What do you think?
Rate this book
The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the "Jennifer Aniston Neuron"
If we lose our memories, are we still ourselves? Is identity merely a collection of electrical impulses? What separates us from animals, or from computers?
From Plato to Westworld, these questions have fascinated and befuddled philosophers, artists, and scientists for centuries. In The Forgetting Machine, neuroscientist Rodrigo Quiroga explains how the mechanics of memory illuminates these discussions, with implications for everything from understanding Alzheimer's disease to the technology of artificial intelligence.
You'll also learn about the research behind what Quiroga coined "Jennifer Aniston neurons" - cells in the human brain that are responsible for representing specific concepts, such as recognizing a certain celebrity's face. The discovery of these neurons opens new windows into the workings of human memory.
In this accessible, fascinating look at the science of remembering, you'll learn how we turn perceptions into memories, how language shapes our experiences, and the crucial role forgetting plays in human recollection. You'll see how electricity, chemistry, and abstraction combine to form something more than the human brain - the human mind. And you'll gain surprising insight into what our brains can tell us about who we are.
The Forgetting Machine takes us on a journey through science and science fiction, philosophy, and identity, using what we know about how we remember (and forget) to explore the very roots of what makes us human.
From Plato to Westworld, these questions have fascinated and befuddled philosophers, artists, and scientists for centuries. In The Forgetting Machine, neuroscientist Rodrigo Quiroga explains how the mechanics of memory illuminates these discussions, with implications for everything from understanding Alzheimer's disease to the technology of artificial intelligence.
You'll also learn about the research behind what Quiroga coined "Jennifer Aniston neurons" - cells in the human brain that are responsible for representing specific concepts, such as recognizing a certain celebrity's face. The discovery of these neurons opens new windows into the workings of human memory.
In this accessible, fascinating look at the science of remembering, you'll learn how we turn perceptions into memories, how language shapes our experiences, and the crucial role forgetting plays in human recollection. You'll see how electricity, chemistry, and abstraction combine to form something more than the human brain - the human mind. And you'll gain surprising insight into what our brains can tell us about who we are.
The Forgetting Machine takes us on a journey through science and science fiction, philosophy, and identity, using what we know about how we remember (and forget) to explore the very roots of what makes us human.
Audible Audio
Published October 3, 2017
80 people are currently reading
2,300 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
April 30, 2018
Not only do I wish more scientists would write books to educate laypeople, I wish more scientists would write books as informative and accessible as The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron� by Rodrigo Quian Quiroga. This highly-credentialed, multi-degreed, computational neuroscientist has written a fascinating book about the vastness and limitations of human memory. Viewed by most as a complex subject, Quiroga has skillfully dismantled this complexity into very basic, consumable facts and descriptions of what memory is and how it works.
“Science is born from questions,� says Quiroga, and he cleverly titles all but one of his chapters with a teasing, but important question. The ensuing chapter narrative then seeks to answer that question using simple language that keeps the reader deeply engaged in Quiroga’s explanations. In chapter 1, “How Do We Store Memories?� he covers the basics of neuronal activity and its contribution to memory formation. The reader will learn that neurons are either at rest or they are active, meaning they are “firing.� For further understanding of neuronal activity, Quiroga quickly adds to the reader’s vocabulary such terms as axons, dendrites, synapses, neurotransmitters, and excitatory and inhibitory neurons. The stage is then set for patterns or networks of firing networks and the creation of memories.
Of course, despite its shamefully light weight of about three pounds, the human brain can boast some staggering numbers. For example, it has approximately 100 billion neurons, yet 50,000 of them would fit on the head of a pin. Quiroga goes on to say, “As each neuron is wired to another 10,000, this puts the number of connections on the order of 10,000 times 1011, or 1015, which is roughly the number of grains of sand in a beach 100 meters long.� Despite the ability to store over an estimated 100 million memories, Quiroga concludes chapter 1 with the startling fact that we “remember� almost nothing! Rather, the brain creates memories from very little stored information.
In other questioning chapters, such as “Does the Eye Really See?,� “Can We Remember More?,� “Could We Become More Intelligent?,� and “Can Androids Feel?,� Quiroga continues dispelling common misconceptions with startling discoveries that shed light on the mysterious, intricate brain activity that is the mechanism for memories. His discussions on the importance of human identity and what differentiates us from animals are as lucid and thought-provoking as are his positions on modern education methods and Artificial Intelligence. The author’s excitement grips the reader with his personal involvement in the discovery of the “Jennifer Aniston neuron,� an ambitious experiment to identify the response of a single neuron, in this case, involving various images of the actress.
In a book with remarkably few pages, Quiroga elevates the layperson’s knowledge of the workings of the brain, how memories are created, and how these relate to the human mind. Readers will not feel as if they are reading a science book, but rather, that they are unfolding a narrative about something extraordinarily common yet critical in making us human. This is a well-researched, enormously accessible book—read it without delay!
“Science is born from questions,� says Quiroga, and he cleverly titles all but one of his chapters with a teasing, but important question. The ensuing chapter narrative then seeks to answer that question using simple language that keeps the reader deeply engaged in Quiroga’s explanations. In chapter 1, “How Do We Store Memories?� he covers the basics of neuronal activity and its contribution to memory formation. The reader will learn that neurons are either at rest or they are active, meaning they are “firing.� For further understanding of neuronal activity, Quiroga quickly adds to the reader’s vocabulary such terms as axons, dendrites, synapses, neurotransmitters, and excitatory and inhibitory neurons. The stage is then set for patterns or networks of firing networks and the creation of memories.
Of course, despite its shamefully light weight of about three pounds, the human brain can boast some staggering numbers. For example, it has approximately 100 billion neurons, yet 50,000 of them would fit on the head of a pin. Quiroga goes on to say, “As each neuron is wired to another 10,000, this puts the number of connections on the order of 10,000 times 1011, or 1015, which is roughly the number of grains of sand in a beach 100 meters long.� Despite the ability to store over an estimated 100 million memories, Quiroga concludes chapter 1 with the startling fact that we “remember� almost nothing! Rather, the brain creates memories from very little stored information.
In other questioning chapters, such as “Does the Eye Really See?,� “Can We Remember More?,� “Could We Become More Intelligent?,� and “Can Androids Feel?,� Quiroga continues dispelling common misconceptions with startling discoveries that shed light on the mysterious, intricate brain activity that is the mechanism for memories. His discussions on the importance of human identity and what differentiates us from animals are as lucid and thought-provoking as are his positions on modern education methods and Artificial Intelligence. The author’s excitement grips the reader with his personal involvement in the discovery of the “Jennifer Aniston neuron,� an ambitious experiment to identify the response of a single neuron, in this case, involving various images of the actress.
In a book with remarkably few pages, Quiroga elevates the layperson’s knowledge of the workings of the brain, how memories are created, and how these relate to the human mind. Readers will not feel as if they are reading a science book, but rather, that they are unfolding a narrative about something extraordinarily common yet critical in making us human. This is a well-researched, enormously accessible book—read it without delay!
September 24, 2020
I had a great review -- and then I forgot it.
Actually, not a bad little neuroscience book on how we create and maintain memory which is infinitely fascinating, even if I can't remember everything I read.
Actually, not a bad little neuroscience book on how we create and maintain memory which is infinitely fascinating, even if I can't remember everything I read.
October 5, 2020
Who would you be without your memories? Would you still be you? I've long been interested in anything and everything about memory. Not a lot here was new to me, but even so, I found the book informative, accessible, and engaging. The audio is well done. I enjoyed it and listened to some chapters twice, frequently stopping to inform my husband of various factoids. It's amazing how little we really remember, how much we forget, and how malleable memories really are.
October 28, 2020
A dry, textbook-like explanation of what are, in fact, deeply profound discoveries. Together, they point toward a counterintuitive idea: that the human brain structures experience (and memory) around a kind of neurological shorthand, referred to as concepts (naturally, the neurons responsible are called “concept neurons�). The sensory experiences we think we remember are actually filled in only when we actively recall that memory—activating a concept then activates a whole “neural cascade� throughout the rest of the brain in a pattern unique to that memory, including the neural pathways responsible for sensory data (vision, taste, etc).
In other words, when you “remember� something, your brain first activates the concept network for “brown blob with two yellow circles that smells like tobacco.� Then, as the signals cascade to other parts of the brain, the more fine-tuned areas then fill in the details (white glasses, small chin, etc). Adding up to: Hey, it’s grandpa!
More profoundly, our brain is always doing this. We don’t “see� everything we think we see. Our brain is constantly minimizing the load by filling in the gaps. Yes, we do in fact hallucinate our lived reality.
But taken further, what’s most remarkable is that our brains are incredibly efficient and are designed to work well on as little information as possible. “Concepts� are built on one another and in relation to one another. Neurologically, this means that the networks for related concepts share similar neural cascade patterns (which is also why our memories are so maleable).
A terribly written book by someone at the forefront of their field. It’s an absolutely fascinating read.
In other words, when you “remember� something, your brain first activates the concept network for “brown blob with two yellow circles that smells like tobacco.� Then, as the signals cascade to other parts of the brain, the more fine-tuned areas then fill in the details (white glasses, small chin, etc). Adding up to: Hey, it’s grandpa!
More profoundly, our brain is always doing this. We don’t “see� everything we think we see. Our brain is constantly minimizing the load by filling in the gaps. Yes, we do in fact hallucinate our lived reality.
But taken further, what’s most remarkable is that our brains are incredibly efficient and are designed to work well on as little information as possible. “Concepts� are built on one another and in relation to one another. Neurologically, this means that the networks for related concepts share similar neural cascade patterns (which is also why our memories are so maleable).
A terribly written book by someone at the forefront of their field. It’s an absolutely fascinating read.
March 30, 2021
Been looking for non fiction to read, and what a surprise that the neuroscience book would be interesting to the neuroscience graduate student lol. I've taken a few neuroscience classes but this dives deep into memory in a way I've only had surface-level exposure to. It's also written in a way that's really accessible, I would hand this to a college student who was curious about what I do and why it's interesting.
4.5/5 stars, rounded up
4.5/5 stars, rounded up
March 28, 2023
I read this on a lark because I had free access to it. Putting the so-called "Jennifer Aniston Neuron" in the title felt cheap, but hey, it's 170 pages. This is a pamphlet and not a book.
I didn't learn much new, but I did enjoy it and it was deeper than I would have guessed when I dove in, which granted was very shallow.
Bonus points for the book perfectly aligning with a test I was taking for a class and another book I was reading on clones and memory. Quick, dirty, enjoyable, to the point, and a little dated for the section on grandmother cells, er, Jen.
I didn't learn much new, but I did enjoy it and it was deeper than I would have guessed when I dove in, which granted was very shallow.
Bonus points for the book perfectly aligning with a test I was taking for a class and another book I was reading on clones and memory. Quick, dirty, enjoyable, to the point, and a little dated for the section on grandmother cells, er, Jen.
November 22, 2020
A book about the mechanics of memory (written for the layman) with an interesting commentary on the philosophical aspects of human identity.
Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, Director of the Centre for Systems Neuroscience at the University of Leicester, evokes (surprisingly relevant*) pop culture references and delightful passages from Borges to demystify the concepts of synapse, memory, abstraction, and self-awareness.
The book starts with a brief introduction to neurons and synapses, explaining the chemical and electrical signals between nerve cells, and the dichotomy between a vast amount of information that passes thru them, and us ultimately retaining little of it.
The book goes to cover a series of peripheral topics such as the benefits of outsourcing trivial memory tasks to technology, and certain pathologies that seem to enhance brain capabilities, while paradoxically limiting others.
It also strongly debunks the pseudoscientific claims about memory enhancement with the exception of mnemonics, to which the author attributes some value due to its use of association, while questioning its practical use.
One of the major themes echoed throughout the book is that something as abstract as the firing of neurons requires interpretation and abstraction in order for us to make sense of the world. Quian Quiroga himself appears to subscribe to the dogma of scientific materialism as he views both the brain and the mind as one in the same. One represented by physical activity in the cerebral cortex and the other as both its fuel and output.
All in all, the “Jeniffer Aniston� neuron ended up being the least interesting concept the author had to offer. The book serves its readers with a plethora of scientific, sociological, and even philosophical ideas about the way in which we consume and rationalize information; and it ultimately makes us realize that we are bound to remember little, and to forget most. Coming to terms with that reality is accepting that we are merely human.
Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, Director of the Centre for Systems Neuroscience at the University of Leicester, evokes (surprisingly relevant*) pop culture references and delightful passages from Borges to demystify the concepts of synapse, memory, abstraction, and self-awareness.
The book starts with a brief introduction to neurons and synapses, explaining the chemical and electrical signals between nerve cells, and the dichotomy between a vast amount of information that passes thru them, and us ultimately retaining little of it.
The book goes to cover a series of peripheral topics such as the benefits of outsourcing trivial memory tasks to technology, and certain pathologies that seem to enhance brain capabilities, while paradoxically limiting others.
It also strongly debunks the pseudoscientific claims about memory enhancement with the exception of mnemonics, to which the author attributes some value due to its use of association, while questioning its practical use.
One of the major themes echoed throughout the book is that something as abstract as the firing of neurons requires interpretation and abstraction in order for us to make sense of the world. Quian Quiroga himself appears to subscribe to the dogma of scientific materialism as he views both the brain and the mind as one in the same. One represented by physical activity in the cerebral cortex and the other as both its fuel and output.
All in all, the “Jeniffer Aniston� neuron ended up being the least interesting concept the author had to offer. The book serves its readers with a plethora of scientific, sociological, and even philosophical ideas about the way in which we consume and rationalize information; and it ultimately makes us realize that we are bound to remember little, and to forget most. Coming to terms with that reality is accepting that we are merely human.
January 11, 2022
2.5
I can tell this was meant for those with little knowledge of neuroscience, but curious to find out how things work. So, me.
Ugh. Some interesting nuggets of information/ concepts, but nothing truly earth shattering and the way it was presented, considering it was targeting the casual curious, was rather clumsy, verging on the boring at times.
I can tell this was meant for those with little knowledge of neuroscience, but curious to find out how things work. So, me.
Ugh. Some interesting nuggets of information/ concepts, but nothing truly earth shattering and the way it was presented, considering it was targeting the casual curious, was rather clumsy, verging on the boring at times.
March 16, 2022
إذا فقدنا ذاكرتنا، هل نبقى أنفسنا؟ وهل الهوية مجرد مجموعة نبضات كهربائية؟ وما الذي يُميزنا عن الحيوانات وعن أجهزة الحاسوب؟
(آلة النسيان) رحلة مخصصة لغير المتخصصين في علم التذكر، نتعلم من خلالها كيف تتحول التصورات إلى ذكريات، وكيف تُشكّل اللغة تجاربنا، والدور الحاسم الذي يلعبه النسيان في الذاكرة البشرية. رحلة عبر العلم والخيال العلمي والفلسفة والهوية باستخدام ما نعرفه عن: كيف نتذكر (وكيف ننسى) لاستكشاف ما الذي يجعلنا بشرًا، يشرح عالم الأعصاب، رودريغو كيروغا كيف تسلط ميكانيكا الذاكرة الضوء على هذهِ الأسئلة، والآثار المترتبة على كل شيء بدءًا من فهم مرض الزهايمر إلى الذكاء الاصطناعي. كما وطرح الدكتور كيروغا المفهوم الذي صاغه بنفسه -خلايا جينيفر أنيستون العصبية- في الدماغ البشري المسؤولة عن تمثيل مفاهيم محددة، مثل التعرف على وجه أحد المشاهير. ويفتح اكتشاف هذهِ الخلايا العصبية نوافذ جديدة على عمل الذاكرة البشرية. تناولت فصول هذا الكتاب كيف تخزن الذاكرة وأهميتها وذاتيتها وتقلبها ونشاط الخلايا العصبية وترميز الذكريات في الدماغ وسعة تخزين الذاكرة ومقدار ما نراه حقًا، والفرق بين الإحساس والإدراك وعلاقة الأخير بالذاكرة والاستخدام اللاواعي للاستنتاجات، وفضائل النسيان وموثوقية شهود العيان وغيرها الكثير.
"لا يقتصر دور الذاكرة على قدرتنا على التفكير فحسب، فهي تحدد محتوى تجاربنا وكيف نحافظ عليها على المدى البعيد. تحدد الذاكرة ماهيتنا؛ إذا فقدت قدرتي على السمع وبدأت في استخدام غرسة القوقعة الصناعية، فسأظل بلا شك الشخص نفسه. وإذا كنت أعاني من قصور في القلب واعتمدت على قلب اصطناعي، فلن يؤثر ذلك على مَنْ أكون، وبالمثل إذا فقدت ذراعي في حادث واستبدلتها بطرف اصطناعي. باختصار، طالما بقيت ذكرياتي ومقدرتي العقلية سليمة، سأبقى الشخص نفسه، بغض النظر عن أي جزء يُستبدل من جسمي (عدا الدماغ). ومن ناحية أخرى، عندما يُعاني أحدهم من مرض الزهايمر في مراحله المتقدمة، وتتلاشى ذكرياته، غالبًا ما يقول الناس أنّه: "لم يعد الشخص نفسه!" أو كما لو أن هذا الشخص "لم يعد موجودًا" مع أن جسده لم يتغير.
قد نواجه صعوبة في بعض الأحيان في التع��ف على أحد المعارف على سبيل المثال لأنه غيّر تسريحة شعره أو حلق ذقنه بعد أن أطلقه لفتره طويلة، أو ببساطة لأن سنوات عديدة قد مرّت. وهذهِ الصعوبة المتزايدة في التعرف على شخص ما ناتجة عن الاختلاف بين نمط التنشيط الناتج عن رؤية الشخص والنمط الذي استخدمناه "لتخزين" هذا الشخص في ذاكرتنا.
إذًا كيف تُخزّن كل هذهِ المعلومات؟ الجواب الصادم هو أننا لا نفعل ذلك ببساطة! لا نتذكر شيئًا تقريبًا، وفكرة أننا نتذكر قدرًا كبيرًا من التفاصيل الدقيقة لتجاربنا وكأننا نعيد تشغيل فيلم، ما هي إلا وهم بناه دماغنا. وقد يكون ما ذكرته للتو من أعظم أسرار دراسة الذاكرة: فالحقيقة الصادمة تقول أن الدماغ يخلق منطلقًا من معلومات طفيفة للغاية واقعًا وماضٍ يجعلنا ما نحن عليه بغض النظر عن حقيقة كون ذلك الماضي وتلك الذكريات غامضين للغاية، مع أن مجرد استحضار تلك الذكريات إلى وعينا يغيرها حتمًا، رغم حقيقة أن ما يكمن وراء وعيي "بذات" فريدة وثابتة تجعلني ما أنا عليه يتغير باستمرار.
تمكن الباحثون من تقدير أن العين البشرية تنقل المعلومات إلى الدماغ بحوالي عشرة ملايين بت في الثانية، أو عشرة ميجابت في الثانية، وهو رقم قد يبدو مألوفًا نظرًا لأنه سرعة إرسال اتصال إيثرنت قياسي. أي تُنقل المعلومات المرئية إلى الدماغ بمعدل واحد ميغا بايت في الثانية.
إذا كان متوسط استيقاظنا هو ١٦ ساعة في اليوم، هذا يعني أن الدماغ يتلقى ما مجموعه ٥٧.٦ جيجابايت من المعلومات في اليوم وبعبارة أخرى، يمكننا ملء قرص صلب سعة تيرابايت واحد كل أسبوعين ونصف.
.
ولكن هل تنقل العين كل ما تراه؟
تذكر أن كمية المعلومات التي تنقلها العين إلى الدماغ تبلغ حوالي ميغا بايت في الثانية وفقًا للباحثين في جامعة بنسلفينيا، وهذا يعني أن هناك فرق مقداره ثلاث مراتب –م� حيث المبدأ- بين المعلومات التي تنقلها العين وتلك التي تصل إلى الدماغ. وبعبارة أخرى، يرى الدماغ فقط حوالي واحد من الألف من المعلومات في مجال رؤيته.
لماذا هذا الاختلاف الهائل؟ هل ثمّة خطأ في حساباتنا؟
الأرقام المذكورة أعلاه صحيحة رياضيًا، لكنها تفترض ضمنيًا أن العين تعالج المعلومات بدقة موحدة تبلغ ٣٠٠ نقطة في البوصة في جميع أنحاء مجال الرؤية. افترض على سبيل المثال أنني –الآ�- قادر على رؤية كل شيء أمامي بمنتهى الوضوح وبكامل تفاصيله –أ� على الأقل هذا ما أعتقده- لكن القدرة على رؤية العالم الخارجي الذي يقع أمامي بالتفصيل الدقيق ما هو إلا وهم بناه الدماغ. ما نراه بالتفصيل في الواقع هو ما يقع في مركز نظرنا، بزاوية بصرية تبلغ درجة أو درجتين، بانخفاض صغير (أقل من ملمترين) في مركز شبكية العين، يسمى النقرة، وهو الجزء المسؤول عن إنتاج مجال الرؤية الواضحة والحادة، وهي منطقة بحجم إبهامنا تقريبًا في نهاية ذراعنا المشدودة".
.
إذًا، هل ترى العين حقًا؟
يمكننا خلال رمشة عين واحدة أن نقوم بثلاث حركات سريعة، ما يعني أن العين رأت بالتفصيل مساحة ثلاث عملات معدنية، والباقي كان ضبابيًا للعين حتى لو شعرنا بأننا رأينا كل شيء أمامنا بوضوح. وهذهِ إحدى عجائب الدماغ وأحد الألغاز التي تُؤرقنا نحن علماء الأعصاب. فعلى سبيل المثال: عندما ننظر إلى وجه أحدهم، نعتقد أننا نرى كل ملامحه بوضوح. في الواقع، تلتقط أعيننا (بضع) نقاط معينة بينما يملأ الدماغ باقي المعلومات. وقد وصف عالم النفس الروسي ألفريد ياربوس هذا التأثير في ستينيات القرن العشرين، وقال: عندما ننظر إلى الوجه، فإننا نميل إلى التركيز على العينين وخطوط الأنف والفم، وهي على وجه التحديد أبرز سمات مظهر الشخص.
الجواب هو أن شبكية العين لا تعالج أو تنقل المعلومات المرئية في شكل إعادة إنشاء بسيطة للبكسلات التي تشكل الصورة وإنما تنقل المعلومات التي تؤدي إلى تمثيل الصورة التي لا تولدها العين وإنما الدماغ. وقد يبدو ما سأقوله غريبًا عندما أقول أن العين لا ترى، وإنما الدماغ من يقوم بذلك. لماذا إذًا توجد العديد من الخلايا العصبية في شبكية العين؟ لأن شبكية العين تبدأ العمليات التي تُمكننا من استخلاص المعنى مما نراه.
وأظهر ياربوس كذلك أن ما نراه يتأثر كثيرًا بالمهمة التي نتصدى لها والتي بدورها تحدد تركيز انتباهنا بناء على عوامل واعية وغير واعية. تتعلق العوامل اللاواعية بأهمية المعلومات؛ بمعنى آخر، مدى تميزها عن محيطها. على سبيل المثال، يسهل ملاحظة رجل يرتدي قميصًا برتقاليًا إذا كان بين مجموعة يرتدون ملابس رمادية، ويسهل تمييز السيارة المتحركة أكثر من السيارات الواقفة في الشارع. وتتعلق العوامل الواعية من ناحية أخرى بما يثير اهتمامنا ونحن نمسح المشهد. فإذا كنتُ أبحث عن شقيقي الذي يرتدي زي فريقه الرياضي المفضل سوف ينصب اهتمامي على الناس –خاص� أولئك الذين يرتدون الزي نفسه- لا على السيارات المارة ولا البنايات المحيطة بي.
بخلاف الكاميرا التي تخزن كل جزء من المعلومات المرئية بدقة متساوية، يكون البصر موجّها للغاية؛ فهو يركز على التقاط المعلومات ذات الصلة باستخلاص المعنى وليس دقتها، فبالنهاية، لاتهمني معرفة التفاصيل الدقيقة لآلاف الشعرات الصفراء المتناقضة مع مثيلاتها سوداء اللون، كل ما يهمني معرفته هو أن ما رأيته هو نمر لأهرب منه بسرعة. وبالتالي تكون عملية معالجة المعلومات المرئية في الدماغ أعقد بكثير ممّا يفعله الكومبيوتر بالصورة، وهي ليست سوى نتاج ملايين السنين من التطور.
لم تتوضح العمليات التي تكمن وراء الطريقة التي نختار المعلومات ونحن نركز بصرنا على شيء يثير اهتمامنا والطرق التي تشفر بها عصبوناتنا التباين وتتجاهل التجانس إلا في العقود الأخيرة. لكن نظرية كيف نُشكِّل الواقع بناءًا على المعلومات التي نتلقاها عبر أعيننا والفرق بين الإحساس والإدراك أقدم بكثير؛ فقد افترض أرسطو قبل أكثر من ألفي عام أن العقل يولد الصور التي هي أساس الفكر بدءًا من المعلومات التي نتلقاها من خلال الحواس.
لقد لاحظ هيلمهولتز في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر أن المعلومات التي تحصل عليها العين شحيحة للغاية، وأن الدماغ بناءً، على التجارب السابقة، يعمل استدلالات غير واعية لتحديد معنى لما نراه. وجادل هيلمهولتز بأننا لا نرى نسخًا من الواقع والأشياء الخارجية، بل اشارات وتركيبات ملفقة في أدمغتنا. لا يشترط أن تكون تلك الإشارات مطابقة للواقع، يكفي أن تكون قابلة للتناسخ. إن الاختلاف بين الواقع الخارجي وإدراكنا هو جوهر المثالية وأساس الفلسفة الحديثة، والذي يبدأ ببحث ديكارت عن الحقيقة المطلقة عبر التشكيك في إدراكه للواقع، واستمرت المبالغة في تقدير الادراك الذاتي من قبل التجريبيين البريطانيين الذين يعتبرون العقل صفحة بيضاء نطبع عليها معرفتنا بناءً على خبرتنا وتصور حواسنا أمثال: لوك وبيركلي وهيوم، ويكمن كذلك في قلب المثالية المتعالية لكانط، التي تجادل بأنه يمكننا معرفة التمثيلات التي نصورها للأشياء فحسب ولا نستطيع أبدًا معرفة الشيء في حد ذاته.
إذًا، ما مقدار ما نراه حقًا؟
باختصار، ثمة فرق يقدر بثلاث مراتب (من الجيجا بايت الى الميغا بايت) بين المعلومات الموجودة في مجال رؤيتنا والمعلومات التي تنقلها العين إلى الدماغ، ولكن هذا الاختلاف يتلاشى ما إن نأخذ في الحسبان أن ما نلاحظه بالتفصيل هو ما موجود في النقرة، مركز مجال رؤيتنا.
ومن أهم الأسباب التي تحدونا لمناقشة الرؤية أثناء بحثنا في موضوع الذاكرة هو استخدام الدماغ لاستراتيجيات متشابهة جدًا للرؤية والتذكر. إذ تعتمد كلتا العمليتين على بناء المعنى، وهو تفسير للعالم الخارجي يعتمد على اختيار الحد الأدنى من المعلومات وعمل التجريدات والتخلص من تفاصيل كثيرة.
توجد حوالي مئة مليون خلية عصبية في دماغ الإنسان، وبالنظر إلى ذلك، قد يبدو أن الدماغ لن يواجه صعوبة في تخزين كل ذكرياتنا، لكننا نواجه مشكلتين أساسيتين: بادئ ذي بدء، ليست كل الخلايا العصبية مخصصة لتخزين الذكريات. في الواقع، تشكل الخلايا العصبية المخصصة لهذهِ الوظيفة جزءًا صغيرًا فحسب، إذ يجب تخصيص عدد كبير من الخلايا العصبية للمعالجة البصرية والسمعية والتحكم في الحركة واتخاذ القرار والعواطف وما إلى ذلك. وثانيًا، تُظهر الحسابات النظرية أن عدد الذكريات التي يمكن تخزينها بواسطة عدد معين من الخلايا العصبية محدود بسبب تأثيرات التداخل. باختصار، إذا خزن الدماغ عددًا كبيرًا من الذكريات، فأنها تختلط مع بعضها بعضا. وتقدر الحسابات أنه ، إذا كان عدد الخلايا العصبية س، يمكن تخزين حوالي ٠.١٤ س من الذكريات دون تداخل.
.
يستخلص الدماغ مُستخدمًا استراتيجيات مختلفة المعنى مما نراه، وهو أكثر بكثير من مجرد انتاج نسخة من المعلومات التي تقع في مجال رؤيتنا. باختصار، أولاً، يعالج الدماغ معظم المعلومات المرئية في النقرة -مركز اهتمامنا- متجاهلًا الباقي. وثانيًا، ينفذ تمثيلًا محيطيًا مركزيًا لتشفير التباين في شبكية العين. وثالثًا، يبني علامات ناشئة عن الاستدلالات اللاواعية بناءً على التجارب السابقة. وتستمر عملية بناء المعنى هذهِ في القشرة الدماغية.
.
تسمح لنا الذاكرة قصيرة الأمد بتذكر المعلومات لفترات زمنية وجيزة وأن نكون واعين لتطور الأحداث الحالية. وهي الذاكرة التي أستخدمها، على سبيل المثال، لتذكر ما أريد قوله في هذهِ الجملة عندما أبحث عن الكلمات المناسبة. بينما تتكون الذاكرة طويلة الأمد من التفاصيل التي نختارها من الحاضر، تلك التي ستصبح جزءًا من الماضي ونتذكرها في المستقبل. ولا يترسخ سوى مقدار ضئيل من الذكريات قصيرة الأمد في أدمغتنا، ولكن كيف تصبح الذكريات قصيرة الأمد ذكريات طويلة الأمد؟ حسب مبدأ ايبنهاوس الثاني، التكرار والممارسة ترسخ المعلومات في الذاكرة. كما أن سيموندس يقول أن تصنيف الذكريات هو مفتاح حفظها.
(آلة النسيان) رحلة مخصصة لغير المتخصصين في علم التذكر، نتعلم من خلالها كيف تتحول التصورات إلى ذكريات، وكيف تُشكّل اللغة تجاربنا، والدور الحاسم الذي يلعبه النسيان في الذاكرة البشرية. رحلة عبر العلم والخيال العلمي والفلسفة والهوية باستخدام ما نعرفه عن: كيف نتذكر (وكيف ننسى) لاستكشاف ما الذي يجعلنا بشرًا، يشرح عالم الأعصاب، رودريغو كيروغا كيف تسلط ميكانيكا الذاكرة الضوء على هذهِ الأسئلة، والآثار المترتبة على كل شيء بدءًا من فهم مرض الزهايمر إلى الذكاء الاصطناعي. كما وطرح الدكتور كيروغا المفهوم الذي صاغه بنفسه -خلايا جينيفر أنيستون العصبية- في الدماغ البشري المسؤولة عن تمثيل مفاهيم محددة، مثل التعرف على وجه أحد المشاهير. ويفتح اكتشاف هذهِ الخلايا العصبية نوافذ جديدة على عمل الذاكرة البشرية. تناولت فصول هذا الكتاب كيف تخزن الذاكرة وأهميتها وذاتيتها وتقلبها ونشاط الخلايا العصبية وترميز الذكريات في الدماغ وسعة تخزين الذاكرة ومقدار ما نراه حقًا، والفرق بين الإحساس والإدراك وعلاقة الأخير بالذاكرة والاستخدام اللاواعي للاستنتاجات، وفضائل النسيان وموثوقية شهود العيان وغيرها الكثير.
"لا يقتصر دور الذاكرة على قدرتنا على التفكير فحسب، فهي تحدد محتوى تجاربنا وكيف نحافظ عليها على المدى البعيد. تحدد الذاكرة ماهيتنا؛ إذا فقدت قدرتي على السمع وبدأت في استخدام غرسة القوقعة الصناعية، فسأظل بلا شك الشخص نفسه. وإذا كنت أعاني من قصور في القلب واعتمدت على قلب اصطناعي، فلن يؤثر ذلك على مَنْ أكون، وبالمثل إذا فقدت ذراعي في حادث واستبدلتها بطرف اصطناعي. باختصار، طالما بقيت ذكرياتي ومقدرتي العقلية سليمة، سأبقى الشخص نفسه، بغض النظر عن أي جزء يُستبدل من جسمي (عدا الدماغ). ومن ناحية أخرى، عندما يُعاني أحدهم من مرض الزهايمر في مراحله المتقدمة، وتتلاشى ذكرياته، غالبًا ما يقول الناس أنّه: "لم يعد الشخص نفسه!" أو كما لو أن هذا الشخص "لم يعد موجودًا" مع أن جسده لم يتغير.
قد نواجه صعوبة في بعض الأحيان في التع��ف على أحد المعارف على سبيل المثال لأنه غيّر تسريحة شعره أو حلق ذقنه بعد أن أطلقه لفتره طويلة، أو ببساطة لأن سنوات عديدة قد مرّت. وهذهِ الصعوبة المتزايدة في التعرف على شخص ما ناتجة عن الاختلاف بين نمط التنشيط الناتج عن رؤية الشخص والنمط الذي استخدمناه "لتخزين" هذا الشخص في ذاكرتنا.
إذًا كيف تُخزّن كل هذهِ المعلومات؟ الجواب الصادم هو أننا لا نفعل ذلك ببساطة! لا نتذكر شيئًا تقريبًا، وفكرة أننا نتذكر قدرًا كبيرًا من التفاصيل الدقيقة لتجاربنا وكأننا نعيد تشغيل فيلم، ما هي إلا وهم بناه دماغنا. وقد يكون ما ذكرته للتو من أعظم أسرار دراسة الذاكرة: فالحقيقة الصادمة تقول أن الدماغ يخلق منطلقًا من معلومات طفيفة للغاية واقعًا وماضٍ يجعلنا ما نحن عليه بغض النظر عن حقيقة كون ذلك الماضي وتلك الذكريات غامضين للغاية، مع أن مجرد استحضار تلك الذكريات إلى وعينا يغيرها حتمًا، رغم حقيقة أن ما يكمن وراء وعيي "بذات" فريدة وثابتة تجعلني ما أنا عليه يتغير باستمرار.
تمكن الباحثون من تقدير أن العين البشرية تنقل المعلومات إلى الدماغ بحوالي عشرة ملايين بت في الثانية، أو عشرة ميجابت في الثانية، وهو رقم قد يبدو مألوفًا نظرًا لأنه سرعة إرسال اتصال إيثرنت قياسي. أي تُنقل المعلومات المرئية إلى الدماغ بمعدل واحد ميغا بايت في الثانية.
إذا كان متوسط استيقاظنا هو ١٦ ساعة في اليوم، هذا يعني أن الدماغ يتلقى ما مجموعه ٥٧.٦ جيجابايت من المعلومات في اليوم وبعبارة أخرى، يمكننا ملء قرص صلب سعة تيرابايت واحد كل أسبوعين ونصف.
.
ولكن هل تنقل العين كل ما تراه؟
تذكر أن كمية المعلومات التي تنقلها العين إلى الدماغ تبلغ حوالي ميغا بايت في الثانية وفقًا للباحثين في جامعة بنسلفينيا، وهذا يعني أن هناك فرق مقداره ثلاث مراتب –م� حيث المبدأ- بين المعلومات التي تنقلها العين وتلك التي تصل إلى الدماغ. وبعبارة أخرى، يرى الدماغ فقط حوالي واحد من الألف من المعلومات في مجال رؤيته.
لماذا هذا الاختلاف الهائل؟ هل ثمّة خطأ في حساباتنا؟
الأرقام المذكورة أعلاه صحيحة رياضيًا، لكنها تفترض ضمنيًا أن العين تعالج المعلومات بدقة موحدة تبلغ ٣٠٠ نقطة في البوصة في جميع أنحاء مجال الرؤية. افترض على سبيل المثال أنني –الآ�- قادر على رؤية كل شيء أمامي بمنتهى الوضوح وبكامل تفاصيله –أ� على الأقل هذا ما أعتقده- لكن القدرة على رؤية العالم الخارجي الذي يقع أمامي بالتفصيل الدقيق ما هو إلا وهم بناه الدماغ. ما نراه بالتفصيل في الواقع هو ما يقع في مركز نظرنا، بزاوية بصرية تبلغ درجة أو درجتين، بانخفاض صغير (أقل من ملمترين) في مركز شبكية العين، يسمى النقرة، وهو الجزء المسؤول عن إنتاج مجال الرؤية الواضحة والحادة، وهي منطقة بحجم إبهامنا تقريبًا في نهاية ذراعنا المشدودة".
.
إذًا، هل ترى العين حقًا؟
يمكننا خلال رمشة عين واحدة أن نقوم بثلاث حركات سريعة، ما يعني أن العين رأت بالتفصيل مساحة ثلاث عملات معدنية، والباقي كان ضبابيًا للعين حتى لو شعرنا بأننا رأينا كل شيء أمامنا بوضوح. وهذهِ إحدى عجائب الدماغ وأحد الألغاز التي تُؤرقنا نحن علماء الأعصاب. فعلى سبيل المثال: عندما ننظر إلى وجه أحدهم، نعتقد أننا نرى كل ملامحه بوضوح. في الواقع، تلتقط أعيننا (بضع) نقاط معينة بينما يملأ الدماغ باقي المعلومات. وقد وصف عالم النفس الروسي ألفريد ياربوس هذا التأثير في ستينيات القرن العشرين، وقال: عندما ننظر إلى الوجه، فإننا نميل إلى التركيز على العينين وخطوط الأنف والفم، وهي على وجه التحديد أبرز سمات مظهر الشخص.
الجواب هو أن شبكية العين لا تعالج أو تنقل المعلومات المرئية في شكل إعادة إنشاء بسيطة للبكسلات التي تشكل الصورة وإنما تنقل المعلومات التي تؤدي إلى تمثيل الصورة التي لا تولدها العين وإنما الدماغ. وقد يبدو ما سأقوله غريبًا عندما أقول أن العين لا ترى، وإنما الدماغ من يقوم بذلك. لماذا إذًا توجد العديد من الخلايا العصبية في شبكية العين؟ لأن شبكية العين تبدأ العمليات التي تُمكننا من استخلاص المعنى مما نراه.
وأظهر ياربوس كذلك أن ما نراه يتأثر كثيرًا بالمهمة التي نتصدى لها والتي بدورها تحدد تركيز انتباهنا بناء على عوامل واعية وغير واعية. تتعلق العوامل اللاواعية بأهمية المعلومات؛ بمعنى آخر، مدى تميزها عن محيطها. على سبيل المثال، يسهل ملاحظة رجل يرتدي قميصًا برتقاليًا إذا كان بين مجموعة يرتدون ملابس رمادية، ويسهل تمييز السيارة المتحركة أكثر من السيارات الواقفة في الشارع. وتتعلق العوامل الواعية من ناحية أخرى بما يثير اهتمامنا ونحن نمسح المشهد. فإذا كنتُ أبحث عن شقيقي الذي يرتدي زي فريقه الرياضي المفضل سوف ينصب اهتمامي على الناس –خاص� أولئك الذين يرتدون الزي نفسه- لا على السيارات المارة ولا البنايات المحيطة بي.
بخلاف الكاميرا التي تخزن كل جزء من المعلومات المرئية بدقة متساوية، يكون البصر موجّها للغاية؛ فهو يركز على التقاط المعلومات ذات الصلة باستخلاص المعنى وليس دقتها، فبالنهاية، لاتهمني معرفة التفاصيل الدقيقة لآلاف الشعرات الصفراء المتناقضة مع مثيلاتها سوداء اللون، كل ما يهمني معرفته هو أن ما رأيته هو نمر لأهرب منه بسرعة. وبالتالي تكون عملية معالجة المعلومات المرئية في الدماغ أعقد بكثير ممّا يفعله الكومبيوتر بالصورة، وهي ليست سوى نتاج ملايين السنين من التطور.
لم تتوضح العمليات التي تكمن وراء الطريقة التي نختار المعلومات ونحن نركز بصرنا على شيء يثير اهتمامنا والطرق التي تشفر بها عصبوناتنا التباين وتتجاهل التجانس إلا في العقود الأخيرة. لكن نظرية كيف نُشكِّل الواقع بناءًا على المعلومات التي نتلقاها عبر أعيننا والفرق بين الإحساس والإدراك أقدم بكثير؛ فقد افترض أرسطو قبل أكثر من ألفي عام أن العقل يولد الصور التي هي أساس الفكر بدءًا من المعلومات التي نتلقاها من خلال الحواس.
لقد لاحظ هيلمهولتز في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر أن المعلومات التي تحصل عليها العين شحيحة للغاية، وأن الدماغ بناءً، على التجارب السابقة، يعمل استدلالات غير واعية لتحديد معنى لما نراه. وجادل هيلمهولتز بأننا لا نرى نسخًا من الواقع والأشياء الخارجية، بل اشارات وتركيبات ملفقة في أدمغتنا. لا يشترط أن تكون تلك الإشارات مطابقة للواقع، يكفي أن تكون قابلة للتناسخ. إن الاختلاف بين الواقع الخارجي وإدراكنا هو جوهر المثالية وأساس الفلسفة الحديثة، والذي يبدأ ببحث ديكارت عن الحقيقة المطلقة عبر التشكيك في إدراكه للواقع، واستمرت المبالغة في تقدير الادراك الذاتي من قبل التجريبيين البريطانيين الذين يعتبرون العقل صفحة بيضاء نطبع عليها معرفتنا بناءً على خبرتنا وتصور حواسنا أمثال: لوك وبيركلي وهيوم، ويكمن كذلك في قلب المثالية المتعالية لكانط، التي تجادل بأنه يمكننا معرفة التمثيلات التي نصورها للأشياء فحسب ولا نستطيع أبدًا معرفة الشيء في حد ذاته.
إذًا، ما مقدار ما نراه حقًا؟
باختصار، ثمة فرق يقدر بثلاث مراتب (من الجيجا بايت الى الميغا بايت) بين المعلومات الموجودة في مجال رؤيتنا والمعلومات التي تنقلها العين إلى الدماغ، ولكن هذا الاختلاف يتلاشى ما إن نأخذ في الحسبان أن ما نلاحظه بالتفصيل هو ما موجود في النقرة، مركز مجال رؤيتنا.
ومن أهم الأسباب التي تحدونا لمناقشة الرؤية أثناء بحثنا في موضوع الذاكرة هو استخدام الدماغ لاستراتيجيات متشابهة جدًا للرؤية والتذكر. إذ تعتمد كلتا العمليتين على بناء المعنى، وهو تفسير للعالم الخارجي يعتمد على اختيار الحد الأدنى من المعلومات وعمل التجريدات والتخلص من تفاصيل كثيرة.
توجد حوالي مئة مليون خلية عصبية في دماغ الإنسان، وبالنظر إلى ذلك، قد يبدو أن الدماغ لن يواجه صعوبة في تخزين كل ذكرياتنا، لكننا نواجه مشكلتين أساسيتين: بادئ ذي بدء، ليست كل الخلايا العصبية مخصصة لتخزين الذكريات. في الواقع، تشكل الخلايا العصبية المخصصة لهذهِ الوظيفة جزءًا صغيرًا فحسب، إذ يجب تخصيص عدد كبير من الخلايا العصبية للمعالجة البصرية والسمعية والتحكم في الحركة واتخاذ القرار والعواطف وما إلى ذلك. وثانيًا، تُظهر الحسابات النظرية أن عدد الذكريات التي يمكن تخزينها بواسطة عدد معين من الخلايا العصبية محدود بسبب تأثيرات التداخل. باختصار، إذا خزن الدماغ عددًا كبيرًا من الذكريات، فأنها تختلط مع بعضها بعضا. وتقدر الحسابات أنه ، إذا كان عدد الخلايا العصبية س، يمكن تخزين حوالي ٠.١٤ س من الذكريات دون تداخل.
.
يستخلص الدماغ مُستخدمًا استراتيجيات مختلفة المعنى مما نراه، وهو أكثر بكثير من مجرد انتاج نسخة من المعلومات التي تقع في مجال رؤيتنا. باختصار، أولاً، يعالج الدماغ معظم المعلومات المرئية في النقرة -مركز اهتمامنا- متجاهلًا الباقي. وثانيًا، ينفذ تمثيلًا محيطيًا مركزيًا لتشفير التباين في شبكية العين. وثالثًا، يبني علامات ناشئة عن الاستدلالات اللاواعية بناءً على التجارب السابقة. وتستمر عملية بناء المعنى هذهِ في القشرة الدماغية.
.
تسمح لنا الذاكرة قصيرة الأمد بتذكر المعلومات لفترات زمنية وجيزة وأن نكون واعين لتطور الأحداث الحالية. وهي الذاكرة التي أستخدمها، على سبيل المثال، لتذكر ما أريد قوله في هذهِ الجملة عندما أبحث عن الكلمات المناسبة. بينما تتكون الذاكرة طويلة الأمد من التفاصيل التي نختارها من الحاضر، تلك التي ستصبح جزءًا من الماضي ونتذكرها في المستقبل. ولا يترسخ سوى مقدار ضئيل من الذكريات قصيرة الأمد في أدمغتنا، ولكن كيف تصبح الذكريات قصيرة الأمد ذكريات طويلة الأمد؟ حسب مبدأ ايبنهاوس الثاني، التكرار والممارسة ترسخ المعلومات في الذاكرة. كما أن سيموندس يقول أن تصنيف الذكريات هو مفتاح حفظها.
January 25, 2024
A great book on memory written by a neuroscientist in simple but not simplistic language. How does our memory work? How do we remember and what? What are the similarities between vision and memory? Why it's important to forget things? What is the role that memory plays in the formation of our personality (and humanity)? How does an animal or a machine remembers? These and many other questions are tackled in the pages of this short book, and the reader is given sometimes straightforward answers and sometimes even more questions. And all of these are written in a very attractive way, away for the usual appalling jargon of similar books, and always connected not only (and obviously) with philosophy and psychology, but also with literature, art and pop-culture. Read it and you'll remember my words!
January 28, 2024
Covered the basics of memory and had some interesting insights; the sheer amount of information you are exposed to daily, memorization and how this has changed over time with new inventions like the printing press or the internet.
It didn’t lean enough into the deep science or the other way with a fun story like in the book, Moonwalking with Einstein. Also, it only briefly talks about the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron� from its title.
It didn’t lean enough into the deep science or the other way with a fun story like in the book, Moonwalking with Einstein. Also, it only briefly talks about the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron� from its title.
July 24, 2020
Pretty interesting general book about how our memory works. Doesn't delve too deep, but still decent.
December 31, 2020
An excellent review of human memory from a physicist turned biologist.
December 12, 2021
More a book about cognition than about memory � interesting, short read.
Two main ideas in the book:
1) Brain’s attention mechanisms help it focus on what information to focus on, process, and store. This helps it becomes more efficient, but also makes it leaky
2) Ideas in the brain are stored in clusters, with semantically related topics “active� in neurons that are located together
Two main ideas in the book:
1) Brain’s attention mechanisms help it focus on what information to focus on, process, and store. This helps it becomes more efficient, but also makes it leaky
2) Ideas in the brain are stored in clusters, with semantically related topics “active� in neurons that are located together
October 11, 2017
The Forgetting Machine by Rodrigo Quian Quiroga is a free NetGalley ebook that I read in early October.
Unfortunately, Quiroga writes in more of a lit/research review style than really telling us all something new about cognitive psychology, neuroscience, memory, visual acuity, a human's capacity for intelligence, and the advent of android thought. Where he had me, though, was his own personal sentiment about the perishability of memory and the somewhat depressing thought about how someone's whole consciousness dies when their body does.
Unfortunately, Quiroga writes in more of a lit/research review style than really telling us all something new about cognitive psychology, neuroscience, memory, visual acuity, a human's capacity for intelligence, and the advent of android thought. Where he had me, though, was his own personal sentiment about the perishability of memory and the somewhat depressing thought about how someone's whole consciousness dies when their body does.
Read
February 21, 20217/10
very interesting
very interesting
October 22, 2021
What a great explanation of how the mind works. A very practical approach to explaining (or attempting to) what creates memories and what efforts have been made to measure and recreate this. Ironically, this book had so much information jammed into it that I can’t remember it all, but I’m sure as I run into stimuli I will recall and think fondly on this book!
August 25, 2021
I’m gonna have to read it again
December 8, 2017
Professor Quiroga gives a concise overview of how memory is being understood through neuroscience. It is clearly explained and very interesting in how neuroscience is grappling with the physical structure of the brain in order to understand how memory is truly a part of being human.
April 30, 2024
So how do we do it? How do we store all this information? The surprising answer is that we basically do not. We remember almost nothing. The idea that we remember a great deal of the subtleties and details of our experiences, as if we are playing back a movie, is nothing more than an illusion, a construct of the brain. And this is perhaps the greatest secret in the study of memory: the astounding truth that, starting from very little information, the brain generates a reality and a past that make us who we are, despite the fact that this past, this collection of memories, is extremely slippery; despite the fact that the mere act of bringing a memory to our consciousness inevitably changes it; despite the fact that what underlies my awareness of a unique, immutable "self" that makes me who I am is constantly changing.
That is the essence of this wonderful essay on how our brain works.
Quiroga's research challenges the traditional view of the brain as a homogeneous network of neurons. Instead, it highlights the remarkable specificity and specialization of individual neurons in responding to particular stimuli. The book delves into the implications of this finding for our understanding of how the brain encodes and processes information.
He lays down few concepts, but that are thoroughly explained
He starts with a super interesting, yet basic explanation of how vision works.
Our eyes work in a very different way compared to a camera and this allows to process tons of information without being overwhelmed
Sight does not function like a camera. On the contrary, the brain selects a tiny amount of information and processes it redundantly and in parallel in order to extract meaning. Unlike a camera which stores with equal resolution each bit of visual information site is highly directed. It is focused on capturing relevant information to convey meaning, not fidelity. After all, I am not interested in discerning the exact details of thousands of hairs in yellow contrasting with others in black; I just want to know it is a tiger and flee quickly. The processing of visual information in the brain is then much more sophisticated and complex than what a computer does to an image; it is nothing less than the result of millions of years of evolution.
In fact, we do not store the vast majority of information, instead we abstract and extract meaning out of them so that we can recall when necessary
We've seen that the brain selects and processes relatively little of the information available to it, and does so in a redundant way aimed not at scrupulous reproduction but at the extraction of meaning. In this sense, the mind of a savant mirrors more closely the behavior of a computer. Like a computer, the brain of the savant does not filter information but simply records every detail literally, without constructing meaning and so without, eventually, being able to understand.(...)
This is because the brain's machinery stores information in a very redundant way-with sets of neurons encoding, in parallel, specific aspects of the same piece of information-in order to derive meaning. This is precisely what distinguishes our human brains from flash drives or computers. A computer's hard drive can store and faithfully reproduce scores of text passages, photographs, or videos, but it cannot understand them. The human brain, on the other hand, concentrates its resources on attributing meaning to the paltry amount of information that reaches it from the senses.
He also does a great job in explaining different aspects of our world or better on how we perceive the world.
For instance, he delves into how sound and color work, which quite astonishing
Sound, as we experience it, is created by variations in air pressure. Strictly speaking, sound doesn't even exist as such in the atmosphere. Sound-the voice of a friend, a nocturne by Chopin, the crack of a thunderbolt-is a construction generated by the brain from the vibrations of small hairs in the ear that transform pressure variations into nerve impulses. If a Martian were to materialize suddenly upon our planet, it would be pointless to try to talk to him, and not because he would not understand Spanish, English, or Arabic: he would simply be unable to hear, to perceive or interpret subtle variations in air pressure, because there is no air on Mars and he would not have evolved structures like the ear.
Just as with sound, color doesn't exist as such around us; what actually exist are electromagnetic waves that strike our retina, and color is just our interpretation of these. In the initial chapters we gained a general understanding of the way the brain extracts meaning from what we see. As Aristotle and, later, Aquinas argued, we generate images based on external stimuli, and these images in turn give rise to the formation of concepts, which are the basic units of human thought. But what exactly is the process that generates these constructions of increasing sophistication? What is its physical, neural basis? This fascinating topic has been dominant in neuroscience in recent decades, and I have been lucky enough to be involved in investigating it.
At last he focuses more on the philosophical perspective, what's the mind, what is the difference between me and my mind if any.
Neuroscientists do not consider the mind an autonomous entity able to reason and make decisions on its own. On the contrary they take the position that the mind is physical, cerebral activity.
This non-Cartesian vision invites consideration of several subtleties of the sort that are philosophers' bread and butter. (These subtleties are largely ignored by neuroscientists, who focus on the study of correlations between neural and mental processes, and leave such debates to others.) For some philosophers, just as electricity is the motion of electrons and temperature is the kinetic energy of molecules, so the mind is the activity of neurons. This is known as materialism, and it recognizes no distinction between mind and brain. It is worth pointing out that materialism does not say that the mind is the product of the activity of neurons, but rather that it is that activity. To say that the mind is the product of the brain's activity is, in fact, a form of dualism, since it assigns distinct entities to the mind and the brain; materialism, on the other hand, holds that the material is all there is.
June 24, 2021
Outstanding� similar to 71/2 lessons about the Brain by Lisa Feldman Barrett regarding the academic rigor, this book primarily is about how and why we forget most of our past.
It’s arguments will help those who continue to think they know better than all the creditable recent studies has shown to be true.
Our memory is NOT very accurate. It’s NOT like a video camera or DVD recording everything for perfect recall. Actually our memories are one if the worst things to prove an event of the past.
It appears that those who would benefit from this book are those who will not read it.
A must read for everyone but as confirmation bias rages within our society, sadly say those who believe the the current GOP dogma, falsehoods and rhetoric will not change because they discount, dismiss, avoid all information that would cause them to feel uncomfortable by other facts that are true. So that dissonance that occurs is enough to continue living life with their confirmation bias determining their actions.
This book, shows how such things as the current lies of the Jan 6th insurrection or the current voting fraud lie can exist in society.
It’s arguments will help those who continue to think they know better than all the creditable recent studies has shown to be true.
Our memory is NOT very accurate. It’s NOT like a video camera or DVD recording everything for perfect recall. Actually our memories are one if the worst things to prove an event of the past.
It appears that those who would benefit from this book are those who will not read it.
A must read for everyone but as confirmation bias rages within our society, sadly say those who believe the the current GOP dogma, falsehoods and rhetoric will not change because they discount, dismiss, avoid all information that would cause them to feel uncomfortable by other facts that are true. So that dissonance that occurs is enough to continue living life with their confirmation bias determining their actions.
This book, shows how such things as the current lies of the Jan 6th insurrection or the current voting fraud lie can exist in society.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 29, 2021
While the narration of the book was really good, done by one of my favorite narrators (Dan Woren) the content of it is vast and not covered well.
I suggest those books instead:
- The man who mistook his wife for a hat, by: Oliver Sacks:
/review/show...
- The brain that changes itself, by: Norman Doidge:
/book/show/5...
- The memory illusion, by: Julia Shaw:
/book/show/2...
I suggest those books instead:
- The man who mistook his wife for a hat, by: Oliver Sacks:
/review/show...
- The brain that changes itself, by: Norman Doidge:
/book/show/5...
- The memory illusion, by: Julia Shaw:
/book/show/2...
July 4, 2020
V sad that I used an audible credit on this.
April 16, 2023
Solid introduction to neuroscience, or more specifically computational neuroscience, and has an I think solidly argued premise. A bit on the brief side (I listened to the audiobook and it was 4 hours and 12 minutes), though even given that it had a good bit added beyond the main premise, not that I minded at all.
Essentially, the book talks about how the human brain first takes in information (spending a lot of time on visual information most especially), stores that memory, how human brain memory is vastly different from how a computer stores memory, and in the end, though humans only retain a portion of what their senses take in and then only retain a portion of that as memories and that memories are fragile and more or less constantly malleable, this not a bug but a feature, as not only is forgetting a crucial part of how our brains operate, but that in fact humans who do flawlessly remember everything don’t actually operate as well. In fact, perfect memory is very far from perfect understanding, and that perfect memory can very easily interfere with making inferences and understanding generalized concepts. While computers are undoubtedly better at remembering huge amounts of facts absolutely flawlessly, they aren’t able to understand these facts or infer things from them, which not only is a strength of the human brain, but some amount of forgetting is actually essential to the process.
There is a lot of discussion of how human sight works, not in terms of the eyeball itself, but how the brain receives, processes, and stores that memory. I thought it maybe a little much at times but it was never boring.
There was an interesting section on mnemonics, on how people train themselves to remember huge amounts of data, once very important in times of antiquity such as in Ancient Greece and Rome, and on interesting case studies of people (such as the individual that inspired Rain Man) who could remember vast amounts of data. These weren’t asides though, as they tied into the central premise of how remembering vast amounts of data is not only not necessarily or even likely understanding things but may in fact often be a huge obstacle to understanding them. They also tied into a lesser premise, that school work should not be memorizing things, and another one, that unless people just want to, there is no real need to train oneself to remember things better (such as appointments) given how many very easy options people have, something not true in ancient times.
Lots of great references, from Plato and Cicero to Terminator and Blade Runner.
A solid well-argued book, a bit on the short side as I listened to it in two days, but I do appreciate the occasional quicker listen. I think it could be a good gateway to further readings on neuroscience. I think it would also pair well with readings on language as well.
Essentially, the book talks about how the human brain first takes in information (spending a lot of time on visual information most especially), stores that memory, how human brain memory is vastly different from how a computer stores memory, and in the end, though humans only retain a portion of what their senses take in and then only retain a portion of that as memories and that memories are fragile and more or less constantly malleable, this not a bug but a feature, as not only is forgetting a crucial part of how our brains operate, but that in fact humans who do flawlessly remember everything don’t actually operate as well. In fact, perfect memory is very far from perfect understanding, and that perfect memory can very easily interfere with making inferences and understanding generalized concepts. While computers are undoubtedly better at remembering huge amounts of facts absolutely flawlessly, they aren’t able to understand these facts or infer things from them, which not only is a strength of the human brain, but some amount of forgetting is actually essential to the process.
There is a lot of discussion of how human sight works, not in terms of the eyeball itself, but how the brain receives, processes, and stores that memory. I thought it maybe a little much at times but it was never boring.
There was an interesting section on mnemonics, on how people train themselves to remember huge amounts of data, once very important in times of antiquity such as in Ancient Greece and Rome, and on interesting case studies of people (such as the individual that inspired Rain Man) who could remember vast amounts of data. These weren’t asides though, as they tied into the central premise of how remembering vast amounts of data is not only not necessarily or even likely understanding things but may in fact often be a huge obstacle to understanding them. They also tied into a lesser premise, that school work should not be memorizing things, and another one, that unless people just want to, there is no real need to train oneself to remember things better (such as appointments) given how many very easy options people have, something not true in ancient times.
Lots of great references, from Plato and Cicero to Terminator and Blade Runner.
A solid well-argued book, a bit on the short side as I listened to it in two days, but I do appreciate the occasional quicker listen. I think it could be a good gateway to further readings on neuroscience. I think it would also pair well with readings on language as well.
January 11, 2022
In The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron,� the multi-degreed and computational neuroscientist, Rodrigo Quian Quiroga, commences the nonfiction book with the final scene of Blade Runner, for he writes, “Roy Batty’s words perfectly illustrate how memory relates to questions about who we are—about what it means to be human, and what makes up our identity� (Quiroga 2). This is how this book initially enticed me; I think this distinct perspective in which Quiroga views the concluding scene in Blade Runner is intriguing. In addition, I truly admire how Quiroga manages to proficiently dismantle the intricacies of the human mind into very basic, consumable facts and descriptions of what memory is and how it operates. The author, overall, addresses the significance of one’s memory, along with how it’s interrelated to one’s identity.
When setting the scene, Quiroga does an excellent job of providing thought-provoking questions to create emphasis. With the use of rhetorical questions, Quiroga is also able to easily introduce and transition into the ensuing chapters. Each chapter is titled with a question that is supposedly going to be answered over the course of that particular section. Additionally, these questions play a predominant role throughout the entirety of the book; being a scientist himself, he explains the importance of asking questions seeing as “science is [so-called] born from questions� (Quiroga 4). I also enjoyed being asked these inquisitive questions and is probably what keeps the reader deeply engaged in Quiroga’s explanations. Although this book is not very plot-driven, it certainly still is a page-turner through the use of rhetorical questions in order to start a discourse.
Nevertheless, my only complaint would be that this book is too short as I was able to finish it within an hour. Consequently, the book left me wanting more due to it feeling incomplete.
Ultimately, I think The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron� is a very informative book that weaves back and forth between the vastness and limitations of the human mind. Often viewed as an incomprehensible concept, Quiroga successfully waters down the complexity of this concept in order to make it accessible to those without any previous knowledge on the topic. Accordingly, I would definitely recommend this book to someone who enjoys learning about neuroscience and psychology since this book provides phenomenal insight into the advances in those fields.
When setting the scene, Quiroga does an excellent job of providing thought-provoking questions to create emphasis. With the use of rhetorical questions, Quiroga is also able to easily introduce and transition into the ensuing chapters. Each chapter is titled with a question that is supposedly going to be answered over the course of that particular section. Additionally, these questions play a predominant role throughout the entirety of the book; being a scientist himself, he explains the importance of asking questions seeing as “science is [so-called] born from questions� (Quiroga 4). I also enjoyed being asked these inquisitive questions and is probably what keeps the reader deeply engaged in Quiroga’s explanations. Although this book is not very plot-driven, it certainly still is a page-turner through the use of rhetorical questions in order to start a discourse.
Nevertheless, my only complaint would be that this book is too short as I was able to finish it within an hour. Consequently, the book left me wanting more due to it feeling incomplete.
Ultimately, I think The Forgetting Machine: Memory, Perception, and the “Jennifer Aniston Neuron� is a very informative book that weaves back and forth between the vastness and limitations of the human mind. Often viewed as an incomprehensible concept, Quiroga successfully waters down the complexity of this concept in order to make it accessible to those without any previous knowledge on the topic. Accordingly, I would definitely recommend this book to someone who enjoys learning about neuroscience and psychology since this book provides phenomenal insight into the advances in those fields.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 10, 2021
This is a good concise book about the nature of memory and how the brain works for memory. From many fascinating aspects of the book one in particular was how persons “memory� can be manipulated. This very important in media, court cases etc. One really awful but compelling example was that of Ronald Cotton. Ronald spent over a decade in prison for a crime he never committed because the victim “remembered� him as the assailant he was not. DNA eventually exonerated him and he’s in his 24th year post incarceration.
This short book a great look at memory and the brain, one that doesn’t take days to absorb. Discussed is how Neural networks and how association can cause persons to remember things very differently than they actually occurred, because of feelings persons had while encountering some circumstance. Strong empirical research evidence is presented , whereby, strong feelings are readily attached to prior experiences that have nothing to do with the current experience they now recall, or recall over time, creating a considerable confounding variable to reality.
This book is a good read and the most concise and informative book in neurology of memory that I have read in the fewest number of pages.
This short book a great look at memory and the brain, one that doesn’t take days to absorb. Discussed is how Neural networks and how association can cause persons to remember things very differently than they actually occurred, because of feelings persons had while encountering some circumstance. Strong empirical research evidence is presented , whereby, strong feelings are readily attached to prior experiences that have nothing to do with the current experience they now recall, or recall over time, creating a considerable confounding variable to reality.
This book is a good read and the most concise and informative book in neurology of memory that I have read in the fewest number of pages.
October 21, 2020
Pretty enjoyable and informative read. It did not go as into the philosophy of the topic as I expected - confusing mainly on the psychology and neuroscience side of it - but I don’t hold that against it, it might however make me bias against the book a bit. The writing was adequate, nothing to exciting but nothing too dry. Overall I’m glad I read it but don’t feel the need to recommend it to anyone who is not already interested.
That said, three stars is still a positive review. I don’t think the content will stick with me too much (sans a couple of case studies) or drastically change my perspective on much. If you want to learn more about memory in broad strokes this book isn’t a bad introduction. While fairly different in content, I would recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow before you get to this one.
That said, three stars is still a positive review. I don’t think the content will stick with me too much (sans a couple of case studies) or drastically change my perspective on much. If you want to learn more about memory in broad strokes this book isn’t a bad introduction. While fairly different in content, I would recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow before you get to this one.
March 24, 2021
Our Brain: A Fascinating Mix of Complexity and Simplification
While Quiroga often overwhelms with detailed descriptions of the mechanics of the Brain, the operations of its billion neurons and the actions of the axons, dendrites and the synapses that connect them, he ultimately argues that the function of the whole mechanism is to distill the cascade of sensory input into an essence called Understanding.
His hypothesis of a Concept Neuron, which he only really lays out in the last two chapters is a powerful launching point for a beautiful theory of the way the Brain has evolved to allow us to make sense of the barrage of data we see, hear, smell and feel. A wonderful exercise in simplification and knowledge through subtraction. I hope future research will bear out his approach. Four Stars.
While Quiroga often overwhelms with detailed descriptions of the mechanics of the Brain, the operations of its billion neurons and the actions of the axons, dendrites and the synapses that connect them, he ultimately argues that the function of the whole mechanism is to distill the cascade of sensory input into an essence called Understanding.
His hypothesis of a Concept Neuron, which he only really lays out in the last two chapters is a powerful launching point for a beautiful theory of the way the Brain has evolved to allow us to make sense of the barrage of data we see, hear, smell and feel. A wonderful exercise in simplification and knowledge through subtraction. I hope future research will bear out his approach. Four Stars.
December 12, 2022
I thought this was a fascinating and well-written book. It is written for the lay person, which makes it easier to understand since this is about neuroscience. Quiroga organizes this book logically and is very direct. He is very clear about the concepts and goes into detail about limitations is studies and common understanding of the brain and memory. I appreciated that he was willing to admit when things aren't clear. Considering how short this is, it packs a punch.
Granted, there are issues about tht history of memory, as he largely ignores the developments of brain understanding that happened in the Middle East during the dark ages in Europe. There are also a lot of studies about animals and though he is clear about the application of these studies, it is important to note the ethical issues there.
Granted, there are issues about tht history of memory, as he largely ignores the developments of brain understanding that happened in the Middle East during the dark ages in Europe. There are also a lot of studies about animals and though he is clear about the application of these studies, it is important to note the ethical issues there.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.