Physical Memory Is Transferable

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029461.700-mouse-memory-inheritance-may-revitalise-lamarckism.html#.UqMFpBZAsas

The transfer of physical memory from one individual to another is the function of DISfunction.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677?cmpid=NLC%7CNSNS%7C2013-1205-GLOBAL&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS&#.UqMdwBZAsas

It’s why there is stress in life. Organisms are carriers of an emotional charge more than they are of genes. Lamarck was wrong about the mechanics of evolution, but he was right that evolution happens in real time. “We are all netted” by way of physical memory. It is an emotional charge that moves through an ecosystem and changes the environment by how it influences the behavior of organisms. Physical memory is the basis of all emotional interactions and relationships.

Whenever we deal with resistance, we relive our physical memories. Physical memories allow interactions to EVOLVE into relationships.

Published December 7, 2013 by Kevin Behan
Tags: , , , , , ,

2 responses to “Physical Memory Is Transferable”

  1. Sundog Fitz says:

    Hi Kevin, It seems the discussion in the articles is about how smell evoked a “negative” sensitivity/memory which makes me wonder if it is somehow easier or more measurable to observe than a “positive” sensitivity/memory (for example, the smell of certain perfume makes me feel content because I remember it from when my grandmother hugged me). And then this leads me to the question of aversion training; is it more “effective” because it evokes fear or negativity? And from a Darwinian perspective, does the negative sensitivity/memory have a deeper imprint or is it more easily recalled because of its survival function? All rhetorical questions unless you have some thoughts.

  2. kbehan says:

    Smell bypasses the CNS more than any other sense, it goes right to the gut, the most primal emotional level. (See Luca Turin and the quantum dimension of smell). But our impressions of form coalesce within the CNS and crystallize around the “negative.” So even one’s fond memories of a loved one are predicated in terms of the negative, because in addition to pure love there was the issue of remaining in that person’s love, and the degree of safety one felt in the presence of such a loved one since we exist in a perpetual and default state of tension. Your grandmother was like a boulder in the bed of a raging river, the young child like a fish able to find shelter in the lee of her wake. (With such a refuge, then one can rise into the turbulence for the thrill of it feeling that there is a refuge nearby.) So by achieving emotional equilibrium with someone (grounding out the balance issue which is the source of tension) that person then becomes intimately affiliated with emotional flow, i.e. Love. So all emotional memories no matter how good they are, are nevertheless “tagged” with a negative, i.e. the negative-as-access-to-the-positive because this is how the animal mind computes putting one foot in front of another or engaging in any interaction no matter how lofty or high level. What makes an emotional memory “good” is the flow dynamic, as opposed to the negative (predatory) aspect of how our mind perceives and makes a construct of reality. Equally, what makes a bad memory “bad” is the lack of flow, the collapse of a state of attraction, the negative-denying-access-to-the-positive: not specifically that the memory had a negative component to it. Hope this is clear and thanks for the question.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: