The research in the field of neuro-science is getting more exiting every day. Nature.com’s news feature, dated Jan 10,’18 explains that researchers are starting to find out how to see a memory.
Janice Chen, a cognitive neuro scientist, at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, is among many others, using brain imagining to identify what kind of patterns are involved when a specific memory is created and recalled. This kind of research could help reveal someday why memories fails through disease, old age or how false memories are formed.
I would urge people to read the whole article before making off-hand comments. This research gives more and more credence to the conclusion that memory, which determines who you are (your “self”), is strictly a brain function which means a material brain is needed to make us aware of ourselves. This reinforces the conclusion that brain-death means death of your self-awareness, making an aware afterlife a moot point.
If you are knowledgeable in the field and can point out flaws in the research you are welcome to voice it. Plain denial and proposing non-evidenced suppositions are not acceptable as debating points.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00107-4?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
Janice Chen, a cognitive neuro scientist, at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, is among many others, using brain imagining to identify what kind of patterns are involved when a specific memory is created and recalled. This kind of research could help reveal someday why memories fails through disease, old age or how false memories are formed.
I would urge people to read the whole article before making off-hand comments. This research gives more and more credence to the conclusion that memory, which determines who you are (your “self”), is strictly a brain function which means a material brain is needed to make us aware of ourselves. This reinforces the conclusion that brain-death means death of your self-awareness, making an aware afterlife a moot point.
If you are knowledgeable in the field and can point out flaws in the research you are welcome to voice it. Plain denial and proposing non-evidenced suppositions are not acceptable as debating points.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00107-4?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits
RSS Feed