Is memory in the body or in the brain?

[Smartie]

Hi all

I heard from a friend (who had studied some psychology in a
university) that the human nervous system has a memory capability that
exists practically everywhere in the nervous system. He said that the
memory allows the limbs to "learn" movements as the nerves in those
parts of the body can remember movements autonomically.

I was curious as to what proof there is for this, as to me it seems
that the memory required for movements could as well exist solely in
the brain.

I am not trying to challenge this theory but just wanted to know what
is it that has led researchers to this conclusion. Or is this idea
perhaps not accepted by all researchers?

What I would also be interested about are recommendations about books
(or websites) that explain why it seems reasonable that the memory
exists everywhere in the nerve system?

Thanks for any pointers!

[darkdan]

You might be interested to watch this video:  http://psychologyforum.us/psychology-theories-forum/mindshock-transplating-memories-(-heart-transplant-patients-getting-memories-)/   It's along those lines.  The neurons in the heart store memories, but not much science and even the science behind is iffy at best (wow, 2 to 5 parallels in 5% of patients).

But considering damage to certain parts of the brain causes memory loss......while cutting off an arm doesn't cause someone to forget your birthday....

Motor neurons becoming more efficient at movement makes sense, but remembering where you put your keys being a function of your lung, I don't think so.  This is one of the reasons people that are new to weight lifting gain strength very quickly in the beginning (nervous system adaptations).

[jimjones2007]

@Smartie:
Consider that your brain is part of your body, and the questions should be solved by itself. 

[Enigma]

Don't forget about muscle memory.

[ubiquity]

haha i remember back in the 90s when memory was supposed to be encoded in rna that your brain would pull up like computer files when you would try to remember something. they did a test i think though where they would feed some mono celluar organism that had been taught some trait and see if through eating its brother organism it would then know the learned trait. i think that it actually made it easier for the other to learn it but in the end disproved the rna/memory theory (i mean maybe thats what disproved it either way its not considered true anymore). ya i mean i cant even remember the particular species they used wich im sure was pretty important to the experiment either way its pretty interesting. more of a late 90s thing too cause i was only around 10 or something when i heard about it. learning through star trek fun stuff.

[sakoz]

A related question would be; " Is consciousness ubiquitous or 'boundried' within skulls? "
Those who never experienced "consciousness at large"; cannot be convinced. The only reliable proof is direct experience.

[ubiquity]

what??? that is a strangely worded... statement? but uh... i wouldnt think that consciousness would be considered everywhere or only within certain spaces of the "skull" it just is, or its the culmination of the entire brain working together in a way. i guess its a "ubiquitous" experience in the brain but thats like wondering what part of the brain allows you to survive in the wilderness multiple things factor in to consciousness feelings, opinions on facts, collected knowledge that tells you your there. i dont know it depends on how you think of consciousness whether you think of it as an end result or the entire process but ya i guess you probably could pinpoint the specific area devoted to self awareness.

[sakoz]

ubiquity; very interesting; "...ya  I guess you probably could pinpoint the specific area devoted to self awareness."  I say self and awareness.
What you can 'pinpoint' is a 'conceptual self', 'ego' 'identity', that is ; 'who you think you are'. Consider that 'awareness' might be your "real self".
You were born aware, so do you accept 'it' as real? You had to learn language, then 'construct' a 'conceptual self', as an artifact to be used in lieu of awareness.
Is this topic too "esoteric" or 'strange' to continue?

By "just is"do you mean it's a given, and so take it for granted? Perceptions 'just are', but if physicists had taken them for granted and had not probed inferentially beyond them; we would not be as technologically and medically as advanced.

[ubiquity]

no nothing is a given. and yes i dont think the concept is one that can be typed back and forth without hard studies wich im sure they have done im just not that in to this idea enough to go looking through the internet. i still cant tell if you were talking neuroscience or philosophy, was it both??? i dont like mixing them at the same time first you philosophize then you science neither of wich do i have a firm enough grasp on this idea to type down competently and have people understand what im talking about. also kudos that was a lot of quotes.

[sakoz]

ubiquity; you wrote; " no nothing is given".  How about the planet you live on, the air you breathe, your parents when you were born?
I "threw you a curve" with my 'related question', rather than reply directly to 'your' question. Excuse me for doing that.