Even prior to writing the "Proving Spirituality" blog, I anticipated writing a flow-up blog to clarify and expand upon the basic theory/idea.  Now that I've also read Zack's blog, which is a response to my blog, I've also decided to address some of the questions/thoughts that he posted (if you haven’t read his blog, refer to the Dec 11, 2005 blog on http://www.zackofalltrades.com; he made some interesting and good points).

As I described before, my basic idea is that perhaps we are able to store more memories than our minds are physically capable of, thus providing evidence of spirituality.  A possible method of supporting this idea is to show that the limited number of synapses, chemical reactions, energy and even matter used to hold memory may be far less than that needed to store the memories of an average person.  Obviously the problem with this type of proof would be, firstly, we have no idea how much memory the mind can hold.  Secondly, we have no idea how we could test how much memory the mind can hold.  Therefore, this method of proving spirituality is most likely impossible (and probably intended to be impossible); but my blog is simply pointing out that if it were possible to prove that the mind is not physically capable of holding all of our memories, then we must conclude that our memories are held in a realm outside of the physical.  I also wanted to point out, my idea does not make any claim about the nature of God nor does this idea state “God is the answer to that gap.”  I’m not trying to prove or “disprove God.”  I recognize – just as Zack pointed out – even if these points are capable of being proven, the evidence could be equally used to point out the existence OR inexistence of God.  The idea was simply to consider that perhaps we can show evidence that our minds interact with something more than the physical realm - another dimension (to be scientific) - or what many people call the “spiritual” realm.

In order to consider this idea, we first have to recognize the possibility that we remember more than our minds can physically hold.  I’ve attempted to show this possibility by illustrating that if we convert memories to a – more recognizable – (i.e.) binary/digital format, we can comprehend how much memory we MAY truly hold.  And because we cannot prove or disprove that our memories are stored with near 100% accuracy, then we can at least consider the possibility.  Clearly, the (“lossy”) storage capacity of our brains is NOT “obvious”, but the limited capacity to recall memory is obvious.  In other words, just because we can’t remember something doesn’t mean we don’t have the memory of it.  Again, I’m just pointing out the possibilities – however improbable they may seem.

Now for the data I previously used, it is irrelevant!  The data is based on possibilities that can not be proven either way.  If the possibility cannot be disproven, then we must consider it a possibility.  But in case you’re curious, the calculations are based on full memory storage of our visual perception in one eye at 23 hertz (fairly arbitrary frequency, it could be 0.01 or 120 hertz, who knows?  I’m just considering the possibility) using a bitmap type storage, plus other possible sensory (on a smaller scale).

So why did I choose 23 hertz?  Why did I choose to calculate all of the visual perception instead of just “the actual focused part” of the eye?  Because tests exist showing that people can remember detailed information about data that is not directly in the focused image even at high frequencies.  You may find this interesting.  When images (of pages from books) are flashed in front of a person at – so called – incomprehensible rates (i.e. hundreds of pages in a few seconds), and if the person is tested on the data from these images (i.e. multiple choice, true/false), the person then correctly answers the questions significantly LESS often (roughly 50% less correct).  The theory for this was that the subconscious absorbed the material, but when the conscious tries to comprehend the question, the subconscious forms misinterpreted thoughts, or “feelings”, about the answers.  Anyway, if these test results are accurate, and the mind is capable of absorbing information at the rates described above (even outside of the focal point of the eye), then I’m lead to believe the mind can retain more than we might initially think.

In addition, I chose Kim Peek as an example of someone who creates a paradigm of the mind.  So rather than just assuming that what I have written is false, at least look up the material (if you doubt it).  Although I admit that most records of Kim Peek do not describe the absolute level that he can recall information, every account of Kim Peek refers to him as possibly having an eidetic memory (truly photographic), which leads me to believe he can recall – “verbatim” – nearly 10000 books.

Is this really that difficult to believe?  After all, consider the vast number of things that you can remember with incredible (almost photographic) detail.  Nothing!...  Right?... or…  what about dreams?  What if each time you have an exceptionally vivid dream, you’re actually incorporating memories with nearly photographic detail?  I remember one time waking up in a dream and I was unable to tell whether I was awake or dreaming.  To verify that I was dreaming, I pinched myself (and it hurt), I ate some strawberries (they tasted like strawberries), I read from a text book (it made sense – and I verified the text book after I woke up), I spoke with my roommate (he looked and sounded just like he usually does), I walked around the house to verify that everything was in place (everything looked exactly how it really was), except the coat hangers were floating up-side-down in my closet.  My point is that each component of the dream looked, felt, tasted, and sounded exactly like real life.  The carpet, the walls, the paint, the textures, colors, the items I left on the counters, my roommates face and voice, and even my own movements.  I normally take these dream-perceptions for granted, but maybe they are evidence of how vast and clear our memories really are.   So how far fetched is it – really – that our minds can hold details at a nearly photographic level?  Is it at least a possibility?  If so, is it at least a possibility that we hold more memory than our brain is truly capable of?

Now that I’ve hopefully expanded your mind about…  your mind.  The rest of this idea/theory is based on the question of “what is the mind really doing then?”  So after spending a few minutes in Walmart on the day after Christmas, I’ve concluded that the average mind is doing absolutely nothing – or at least – in constant confusion.  But, if any of what I’ve described is true, perhaps the mind is simply a tool for communicating with the spirit.  Maybe the spirit contains the primal – or basic and essential – components of who we are, and the brain is simply a tool that communicates with it.

Recently a study on the brain was completed at Caltech, using a scanning device to monitor brain activity.  Interestingly, the researchers claim these tests show that specific memories could be traced to individual synapses and that multiple memories and feelings can be accessed at the same time through a series/pattern of synapses and neurons.  I found this study to be interesting because it indicates that a synapse can instantaneously recall more than one “bit” of information.  If fact, the results of this study indicates that the capabilities of a synapse has been very misunderstood, and perhaps a single synapse can hold vast amounts of information.  I believe (or at least wonder) that maybe a synapse is actually more like a node (or for you computer gurus, kind of like a “soft link”) that – when active – it links and interacts with specific memories held in a non-physical realm.  As for logic/processing, I would think this takes place in both the physical and spiritual areas of our being. 

So what does the Bible say?  Surprisingly, the Bible does not seem to contradict the ideas I’ve described (as far as I can tell).  The Bible indicates that people will have the ability to consider their memories even after death (Luke 16:25).  Furthermore, when resurrected, we will have immense wisdom (1 Cor. 13:12), which I assume also involves memory, comprehension and logical thinking.  Therefore, if you believe the Bible, and God says we can recall memories even without our body, we can safely conclude that our memory is not physically dependent on our brain.  Now if you don’t believe the Bible, I suggest that you re-read the second paragraph.  And if you aren’t sure what you believe, I suggest that you re-read the second paragraph and this paragraph.  Finally, if you find yourself in an infinite loop – constantly re-reading these paragraphs – I suggest you make up your mind soon.