On Memory And Mind (Mind The Gap?)

1.      On Memory And Mind (Mind The Gap?)

Written: April 2015

Author: Rene Helmerichs

Posted: www.renehelmerichs3.blogspot.ca

Length: 16 paragraphs

Re: Partnership similar to that of yours with Nestle

To: Science America and Nature, jabbate@sciam.com

Cc: Francis S. Collins, www.biologos.org

2.      My name is Rene Helmerichs. I am an extension of The Foundation For Inner Peace, currently with copyright of the text A Course In Miracles. My area of expertise is Applied Psychology with specific emphasis in the health and healing aspect of mind.

3.      The predominant theme repeatedly emphasized throughout science is directly the false assumption that either of two related somethings caused the other. In the April 2015 Persistence Of Memory article, the assumption is expressed in terms of memory: “If memory is not located in the synapse, where is it?” asks Roni Jacobson, after asserting “As intangible as they may seem, memories have a firm biological basis.”

4.      Memory does NOT have a firm biological basis except to better understand the full implication of the also included statement “evidence suggests that when someone recalls a memory, the reactivated connection is not only strengthened but becomes temporarily susceptible to change” while we are here with perceivably linear moments in communicating dimensions not confined to time whatsoever.

5.      The error of the assumption is furthered on the page 2 Scientific America April 2015 statement for the page 14 article asserting the article informing the reader “Where memories live” that “memories may reside inside brain cells” as opposed to outside them.

6.      The very changing nature of memory implies memory to have a life of its own, and thus live with whatever the memory affects. The memory clearly affects brain cells but can memories reside inside AND outside brain cells simultaneously?

7.      Let us first consider that we do not understand the process of or for memory and cannot therefore rule out the possibility that our current thinking for memory is completely askew. Our difficulty is merely our assumption that we are our bodies and not a multi-dimensional being operating our bodies in partnership with that not seen but sustaining, constantly beyond concept of consistency, the very motion of the universe as one whole (or each individual electron should a tangible microcosmic perspective be desired).

8.      The mere fact that everything, every particle, in our universe shares in it evidences us to have something more in common than any aspect within the otherwise closed paradox endlessly witnessing history to repeat itself differently as if itself confused. The closed paradox is perfectly portrayed in our ongoing desire to believe ourselves the makers of memory.

9.      If we are the makers of memory, it follows that we can alter memory to better reflect our liking. But what is our liking if we are perpetually expressing an unhappiness, a dissatisfaction, with what we are doing for certainly if we are able to make memory we would not be in the living nightmare needing understanding before permitting us the ability to make or keep only happy memories?

10. Memory is dynamic. This is actually common sense, except to the confused believing in the need to suppress bad for want of good. The common part of whatever sense is the realization of memory as a tool for learning.

11. Memory, simply put, is the active process of comparing two perceivable differences (different moments in time for those of us yet unable to accept time itself is not, not as the vacuum we also call space) for that with us functioning, actioning, the decision process extending our liking into not-exclusive sameness.

12. We might be momentarily against to real-eyes the endless longing driving “What am I?” into the myriad of perceivable differences, but transparency saves the day, ibid time. If memory includes the ability to bridge two distinct moments in time for the noted purpose of altering perspective that whatever is recalled, and memory of it therein strengthened with its active recollection, then we must concede memory is not dependent on the moment but sustains it, any and every moment equated synonymously with our concept of time (each our individual concept multimodally – dynamically but not confined to the, or any, concept).

13. Thus do we now understand our memories exist everywhere simultaneously but out of our awareness for shere necessity to obligate our free will choice expressing itself in the living moment as longing for whatever the unseen (wholey ghost, common echo, or crippling addiction).

14. Whatever our liking, that we co-exist with awareness in an environment itself ever-changing, we establish for ourselves fact only for ever-remembering, ever-recreating with intent not remembered. In partnering, then, for not-exclusive endeours furthering, empowering, responsibility do we strengthen memories of one likeness, that being of one kind, living constantly.

15. Not coincidentally, the April 2015 issue of Science America claiming “’Firewalls’ around black holes are confounding general relativity and particle physics” forgets to address the entire concept for linear time to be precisely the “firewall” surrounding the unconscious abyss of total memory obliteration for from wherewithall does lack of memory truly equate to perfect eternal presence of the timeless state AND not exclusive.

16. end.