Neurologists like to assume that all your memories are stored in your brain. But there are actually quite a few reasons for doubting this unproven assumption, including the research of scientists such as Karl Lashley and John Lorber. Their research showed that minds can be astonishing functional even when large parts of the brain are destroyed, either through disease or deliberate surgical removal. Lorber documented a case of a person who was doing well in his college studies, even though the great majority of his brain had been destroyed by disease. Some children with brain problems sometimes undergo an operation called a hemispherectomy, in which half of their brain is removed. An article in Scientific American tells us, “Unbelievably, the surgery has no apparent effect on personality or memory.”
Given such anomalies, we should give serious consideration to all arguments against the claim that your brain is storing all your memories. In my previous post, I presented one such argument, based on the apparent impossibility of the brain ever naturally developing all of the many encoding protocols it would need to store the many types of things humans remember. In this post I will present another argument against the claim that your brain stores all your memories. This argument, which I call the navigation argument, is simpler than the argument in my previous post.
The navigation argument can be simply stated like this: a long-term memory cannot be stored in some particular part of the brain, because there could be no way in which your brain could ever instantly find the location where such a memory was stored.
Let's consider a simple case. You hear the name of a movie star. You then instantly recall what that person looks like, and see a faint image of that person in your “mind's eye.” But how could this ever happen, if the memory of that person is stored in some particular part of your brain? In such a case, you would need to know or find the exact place in the brain where that memory was stored. But there would be no way for your brain to do such a thing. It would be like trying to find one particular needle in a skyscraper-sized stack of needles.
Let's try to imagine some ways of getting around this difficulty, and consider whether they are viable. One possibility is that a memory hypothetically created in the brain might have some type of unique positional identifier, something rather than a GPS coordinate or a longitude/latitude coordinate (although it might be something like a 3D coordinate). When a visual memory was created, the brain might associate this coordinate with some memory cue (such as the person's name). So, for example, when you hear the phrase “White House” maybe your brain subconsciously retrieves some 3D coordinate allowing you to find where you have stored in your memory an image of the White House in Washington, D.C. The visual below illustrates the idea.
But there are three reasons why this doesn't work as an explanation. The first is that there is no way that the brain could ever know what the 3D coordinate was for some particular spot where a new memory was created. For example, if a brain is creating a new memory at a location with an X coordinate of 23.23342, a Y coordinate of 45.34245, and a Z coordinate of 33.3293, the brain would have no way of knowing that the memory was being created at that exact location. A second reason is that even if there was some brain storage area storing the location coordinates for particular memories, there would still be the question of: how could the brain instantly find the correct spot in such a cue storage area to find where these coordinates were? Since your brain can store millions of different memories, we must imagine that this cue storage area would also have millions of items. There is no reason we can think of why you would be instantly be able to find the exact part of this cue storage area that would have the coordinate needed to locate the appropriate memory. Third, there is the difficulty that even if the brain had the physical coordinates at which the memory stored, it would have no way of navigating to such a coordinate.
To try to make things a little better, let's get rid of this idea of a coordinate system. Let's imagine that there is some kind of cue memory area with direct neural connections leading to the spots where memories are formed. So then if you hear a particular name, your brain merely finds that name in the cue storage area, and then follows this little neural connection (rather like a wire or telephone line) to where the memory is stored. The visual below illustrates the idea.
But this still does not give us a plausible answer as to how you could recall a memory stored in a particular spot in your brain. For one thing, there would be the difficulty of explaining how this wiring-up was occurring. It doesn't seem plausible to maintain that each time you memorize something, you are adding an entry in two different storage areas of your brain, and also instantly creating a neural wire or line connecting only these two. That seems like too much work and coordination to be occurring so quickly. We have no evidence that coordinated changes occur in two different areas of the brain when a memory is stored. While we know that connections can gradually form between neurons, this isn't something that can instantaneously occur to link separate areas of the brain when a memory is created.
You would also still have the previously mentioned problem of how your brain could instantly find the correct spot in this cue storage area where these cues are located. Since your brain can store millions of different memories, we must imagine that this cue storage area would also have millions of items. There is no reason we can think of why you would be instantly able to find the exact part of this cue storage area that would have the direct wire or neural connection needed to locate the appropriate memory in the visual storage area.
So we seem to be getting nowhere trying to imagine how the brain could allow you to instantly recall memories. Let's try looking at how computers are able to quickly retrieve data. Perhaps that might offer some clue.
One basic technique computers use to speed retrieval access is physical sorting. The same technique is used by a simple file cabinet in which the files are alphabetically sorted. But we cannot believe that the brain uses physical sorting. A mass of microscopic neurons (rather like a city-sized blob of tangled spaghetti that has been shrunk) is not something in which physical sorting is possible. All the different brain connections make physical sorting impossible, just like you can't sort a giant ball of tangled string into different parts (unless you disassemble and reassemble). A brain structured totally different from the human brain might be able to use physical sorting, but not the human brain. We have zero evidence that neurons are physically sorted.
Neurons cannot be physically sorted or physically grouped
Another basic technique computers use to speed retrieval access is physical grouping, such as when different types of information are placed in different computer files. The same technique is used by a simple file cabinet in which different types of information are put into different manila files. But we cannot believe that the brain uses physical grouping. A mass of neurons filled with connections between neurons is not something in which physical grouping is possible. A brain structured totally different from the human brain might be able to use physical grouping, but not the human brain. When we look at the brain, we see no evidence that a physical grouping of neurons is occurring. Neurons are not arranged into little clusters like stars are arranged into galaxies.
In short, it seems physically impossible that a brain structured such as ours could ever instantly retrieve memories, if such memories were stored in particular parts of the brain. There is no physical mechanism that can explain how this could occur in the human brain.
In a blog post, a neurologist has replied to the type of argument being made here (after it had been made by another writer). The neurologist writes: “You don’t have to know (nor does your brain) where in your physical brain a memory is located, because you can access that memory simply because it is integrated with so many other memories.”
This reasoning is fallacious. Using similar reasoning, I could argue that I don't have to know the phone number of someone in California to telephone that person, because all of the telephones are integrated with each other in a telephone network. But that's erroneous. You do have to know someone's phone number to instantly access that person's phone. To instantly access a memory such as occurs when you recall a face after seeing a name (or vice versa), the brain would absolutely need to know where that memory is stored (or have some mechanism for instantly locating that precise brain location), if the memory was stored in one particular location in the brain. But no one can give any explanation of how the brain could know such a thing, or how the brain could instantly find the correct memory. I may note that when you recall a face instantly after seeing it, it is not at all a case of one memory leading you to find another. We absolutely cannot use “integration of memories” to explain such a thing.
The complete lack of any workable theory for how memory recall can occur so quickly is admitted by neuroscientist David Eagleman, who states:
Memory retrieval is even more mysterious than storage. When I ask if you know Alex Ritchie, the answer is immediately obvious to you, and there is no good theory to explain how memory retrieval can happen so quickly.
The reasoning above suggests that our neurologists will never be able to solve the problem of how the mind is able to recall things so quickly. The human brain is simply not structured the way a physical system would need to be structured in order for an instantaneous recall of detailed complex memory information to occur from one particular storage location in the brain. The impossibility of explaining how instant memory recall occurs is a powerful reason for believing that long-term memories are not stored in your brain. We must postulate that the human mind is part of some reality that transcends the human nervous system. Call it a soul reality, or call it a spiritual reality – it is something that must go beyond the human brain.
As we will see in my next post, there is another reason for drawing the same conclusion: the fact that there is no viable mechanism that explains how the brain can be storing very long-term memories. In my next post, I will look at the most common mechanistic theory of how the brain stores long-term memories, and explain why it is untenable (citing neurologists themselves who have given powerful reasons why such a theory is untenable). The theory in question is untenable because it tries to explain long-term memories by appealing to a “shifting sands” type of mechanism that is so impermanent and fast-decaying that it is completely unsuitable for explaining human memories that can last for 50 years (and cannot even explain human memories that last for two years).