truths? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/467 "2010-12-12T23:37:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Are you suggesting a soul or spirit is simply _having existed_? Read [my reply](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246)to **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario. Define “having existed”. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/468 "2010-12-12T23:51:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Oh, and one last thing: pretty weak finding the name Deepak Chopra as part of a large number of people from all kinds of disciplines and acting like that’s my cite. It’s not, as we all know. The cite was to the research of the doctor and professor emeritus of the anesthesiology department at the U of Arizona, Stuart Hameroff, and his research partner, [Sir Roger Penrose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose), a mathematical physicist: And here we have another tactic typically employed by wooists - citing as authorities people who have no or insufficient expertise in the field at issue. Neither Hameroff nor Penrose are neurologists, and I am unaware of any research they have conducted to back up their fabulously jargonesque theories about consciousness, like this one (from one of **Stoid** ’s Hameroff links): _“Roger Penrose and I have developed a model in which quantum superposition, objective reduction and quantum computation occur in microtubule automata within brain neurons and glia. Microtubuleassociatedproteins (MAPs) provide feedback and “tune” the quantum oscillations; the proposed OR is thus selforganized (“orchestrated” objective reduction"Orch OR”)15-21. In the Orch OR model microtubule quantum computation is isolated from decoherence (Box 1) and continues until threshold is met (E=h/T) and an OR event occurs (Figure 2b). For example an OR event coinciding with one 40 Hz cycle (T = 25 msec) would require E = 2 x 1010 superposed tubulins (roughly 20,000 neurons). "_ Isn’t that a doozy? At first I wasn’t sure why that had a familiar ring to it - then I remembered that one of the leading lights of homeopathy, Dr. Lionel Milgrom has [invoked quantum field theory](http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ProduktNr=224242&Ausgabe=231815&ArtikelNr=93662) to explain his conviction that homeopathic drugs (i.e. water) retain a “memory” of what was dissolved in them, even when diluted to the point when not a single molecule of the “active substance” remains. Apparently the presumption is that if you throw the word “quantum” into your arguments often enough it’ll infuse them with awesome credibility. But what we are actually dealing with in both cases is quantum woo. > [@Stoid](#): > > So attacking Deepak Chopra as though he is my source is _completely_ dishonest. Your own post about the 2011 Consciousness conference in Stockholm lists Chopra as one of the speakers (on “Vedic approaches to consciousness and reality”). In fact, he’s one of two headliners who get big promos on the conference announcement page (Chopra will be teaching participants how to alter their own autonomic body functions, including not just heart rate and blood pressure, but also body temperature - woo-hoo!) He’s fair game for criticism. If the other participants in this conference want to be taken seriously, they need to steer well clear of Chopra, who is a laughingstock among serious scientists. [Here’s what Chopra has said](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/deepakese-the-woo-woo-mas_b_405114.html) about life after death: > [@Deepak](#): > > “There are traditions that say the in-body experience is a socially induced collective hallucination. We do not exist in the body. The body exists in us. We do not exist in the world. The world exists in us.” > > “Birth and death are space-time events in the continuum of life. So the opposite of life is not death. The opposite of death is birth. And the opposite of birth is death. And life is the continuum of birth and death, which goes on and on.” Who could argue with that? :dubious:😕:smack: > [@Stoid](#): > > the vast, vast, VAST majority of human beings who are now living and who have ever lived believe in some version or degree of (the afterlife) You’re a few "vast"s short of convincing us via _argumentum ad human credulum_. Also needs larger and more colorful font. > [@Stoid](#): > > I’m also not interested in continuing to debate or discuss anything as long as the ONLY cites you offer are cites that argue with mine…I could offer those, too, and that would be fine, except that no one has offered any cites for their own assertions. Start by showing me where your position comes from, because until you validate yours, tearing down mine is pointless. There are basics of critical thinking and evidence-based medicine with which you’ll need to become familiar in order to debate the existence of an afterlife, or indeed anything argued to have a scientific basis. To summarize briefly: Evidence rules. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is incumbent upon those making such claims to furnish said evidence. Neither you nor your sources have provided any. I look forward to your giving us some when you return. Maybe the ongoing hospital study where the near-dead float up towards the ceiling and identify objects placed on high shelves will provide a quantum breakthrough. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/469 "2010-12-12T23:54:02Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I read all your posts. Including this one: > > What are uneasy truths? The cosmos is indifferent to your existence, or mine. It is indifferent to your consciousness, or mine. Consciousness exists because the physical constants of the universe don’t prohibit systems from increasing in complexity. Consciousness is the result of chance. Consciousness ends with death. There is no soul, no afterlife. > [@Kozmik](#): > > Read [my reply](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246)to **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario. Define “having existed”. What are you trying to get at with these [faux](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faux)-[sophical](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-sophy) questions? Why not simply state what you think or believe? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/470 "2010-12-13T00:15:17Z")
> [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > What are you trying to get at with these [faux](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faux)-[sophical](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-sophy) questions? Did I ask **woodstockbirdybird** any questions in [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246)? No. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/471 "2010-12-13T00:34:54Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Did I ask **woodstockbirdybird** any questions in [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246)? No. What I was referring to was your request to **Lobohan** to ‘Define “having existed,”’ which is actually, although not endstopped with a question mark, a request for information; a question. Earlier in this thread you posted a number of questions which were all similar to it – similar in that they read as if intended to be redolent with metaphysical mystery, and that by asking them you were offering us a chance to imbue ourselves with wisdom if we would only take them seriously and spend our days thinking about them. So I ask you again: Why not simply state what you think or believe? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/472 "2010-12-13T00:35:31Z")
> [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > Consciousness ends with death. There is no soul, no afterlife. I again refer you to [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246) in response to **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario. > [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > Why not simply state what you think or believe? Memory is a fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/473 "2010-12-13T00:51:40Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I again refer you to [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13226692&postcount=246) in response to **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario. I’ve read it. I fail to see what you’re getting at. Yes, without the universe we would not exist. So? > [@](#): > > Memory is a fiction. Memory is notoriously unreliable. And it may be that each time we access a memory the original encoding of that memory is destroyed and a new encoding is made with new or associated material added. Fortunately we are able to document events and facts using other media than our brains. Anyway, with that said, yes, I’m comfortable with the idea that memory is a fiction. But what has that to do with this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/474 "2010-12-13T01:08:28Z")
> [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > I’ve read it. I fail to see what you’re getting at. Yes, without the universe we would not exist. So? So it takes the power out of your claim that the universe is indifferent to your existence, or mine. What’s indifferent to the universe’s existence? What I’m getting at is that it is _possible_, in **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario, that we would not have to experience this _li_f_e_; birth, death, whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/475 "2010-12-13T01:28:43Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > So it takes the power out of your claim that the universe is indifferent to your existence, or mine. > > What’s indifferent to the universe’s existence? > > What I’m getting at is that it is _possible_, in **woodstockbirdybird** ’s scenario, that we would not have to experience this _li_f_e_; birth, death, whatever. The universe cannot but be indifferent to my existence – it doesn’t matter to it because it can’t matter to it; anymore than it can matter to my desk (which by the way is, though its existence is dependent upon the universe’s existence, is indifferent to that existence), as neither suffer the affliction 😉 of consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/476 "2010-12-13T01:41:26Z")
> [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > You have been asked many times by different posters to define soul and afterlife. You haven’t bothered to do so. The question assumes I have a specific definition, which is odd, given the point of the thread. I don’t, other than what I’ve given: Meat Plus, vs. Meat. Meat: pure flesh, and everything about us is a product of flesh and ceases entirely in the absence of flesh. ([Materialist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)-emergence-[physicalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism)) MeatPlus: some aspect of consciousness, being, self exists in some way even in the absence of flesh. ([Dualism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind))) I have absolutely no personal conviction or belief as to how any “plus” might manifest or exist, where it came from, absolutely nothing - I’m just interested in what others think, hypothesize, and what research has been done. If there has been experiments and testing that covers all the questions and results in a very strong likelihood that we are meat, that’s fine. If there validated experiences that create questions that remain unanswered, suggesting the possibility that we are meatplus, that’s also fine. All of it is interesting, and the fact that Assertion A is met with Refutation B, in a thousand different instances, just reinforces the obvious fact that the search for answers [continues](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem). ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/477 "2010-12-13T01:51:22Z")
> [@Fatwater\_Fewl](#): > > Memory is notoriously unreliable. And it may be that each time we access a memory the original encoding of that memory is destroyed and a new encoding is made with new or associated material added. Fortunately we are able to document events and facts using other media than our brains. > > Anyway, with that said, yes, I’m comfortable with the idea that memory is a fiction. But what has that to do with this thread? [10 Unsolved Mysteries of the Brain](http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries) [#2 How are memories stored and retrieved?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYwAPF0mh-U) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/478 "2010-12-13T04:06:33Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > The question assumes I have a specific definition, which is odd, given the point of the thread. If you don’t have a definition than don’t use the word. If you don’t have a definition, you’re basically admitting that you’re just using nonsense words. Prove there’s not a glork. Prove there’s not a skrank. If you ask me what those are, I will tell you in an enlarged and indignant font that I don’t _have_ a definition. > [@](#): > > I don’t, other than what I’ve given: Meat Plus, vs. Meat. This is just begging the question. Meat plus what? > [@](#): > > Meat: pure flesh, and everything about us is a product of flesh and ceases entirely in the absence of flesh. ([Materialist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)-emergence-[physicalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism)) > > MeatPlus: some aspect of consciousness, being, self exists in some way even in the absence of flesh. ([Dualism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind))) You are not answerting the questioon, you are just rephrasing the nonsense. What “aspect of consciouness” do you believe can be separated from the brain? > [@](#): > > I have absolutely no personal conviction or belief as to how any “plus” might manifest or exist, where it came from, absolutely nothing - I’m just interested in what others think, hypothesize, and what research has been done. No research has been done on “souls” or “afterlifes” because no research as possible is possible. You might as well try to research leprechaun gold. The inquiry itself is ludicrous, There is no “plus” or any physical possibility of a "plus. If you disagree, please explain exactly what part of consciousness you think can exist without a brain and why. Please cite actual evidence, not just links to woo believing websites and pseudoscience articles from frauds and quacks. > [@](#): > > "If there has been experiments and testing that covers all the questions and results in a very strong likelihood that we are meat, that’s fine. That we are ,meat as opposed to _what_? What else is there? What is this magical “plus” you keep referring to? > [@](#): > > If there validated experiences that create questions that remain unanswered, suggesting the possibility that we are meatplus, that’s also fine. There are no such “validated experiences.” Sorry. > [@](#): > > All of it is interesting No, it really isn’t. It’s tiresome and anti-scientific really. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/479 "2010-12-13T04:10:53Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > [10 Unsolved Mysteries of the Brain](http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries) > > [#2 How are memories stored and retrieved?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYwAPF0mh-U) Could you please just say what you mean, for once? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876/480 "2010-12-13T04:20:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Could you please just say what you mean, for once? I believe that the video, and the article, speaks for itself. It will make it a lot easier (and maybe we can end this Great Debate thread) if you just read the whole article and watch the entire video. Pay close attention to #2 “How are memories stored and retrieved?” in the video. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-as-gd-facts-vs-opinions-re-the-afterlife-and-other-unprovable-stuff/562876.md?page=25)