[QUOTE="Drakkith, I strongly suspect this is either incorrect, or it's missing context. Can you provide a reference supporting it?
This is an issue that depends a great deal on definition of memory and I seem to remember it was based on the idea of cells being able to adopt patterns of behaviour. The gut for instance continues to function and can vary its performance without most of its links to the brain. I'm not sure it would be possible to claim it was totally disconnected but cutting major nerves was a common enough surgical procedure. I think the question comes up because of animals studies and with the complexities of intra cellular signalling and the control of gene expression it does seem theoretically plausible.
https://phys.org/news/2013-08-flatworms-memories-brain.html
That doesn't seem right to me. As far as I know no memories are storied anywhere along the optic track.
Iconic memory is the sensory store for vision, First described by George Sperling (1963), there is also echoic memory.
The sensory stores are like brief delay systems associated with each sense. They preserve the pattern of stimulation
before it enters attention. The sensory stores are sensory systems, but they are also memory systems because they
preserve information after the external stimulus is gone.
The iconic image is complete. It contains all the sensory information available from the retina of the eye. However, it lasts only a fraction of a second and cannot be conjured up voluntarily at a later time. Probably the location of the iconic image is the circuitry of the retina itself.
Complex experimental techniques reveal that individual sensory traces or "pictures" can also be preserved in visual processing areas of the brain for up to five minutes. (Ishai and Sagi, 1995). This is not the same as iconic memory its a short term sensory store that is accessible.
It seems in some animals like amphibians a great deal of processing of sensory information happens at the site of sensation. Our olfactory nerve, which isn't really a nerve but a brain structure might reflect this.
Some experimental stuff;
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00971/full
That is my understanding as well. Memories are stored in a 'compressed' form and have to be rebuilt using other parts of the brain and perhaps other memories as well. So if you recall a memory about playing fetch with your dog as a kid, your mind actually fills in many of the details using its general knowledge of things like dogs, fetch, tennis balls, etc. It's not a strict copy of the event that remains nearly unchanged over time.
Yes I've heard people say that every recollection is in fact a creative activity and that, that will also influence future recollection, it edits the memory.
Absolutely. I like to think of the brain as something like a 'hardened' computer system. By that I mean that the brain has to work in a downright hostile environment and evolution has taken steps to ensure that out brains still work even though cells are damaged and can die, synapses can be disrupted, food and fuel can temporarily be lost, etc. This has led to the brain being an extremely resilient organ, but with the cost that not everything works as well or as efficiently as one might naively expect.[/QUOTE]
The whole model of how neurones work seems to be falling apart, the idea of a synapse activating and providing a stimulus that alters the action potential of the the other neuron is apparently way off. Individual dendrites can be allocated a different stimulus value and the information transmitted is not a simple all or nothing response, there can be quite a lot of variance in the signal. Its been suggested that we need to think of each neuron as a computer, sorry I havn't the source's immediately to hand but it gets more complex by the minute.