FGesture - i agree with you on the coin one, but as the majority of my story was private ( inside my head ) untill a few years ago your family legend idea cant be related to my experience.
Marley23: “True- it certainly doesn’t take a scientist to assume that two things are related.” - most usefull. Thanks for the input.
I’m gonna guess that the statement “No, I’m pretty sure that’s not possible.” didnt come from a scientist…
sin
I would still be careful in stating categorically that your mother had never told you any such details, brit - see my link to Cognition in Infants above regarding source amnesia.
How nice of you to keep the audience informed of my thoughts, feelings, past posts, etc. Indicates you think they can’t figure it out for themselves.
But now we have a target, you have stated "memory forms at a molecular level. Now we are getting some where. So what kind of formation is this? I want to know all about it. Being molecular makes it energy, right? Can it be tested, and proved to be memory? Is this just more theory or does it have evidence?
If it is energy, it could still be spiritual, after all, the brain is biological. So how can biological create energy?
About sensorimotor functions, Everything is controlled by thought, in the spirit world and here in the physical. The baby learns to direct thought to control the unruly legs and arms and everything else. The baby understands who he is and what is going on. The reason I quit college, majored in Psychology, was that I wasn’t learning anything I didn’t already know by observation.
Well, I’m betting that it is all supposition.
Albert Einstein said: “It is a miracle that children have any curiosity left after attending public school.”
He also said: “Blindly following authority is the enemy of truth.”
I don’t want theories or opinions, show me truth.
Not everybody has been here for years.
And what are you offering?
Truth.
and
Love
What?? I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Read the link again. How do you explain the cerebellar deep nuclei activity in the case of the Conditioned Response?
The same way I always do, the brain is an interface between spirit and body.
Measuring brain waves is no indication anything is stored in the brain. You don’t know that the waves are not coming from the brain but going to the brain from spirit. No, I can’t prove this, but I know for sure that consciousness doesn’t need the brain, consciousness survives without the brain. Veridical NDEs show the evidence, and there are hundreds of them.
Love
Lekatt, what is the purpose of the brain, in your universe? Is it just to weigh down the head? It’s filled with elaborate machinery who’s purpose quite clearly seems to be things like recording memory, processing sensation, regulating emotions, etc. But you whoosh in here and declare it all unecessary. So why is it there?
It is an interface between the spirit and the body.
It is necessary to live in the physical, but not necessary to live.
That is why the brain cells all look alike.
A tuner of the TV has a number of positions. Depending on what position you connect, the channels change. But the channels are not stored in the TV. Just as memory is not stored in the brain but in spirit.
It is simple, and explains many things about human behaviour.
Love
All look alike? What are you, some kind of brain cell bigot?
Again, you are vastly misinformed.
I repeat the question you avoided: How do you explain the cerebellar deep nuclei activity in the case of the Conditioned Response which was not there in the Untrained Response?
Your previous answer was essentially “I can’t”.
I think this would violate the laws of physics.
I don’t think anybody expected you would…
To get back to something vaguely related to the OP, my boyfriend has a memory that seems to be of his birth. (well, right after it.) It’s apparently not terribly detailed, and can probably best be described as
The color apparently corresponds with his mother’s memories of the delivery room, but that could be just coincidence, or something filled in to the memory after hearing her mention the color. His jaw was badly wrenched with forceps at birth, so the pain part would make sense, but again, could be coincidence or a created memory. Even if the memory is completely real, it doesn’t have to be of birth - perhaps there was another time when he felt like that around that color while a baby. I’d guess that being cold and upset probably happens to babies fairly often. It certainly doesn’t prove anything whatsoever, it’s just an interesting anecdote.
I don’t think the idea that some rare people, somewhere, might have a vague and fleeting memory of birth or the time right after it is that improbable. The idea that these memories would be detailed enough that confirmation (yup, that’s a birth memory all right!) would be possible is, in my opinion, much sillier. Newborns can barely even focus their eyes and they have no experience with which to interpret anything - they’re not going to remember the gynecologist’s mustache or the picture on the wall or the music playing. And if the general consensus is that their brains aren’t developed enough to retain ANY memories at all, retaining details would certainly be… unexpected. Fortunately, if my boyfriend’s memory is any indication, those of us who know for certain we have no birth memories aren’t missing much. 
But no answers.
I did explain it. Besides what proof is there that the cerebellar deep nuclei activity is in any way related to Conditioned Response.
Please don’t try to pull a show job on me.
What you are looking at is models, now anything real to begin with.
Love
Because it wasn’t there in the Untrained Response.
Do you understand?
I ask again: How do you explain its appearance when it wasn’t there before?
Actually, lekatt, it occurs to me that you might not even have read the “From Molecules to Memory in the Cerebellum” link I posted. If you could just tell me what LTD stands for, you’ll set my mind at rest.
long-term synaptic depression
But that is not much of a test.
If you will notice in the first paragraph it clearly says they are talking about a model and not the real thing. So until they have the real thing, I will continue with following the lessons of my experience.
Love
Thanks for that.
No, they are testing their model by observing the real thing.
How do explain the observed difference in deep nuclei activity in the trained and untrained real things?