<p>To explain this, it depends how far we want to go with the answers.</p>
<p>According to Wikipedia, it's one of the question on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience" rel="nofollow noreferrer">List of unsolved problems in neuroscience</a> related to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Learning</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">memory</a> which are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?</li>
<li>How can learning be improved?</li>
<li>What is the difference between explicit and implicit memories?</li>
<li>What molecule is responsible for synaptic tagging?</li>
</ul>
<p>There are many unknowns in that field, because it's paradox of using our brains to understand our brains. Basically our brains are too complex and if we were simpler, we'd be dumber and couldn't understand it, anyway.</p>
<p>As Ian Stewart quotes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>'If our brains were simple enough for us to understand
them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.'</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>Here are some answers according to mainstream science:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All our memories do get stored by the brain for varying periods of
time; some are stored in our short term memory and don't stick with us
for very long, while others are filed away in our long term memory.
The actual capacity of our brains for storing memories has been
difficult for scientists to determine, though it is believed that
because our brains consist of a vast number of neurons</p>
<p>Experts believe the brain uses three memory-storing stages: sensory,
short-term and long-term. The different stages act as filters,
beginning with when we first see something, until the flood of
information is processed. The filtering protects us from having too
much unnecessary information requiring storage. Perception, therefore,
is the first step in memory creation and is associated with the
sensory stage, where the registration of information during perception
takes place for a brief second. Sensory and short-term memory
information tends to decay rapidly, with only the important
information gradually moved to long-term memory.</p>
<p>Short-term memories like a possible chess move, or a hotel room number
are processed in the front of the brain in a highly developed area
called the pre-frontal lobe, according to McGill University and the
Canadian Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction.</p>
<p>Science tells us that while our brain may store different types of
memories in various areas of the brain, recalling a memory is a
brain-wide process.</p>
<p>Types of memories and where they are stored in the brain include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Semantic memory: General knowledge, trivia and facts are stored in    the temporal lobe and the cortex.</li>
<li>Episodic memory: New data and    recent events are stored in the prefrontal cortex and the temporal    lobe.</li>
<li>Working memory: Information and knowledge required for daily    life -- such as telephone numbers and learned skills like driving --<br />
are stored in the prefrontal cortex.</li>
<li>Procedural memory: Secondhand    skills, things we take for granted, such as walking and cycling, are    stored in the cerebellum.</li>
</ul>
<p>While it isn't known exactly how many connections are possible in the
brain, or how large the storage area for memory might be, scientist do
know that our memories are not stored in one memory center in the
brain, rather, the events and experiences of a single memory may be
stored in many different areas of the brain. For example, when someone
recalls a trip to the beach, he or she might remember that the sand
was white, the ocean was blue, the air smelled like salt water and
seagulls were squawking. To recall that one memory, the brain doesn't
visit the &quot;beach memory center,&quot; but pulls the different components
together from various cortices. The blue water and white sand are
retrieved from the visual cortex, the salt water smell from the
olfactory cortex, and the squawking gulls from the auditory cortex.</p>
<p>For the average person, not every memory is consolidated, or stored,
in long term memory, freeing up space. But in certain rare cases of
exceptional memories, some people have been known to store and
perfectly recall nearly every detail of every memory from most of
their lives, a syndrome known as hyperthymestic syndrome. Researchers
declared the first known case of hyperthymesia in a subject known as
AJ, a then 40-year-old woman could accurately recall every event that
had ever happened to her since the time she was 14 years old.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another thing what is also interesting to point, that <a href="http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-happened-to-einsteins-brain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Einstein's brain was removed during an autopsy</a> and kept it in hopes of studying it to unlock the secret of Einstein's genius. It's theorized that the lack of the fissure allowed his brain cells to communicate faster than the average human's. In summary the three histological studies of Einstein’s brain have, in spite of claims to the contrary, found essentially no differences between his brain and that of controls. This should not come as any great surprise. The brain is obviously an extremely complex structure… to believe that the analyses of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything related to the specific cognitive abilities of that brain is naive.</p>
<p>Sources:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/memories-still-stored-our-brains" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Are all the memories we've ever had still stored in our brains?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>See also:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-memory-trace/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Where Are Old Memories Stored in the Brain? from the Scientific American</a></li>
<li><a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/human-memory1.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How Human Memory Works</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Albert Einstein's brain</a></li>
<li><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/05/24/myth-einsteins-brain" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Myth of Einstein’s Brain?</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age" rel="nofollow noreferrer">New Age</a> movement and similar (not supported by the mainstream science) our brain is a biological computer that interfaces with a conscious entity (our <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">consciousness</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul" rel="nofollow noreferrer">soul</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_self" rel="nofollow noreferrer">higher-self</a>). And our experiences/memories are stored in forms of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the akashic records</a> (on quantum level in forms of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">photons</a>) in our DNA (which is our <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Esai/quant_biology.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">quantum mechanical biowave computer</a>) as part of our <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etheric_body" rel="nofollow noreferrer">etheric body</a> and are retrieved by our <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">consciousness</a> by our <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will" rel="nofollow noreferrer">free will</a>. Various of peoples <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience" rel="nofollow noreferrer">out-of-body experiences</a> supports that theory including some <a href="http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scientific evidences</a>. Our brains still have some storage function, but it's not the main repository of our memories/experiences.</p>
<p>The scientific theories are in favor for above:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Holonomic brain theory</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Holographic principle</a> (universe existing as a 'hologram' and everything is made of electromagnetic fields)</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Double-slit experiment</a> (which proves consciousness on quantum level)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_genetica04.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The DNA Phantom Effect</a> discovered by quantum physicist Dr. Vladimir Poponin</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Big Bang theory</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Big Crunch</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Quantum phenomena in biology</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Including controversial project called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Global Consciousness Project</a>  relating to the anomalous spikes that precede the towers being hit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks" rel="nofollow noreferrer">9/11</a>.</p>
<p>There is also the <a href="http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/scientists-found-memories-may-passed-generations-dna.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">new research from Emory University School of Medicine</a>, in Atlanta, has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA.</p>
<p>See also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6adHSKxF2A" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DNA is a Torsion field antenna by Dr. Len Horowitz</a> and <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2011/09/02/scientist-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">scientist proves DNA can be reprogrammed by words and frequencies</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists which support New Age theory are i.e. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Max Planck</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Robert Lanza</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Braden" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gregg Braden</a> and many more.</p>
<p>Famous quotes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I  regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative
from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything
that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates
consciousness.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of
quantum theory, as quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)</p>
<p>Max Planck said &quot;As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most
clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a
result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as
such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which
brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute
solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force
the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the
matrix of all matter&quot; in 1944.</p>
<p>Albert Einstein: &quot;A human being is a part of the whole, called by us
&quot;Universe,&quot; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind
of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself
from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish
it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable
measure of peace of mind.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T17:10:34.470Z
Some good takeaways from Wikipedia: "There is no scientific evidence for the Akashic records." "For some believers in the etheric body, Kirlian photography provides important supporting evidence—though skeptics are generally not swayed." In contrast, *to be skeptical that* "analyses of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything related to the specific cognitive abilities" *is naive.* I can only see a biased perspective achieving this preference for pseudoscience over mainstream science, but please correct me if I mischaracterize your argument.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T19:34:56.297Z
Science can't prove it (which is just the term for majority point of view), but it can't disprove it either which makes both theories equal. In fact, there are thousands of professionals and books which confirms the existence of Akashic records and Kirlian pics you can see by your own eyes, does it make it less real than saying nobody could prove that (because there is no money in this field)?
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T19:41:00.583Z
Science is not synonymous with majority consensus, if that's what you're trying to say. An unfalsifiable claim is hardly "equal" to a falsifiable one. Seems you're just appealing to authority by claiming "thousands of professionals and books". If you're suggesting there's no profit in pseudoscience, the falsehood of this claim is the most saddening of all.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T20:00:39.550Z
Another example is that thousands of people selling quartz crystals since centuries having Akashic records in them, but nano-science (fresh branch of science) just started to grasp the benefits of fused-quartz where using nanotechnology can create storage which last millions of years. E.g. Tibetan monks knew exactly how to use power of mind long time ago before the science (and they didn't care about the money or pseudoscience). Does it mean the other people are dump and science is right? I think it's a matter of different point of view and both things doesn't have to contradict each other.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T20:08:22.680Z
Why biggest scientists of our century (e.g. Einstein, Hawking, Planck, etc.) are in favor of Holographic Universe theory, Big Bang or time-travel? What do you define real or science then? Following holographic principle says that the matter is just highly condensed light and everything is made of electromagnetic fields/vibrations? Does it mean our brains are hollow? Or our mind and intelligence is outside of our brain and the brain is just an biological interface to our mind? Why this theory is not accepted along with other theories? I think it's a matter of our point of view.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T20:08:34.993Z
This train of thought is very unclear. Are you claiming that people selling crystals don't care about money, and that Tibetan monks had a concept of pseudoscience long before science? I don't know what contradiction you're responding to, or what aspect of science you might think is wrong. It's hard to see much use in a claim that can't be proven right *or* wrong, except maybe as a clever placebo. As for your more recent comment, you'd be better off taking those questions to Physics if you're open-minded about them. They haven't got much to do with this question without many spurious premises.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T20:22:10.080Z
I'm not saying that mainstream science is wrong,it's just immature and people are not open to new theories of pseudoscience which is branch of science on need-to-now basis. Why would FBI, NSA have any interests in [RV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing), [ETs](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/extraterrestrial_intelligence.pdf) or other [stuff](http://www.siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/countries-releasing-ufo-information/) if this is not science at all? The people are not ready for it,the same as holographic principle theory was kept from public for some time
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-07T16:06:26.590Z
@kenorb, you seem to misunderstand what pseudoscience actually is.  Pseudoscience is not a branch of science; it's something that claims to be scientific, but does not adhere to scientific method.  It's worse than just being "not science" -- it's downright fraudulent.  Your coment about the FBI, NSA and CIA is also quite confusing.  These are not scientific bodies and they do not adhere to the scientific method.  If they've been duped into taking RV seriously, that still doesn't add any credibility to the claim. Furthermore, they lost interest in such things because they don't work.
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-07T16:41:57.983Z
Possibly I misunderstood. I think above things are not pseudoscience, as the results has been experimented, tested and many New Age scientists follow these theories. If you think some parts needs more work, info or links to scientific evidences, let me know, I'll improve my answer.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-09T15:32:19.417Z
@kenorb, you are wrong.  Remote viewing is a textbook case of pseudoscience.  Properly-controlled experiments have [again and again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing#Scientific_reception) failed to produce evidence that such a phenomenon exists.  Extra-terrestrial intelligence is outside of the scope the question, not to mention cognitive science, so it seems pointless to discuss it here.  As for "New Age Scientists", either they follow the scientific method (in which case they're scientists) or they don't (in which case they're not).  If they don't, then they're pseudoscientists.
Louis Thibault
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-09T16:25:11.777Z
This answer is not related to RV, but I've updated more remote viewing studies at [Is there evidence that brain and mind are separate?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1498/is-there-evidence-that-brain-and-mind-are-separate/6569) into separate section (Remote Viewing). If you need more studies from officials, let me know. If you have different opinion on that topic, simply ignore the topic, as there are always two sides to every story and you can't prove it or disprove it either.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T09:25:37.290Z
2014-06-05T22:54:33.093Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
kenorb
<p>This is a good question.</p>

<p>The question of "where" is not answered yet by mainstream science. One problem is the huge amount of data we get only through our eyes each day, approximately about one terrabyte if this data is compressed by modern algorithms. A lifetime of 100 years would be almost impossible to store "<em>inside our brain</em>".</p>

<p>There are some alternative theories which could explain how the brain stores data. Maybe our brain works like a antenna, similar to a computer which has a access to a vast data pool from the internet. You could ask the question where is the movie inside the television or where is the internet inside the computer? Certainly a computer has a harddrive, a local data storage unit and a cpu, but it is very limited in processing everyday data for a lifetime. It would be very restricted if it would not access to outer data pools.</p>

<p>Carl Gustav Jung has wrote about the theory of a collective subconsciousness and he was in contact with Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum physics pioneer. I would not wonder if we one day discover that our memory is nonlocal.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T17:02:44.563Z
The data are not compressed by modern algorithms. 'A lifetime of 100 years would be almost impossible to store "inside our brain"' + 'non-local' = wifi memory? Far out man...If you ever find any semblance of evidence for this speculation, please do try again to enlighten us...
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T04:33:28.407Z
As significant as Carl Jung's work was, he was not a neuroscientist. Neither was Freud, who had lots of theories of the mind, and you're not quoting him. In fact, you're not quoting any neuroscientists.
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-05T08:00:21.833Z
2014-06-05T08:00:21.833Z
Brain
<p>There is a common knowledge that several brain areas are involved in memory processes and each area is involved in a different aspect of memory.</p>

<p>But where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-02T10:42:11.243Z
Closely related: [Are different types of long term memories stored in different parts of the brain?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/1282/4086) and [Details About How Information Is Stored in the Neural Structure?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/669/4086) Basically a duplicate of the latter, which got closed after receiving only one (IMO) non-answer.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-02T17:59:39.687Z
needs more specific framing.  what kind of memory?  different forms of memory are almost certainly stored and retrieved in different ways.
honi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-02T18:13:45.077Z
@honi for these kind of very marginal questions, it is sometimes very instructive to write an answer that explains the implicit or explicit false premises. Not sure if you are interested in writing such an answer, but I would upvote one if it was given.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-02T18:27:53.033Z
Given the `very low quality` flag, I hesitate to choose `looks good`, but IMO the only applicable close reason is `too broad`...and another viable way to answer these questions is not to write a book, but merely an abstract. I.e., give a very simple, very general question an answer of the same kind. I'd probably prefer to have the original reopened and answered, but if an answer arrives before that can get done, it might as well arrive here.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-02T19:12:51.070Z
The "too broad" flag, to me, is more for technical how-to type questions that are the norm on the original stack exchange.  I'm not sure if broad questions are so bad in a scientific pedagogical situation.
Keegan Keplinger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-07T15:16:33.123Z
An interesting (albeit highly problematic) interpretation you could look up are the so-called "grandmother neurons".
Louis Thibault
<neuroscience><memory><neuroimaging>
Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?
kenorb
# Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-02)

There is a common knowledge that several brain areas are involved in memory processes and each area is involved in a different aspect of memory.

But where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?

**Tags:** neuroscience, memory, neuroimaging

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Closely related: [Are different types of long term memories stored in different parts of the brain?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/1282/4086) and [Details About How Information Is Stored in the Neural Structure?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/669/4086) Basically a duplicate of the latter, which got closed after receiving only one (IMO) non-answer.  
> **username_2**: needs more specific framing.  what kind of memory?  different forms of memory are almost certainly stored and retrieved in different ways.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 for these kind of very marginal questions, it is sometimes very instructive to write an answer that explains the implicit or explicit false premises. Not sure if you are interested in writing such an answer, but I would upvote one if it was given.  
> **username_1**: Given the `very low quality` flag, I hesitate to choose `looks good`, but IMO the only applicable close reason is `too broad`...and another viable way to answer these questions is not to write a book, but merely an abstract. I.e., give a very simple, very general question an answer of the same kind. I'd probably prefer to have the original reopened and answered, but if an answer arrives before that can get done, it might as well arrive here.  
> **username_4**: The "too broad" flag, to me, is more for technical how-to type questions that are the norm on the original stack exchange.  I'm not sure if broad questions are so bad in a scientific pedagogical situation.  
> **username_5**: An interesting (albeit highly problematic) interpretation you could look up are the so-called "grandmother neurons".  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2014-06-05. Score: -5 | Accepted answer

To explain this, it depends how far we want to go with the answers.

According to Wikipedia, it's one of the question on [List of unsolved problems in neuroscience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience) related to [Learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning) and [memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory) which are:

* Where do our memories get stored and how are they retrieved again?
* How can learning be improved?
* What is the difference between explicit and implicit memories?
* What molecule is responsible for synaptic tagging?

There are many unknowns in that field, because it's paradox of using our brains to understand our brains. Basically our brains are too complex and if we were simpler, we'd be dumber and couldn't understand it, anyway.

As Ian Stewart quotes:

> 'If our brains were simple enough for us to understand
> them, we'd be so simple that we couldn't.'

---

Here are some answers according to mainstream science:

> All our memories do get stored by the brain for varying periods of
> time; some are stored in our short term memory and don't stick with us
> for very long, while others are filed away in our long term memory.
> The actual capacity of our brains for storing memories has been
> difficult for scientists to determine, though it is believed that
> because our brains consist of a vast number of neurons
>
> Experts believe the brain uses three memory-storing stages: sensory,
> short-term and long-term. The different stages act as filters,
> beginning with when we first see something, until the flood of
> information is processed. The filtering protects us from having too
> much unnecessary information requiring storage. Perception, therefore,
> is the first step in memory creation and is associated with the
> sensory stage, where the registration of information during perception
> takes place for a brief second. Sensory and short-term memory
> information tends to decay rapidly, with only the important
> information gradually moved to long-term memory.
>
> Short-term memories like a possible chess move, or a hotel room number
> are processed in the front of the brain in a highly developed area
> called the pre-frontal lobe, according to McGill University and the
> Canadian Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction.
>
> Science tells us that while our brain may store different types of
> memories in various areas of the brain, recalling a memory is a
> brain-wide process.
>
> Types of memories and where they are stored in the brain include:
>
> * Semantic memory: General knowledge, trivia and facts are stored in the temporal lobe and the cortex.
> * Episodic memory: New data and recent events are stored in the prefrontal cortex and the temporal lobe.
> * Working memory: Information and knowledge required for daily life -- such as telephone numbers and learned skills like driving --  
>   are stored in the prefrontal cortex.
> * Procedural memory: Secondhand skills, things we take for granted, such as walking and cycling, are stored in the cerebellum.
>
> While it isn't known exactly how many connections are possible in the
> brain, or how large the storage area for memory might be, scientist do
> know that our memories are not stored in one memory center in the
> brain, rather, the events and experiences of a single memory may be
> stored in many different areas of the brain. For example, when someone
> recalls a trip to the beach, he or she might remember that the sand
> was white, the ocean was blue, the air smelled like salt water and
> seagulls were squawking. To recall that one memory, the brain doesn't
> visit the "beach memory center," but pulls the different components
> together from various cortices. The blue water and white sand are
> retrieved from the visual cortex, the salt water smell from the
> olfactory cortex, and the squawking gulls from the auditory cortex.
>
> For the average person, not every memory is consolidated, or stored,
> in long term memory, freeing up space. But in certain rare cases of
> exceptional memories, some people have been known to store and
> perfectly recall nearly every detail of every memory from most of
> their lives, a syndrome known as hyperthymestic syndrome. Researchers
> declared the first known case of hyperthymesia in a subject known as
> AJ, a then 40-year-old woman could accurately recall every event that
> had ever happened to her since the time she was 14 years old.

Another thing what is also interesting to point, that [Einstein's brain was removed during an autopsy](http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-happened-to-einsteins-brain) and kept it in hopes of studying it to unlock the secret of Einstein's genius. It's theorized that the lack of the fissure allowed his brain cells to communicate faster than the average human's. In summary the three histological studies of Einstein’s brain have, in spite of claims to the contrary, found essentially no differences between his brain and that of controls. This should not come as any great surprise. The brain is obviously an extremely complex structure… to believe that the analyses of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything related to the specific cognitive abilities of that brain is naive.

Sources:

* [Are all the memories we've ever had still stored in our brains?](http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/memories-still-stored-our-brains)

See also:

* [Where Are Old Memories Stored in the username_6? from the Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-memory-trace/)
* [How Human Memory Works](http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/human-memory1.htm)
* [Albert Einstein's brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain)
* [The Myth of Einstein’s username_6?](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/05/24/myth-einsteins-brain)

---

According to [New Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) movement and similar (not supported by the mainstream science) our brain is a biological computer that interfaces with a conscious entity (our [consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness), [soul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) or [higher-self](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_self)). And our experiences/memories are stored in forms of [the akashic records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records) (on quantum level in forms of [photons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon)) in our DNA (which is our [quantum mechanical biowave computer](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Esai/quant_biology.htm)) as part of our [etheric body](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etheric_body) and are retrieved by our [consciousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) by our [free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will). Various of peoples [out-of-body experiences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience) supports that theory including some [scientific evidences](http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html). Our brains still have some storage function, but it's not the main repository of our memories/experiences.

The scientific theories are in favor for above:

* [Holonomic brain theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm)
* [Holographic principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle) (universe existing as a 'hologram' and everything is made of electromagnetic fields)
* [Double-slit experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) (which proves consciousness on quantum level)
* [The DNA Phantom Effect](http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_genetica04.htm) discovered by quantum physicist Dr. Vladimir Poponin
* [The Big Bang theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and [The Big Crunch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)
* [Quantum phenomena in biology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology)

Including controversial project called [Global Consciousness Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project) relating to the anomalous spikes that precede the towers being hit [9/11](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).

There is also the [new research from Emory University School of Medicine](http://themindunleashed.org/2014/01/scientists-found-memories-may-passed-generations-dna.html), in Atlanta, has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA.

See also [DNA is a Torsion field antenna by Dr. Len Horowitz](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6adHSKxF2A) and [scientist proves DNA can be reprogrammed by words and frequencies](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2011/09/02/scientist-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/).

Scientists which support New Age theory are i.e. [Max Planck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck), [Robert Lanza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza), [Gregg Braden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Braden) and many more.

Famous quotes:

> “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative
> from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything
> that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates
> consciousness.” – Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning originator of
> quantum theory, as quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
>
> Max Planck said "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most
> clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a
> result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as
> such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which
> brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute
> solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force
> the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the
> matrix of all matter" in 1944.
>
> Albert Einstein: "A human being is a part of the whole, called by us
> "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself,
> his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind
> of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself
> from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish
> it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable
> measure of peace of mind."

---

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Some good takeaways from Wikipedia: "There is no scientific evidence for the Akashic records." "For some believers in the etheric body, Kirlian photography provides important supporting evidence—though skeptics are generally not swayed." In contrast, *to be skeptical that* "analyses of one or a few tiny slices of a single brain could reveal anything related to the specific cognitive abilities" *is naive.* I can only see a biased perspective achieving this preference for pseudoscience over mainstream science, but please correct me if I mischaracterize your argument.  
> **username_0**: Science can't prove it (which is just the term for majority point of view), but it can't disprove it either which makes both theories equal. In fact, there are thousands of professionals and books which confirms the existence of Akashic records and Kirlian pics you can see by your own eyes, does it make it less real than saying nobody could prove that (because there is no money in this field)?  
> **username_1**: Science is not synonymous with majority consensus, if that's what you're trying to say. An unfalsifiable claim is hardly "equal" to a falsifiable one. Seems you're just appealing to authority by claiming "thousands of professionals and books". If you're suggesting there's no profit in pseudoscience, the falsehood of this claim is the most saddening of all.  
> **username_0**: Another example is that thousands of people selling quartz crystals since centuries having Akashic records in them, but nano-science (fresh branch of science) just started to grasp the benefits of fused-quartz where using nanotechnology can create storage which last millions of years. E.g. Tibetan monks knew exactly how to use power of mind long time ago before the science (and they didn't care about the money or pseudoscience). Does it mean the other people are dump and science is right? I think it's a matter of different point of view and both things doesn't have to contradict each other.  
> **username_0**: Why biggest scientists of our century (e.g. Einstein, Hawking, Planck, etc.) are in favor of Holographic Universe theory, Big Bang or time-travel? What do you define real or science then? Following holographic principle says that the matter is just highly condensed light and everything is made of electromagnetic fields/vibrations? Does it mean our brains are hollow? Or our mind and intelligence is outside of our brain and the brain is just an biological interface to our mind? Why this theory is not accepted along with other theories? I think it's a matter of our point of view.  
> **username_1**: This train of thought is very unclear. Are you claiming that people selling crystals don't care about money, and that Tibetan monks had a concept of pseudoscience long before science? I don't know what contradiction you're responding to, or what aspect of science you might think is wrong. It's hard to see much use in a claim that can't be proven right *or* wrong, except maybe as a clever placebo. As for your more recent comment, you'd be better off taking those questions to Physics if you're open-minded about them. They haven't got much to do with this question without many spurious premises.  
> **username_0**: I'm not saying that mainstream science is wrong,it's just immature and people are not open to new theories of pseudoscience which is branch of science on need-to-now basis. Why would FBI, NSA have any interests in [RV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing), [ETs](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_spectrum/extraterrestrial_intelligence.pdf) or other [stuff](http://www.siriusdisclosure.com/evidence/countries-releasing-ufo-information/) if this is not science at all? The people are not ready for it,the same as holographic principle theory was kept from public for some time  
> **username_5**: @username_0, you seem to misunderstand what pseudoscience actually is.  Pseudoscience is not a branch of science; it's something that claims to be scientific, but does not adhere to scientific method.  It's worse than just being "not science" -- it's downright fraudulent.  Your coment about the FBI, NSA and CIA is also quite confusing.  These are not scientific bodies and they do not adhere to the scientific method.  If they've been duped into taking RV seriously, that still doesn't add any credibility to the claim. Furthermore, they lost interest in such things because they don't work.  
> **username_0**: Possibly I misunderstood. I think above things are not pseudoscience, as the results has been experimented, tested and many New Age scientists follow these theories. If you think some parts needs more work, info or links to scientific evidences, let me know, I'll improve my answer.  
> **username_5**: @username_0, you are wrong.  Remote viewing is a textbook case of pseudoscience.  Properly-controlled experiments have [again and again](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing#Scientific_reception) failed to produce evidence that such a phenomenon exists.  Extra-terrestrial intelligence is outside of the scope the question, not to mention cognitive science, so it seems pointless to discuss it here.  As for "New Age Scientists", either they follow the scientific method (in which case they're scientists) or they don't (in which case they're not).  If they don't, then they're pseudoscientists.  
> **username_0**: This answer is not related to RV, but I've updated more remote viewing studies at [Is there evidence that brain and mind are separate?](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/1498/is-there-evidence-that-brain-and-mind-are-separate/6569) into separate section (Remote Viewing). If you need more studies from officials, let me know. If you have different opinion on that topic, simply ignore the topic, as there are always two sides to every story and you can't prove it or disprove it either.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-06-05. Score: -2

This is a good question.

The question of "where" is not answered yet by mainstream science. One problem is the huge amount of data we get only through our eyes each day, approximately about one terrabyte if this data is compressed by modern algorithms. A lifetime of 100 years would be almost impossible to store "*inside our brain*".

There are some alternative theories which could explain how the brain stores data. Maybe our brain works like a antenna, similar to a computer which has a access to a vast data pool from the internet. You could ask the question where is the movie inside the television or where is the internet inside the computer? Certainly a computer has a harddrive, a local data storage unit and a cpu, but it is very limited in processing everyday data for a lifetime. It would be very restricted if it would not access to outer data pools.

Carl Gustav Jung has wrote about the theory of a collective subconsciousness and he was in contact with Wolfgang Pauli, a quantum physics pioneer. I would not wonder if we one day discover that our memory is nonlocal.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The data are not compressed by modern algorithms. 'A lifetime of 100 years would be almost impossible to store "inside our brain"' + 'non-local' = wifi memory? Far out man...If you ever find any semblance of evidence for this speculation, please do try again to enlighten us...  
> **username_7**: As significant as Carl Jung's work was, he was not a neuroscientist. Neither was Freud, who had lots of theories of the mind, and you're not quoting him. In fact, you're not quoting any neuroscientists.  

---

