Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#11

Post by Roark66 »

Earw0rm wrote: post #5
bambax wrote: post #3

> Every memory begins with tiny changes inside the brain Maybe. But the brain is not the only place where memory is stored. Flat worms remember things (and skills!) after their head has been cut off and they regrew it: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-decapita...

Flatworms branched off our side of the animal tree of life very early on. They're on the same side as molluscs, some of whom (cephalopods) are famous for having a more distributed nervous system. Granted though many/most organs are stateful and somewhat adaptive - in a sense they'll "remember" what happened. Even plants possess that to varying degrees.

Did you know human overies contain neurons? I suppose memories are not stored there :-) but still the fact is rather surprising.

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#12

Post by j45 »

Roark66 wrote: post #11
Earw0rm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flatworms branched off our side of the animal tree of life very early on. They're on the same side as molluscs, some of whom (cephalopods) are famous for having a more distributed nervous system. Granted though many/most organs are stateful and somewhat adaptive - in a sense they'll "remember" what happened. Even plants possess that to varying degrees.

Did you know human overies contain neurons? I suppose memories are not stored there :-) but still the fact is rather surprising.

The heart has neurons in it too.

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#13

Post by coldtea »

project2501a wrote: post #4
Animats wrote: post #2

Great result on the biochemistry of memory storage. Then they venture into philosophy: "They still struggle to explain the spark that transforms information into insight." Go watch Stable Diffusion iteratively transform noise into originality.

i'm sorry, I cannot agree that anything like that can create "originality".

As opposed to what? Water and tissue?

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#14

Post by coldtea »

boston_clone wrote: post #7
taneq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creativity can be thought of as a combination of two things: A random idea generator, and a nonsense filter. Generate new random results ideas, filter out the nonsense ones, and you’ve generated good ideas.

A massive chasm exists between good, creative ideas and ideas that aren’t nonsense.

Not that massive.

A lot of good, creative ideas have been called out and derived as nonsense or crazy. Many still are.

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#15

Post by adrianN »

Roark66 wrote: post #11
Earw0rm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flatworms branched off our side of the animal tree of life very early on. They're on the same side as molluscs, some of whom (cephalopods) are famous for having a more distributed nervous system. Granted though many/most organs are stateful and somewhat adaptive - in a sense they'll "remember" what happened. Even plants possess that to varying degrees.

Did you know human overies contain neurons? I suppose memories are not stored there :-) but still the fact is rather surprising.

I believe there are tastebuds in your colon too.

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#16

Post by kator »

I think the most interesting thing is that it took 15 years for people to apparently take this seriously. And another 40 to recognize its impact. The original paper[1] was from 1982...

Having been in software development for 45 years, I find this crazy. Maybe it's because in our world, it often takes a month for something to spread from "interesting" to the new technology of the day, or the new way of doing things.

[1] https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/2/3/284.full.pdf

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#17

Post by abc123abc123 »

bambax wrote: post #3

> Every memory begins with tiny changes inside the brain Maybe. But the brain is not the only place where memory is stored. Flat worms remember things (and skills!) after their head has been cut off and they regrew it: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-decapita...

"Every memory begins with tiny changes inside the brain. A discovery that helped explain those changes has earned neuroscientist Oswald Steward one of science’s highest honors.

Steward received the 2026 Kavli Prize in Neuroscience, a USD 1 million award and one of science’s most prestigious awards, for research that transformed scientists’ understanding of how the brain learns and stores memories."

And that's what it took. One comment on hackernews and the prize was retracted. HN at its best! ;)

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#18

Post by Zardoz84 »

bambax wrote: post #3

> Every memory begins with tiny changes inside the brain Maybe. But the brain is not the only place where memory is stored. Flat worms remember things (and skills!) after their head has been cut off and they regrew it: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-decapita...

We found that some kind of gigant unicelular life can remember where was food.

Re: The discovery that changed how scientists think about memory

#20

Post by itsalwaysgood »

taneq wrote: post #6
project2501a wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm sorry, I cannot agree that anything like that can create "originality".

Creativity can be thought of as a combination of two things: A random idea generator, and a nonsense filter. Generate new random results ideas, filter out the nonsense ones, and you’ve generated good ideas.

Creativity also requires information. And Information is discovered. We can only generate random ideas from what we know. We can't imagine something we've never sensed, or know. You can't imagine a color you've never seen without recalling known colors. You can freely mix ideas due to your imagination.

But when we discover new information, we must decide whether the information is useful. Otherwise the information is considered noise.

We give weight to decisions: time spent pondering, considering, and the more weight we give, the better the decision. Almost always the idea is measured in usefulness.

Sound familiar?

Post reply on HN