Memory: a proven fact
Unlike many other scientific theories floating around, which are being already taught to students and used to brainwash the public such as theories on the origin of the universe, or Darwin's Theory of Evolution already now being shown to have been refuted, this electromagnetic theory of memory and mentation has long been an established scientific truth totally congruent with observed physical and chemical phenomena without any incompatibility with reality. It is as certain as the sun is the source of our light.
Of course, for this fact to be so well established, there has to be sufficient evidence to convince our senses and judgment. In the case of the sun, there is a direct visual perception, even from high above in space close to the sun, of the light emanating from it. If something comes between the sun and the earth, a huge shadow is fumed on the surface of the earth. That is sufficient proof of an undeniable fact. At that point in time, actually it would do this truth injustice to claim that fact as being merely a "theory." It is now also a fact.

The same goes for the discovery that memory is electromagnetic particles(eMs) registered in the brain to undertake recombinational retrievals for thinking and directing wilful movements. These eMs must be shown or seen to have been propagating into and registered in the brain(or other highest central nervous units such as ganglia in many lower animals), retrievable therefrom, re-sensable to become thoughts and wilful efforts to select specific central motoneurons for firing. In the latter process, an organism accordingly conducts wilful locomotion.

To demonstrate all that, it has taken 19 volumes. At this point, instead of requiring others to read all these 19 volumes, let me very briefly illustrate why memory has been proven not just a correct theory, but being so conclusively correct that this has attained the scientific certainty of being a truth, a fact.

Unlike many other biological or natural phenomena, memory is not an entity without magical functions. It is not merely a quantitative or anatomical existence. Instead, from memory there arises an infinite number of possible thoughts and behavioural manifestations. Therefore, unless a memory candidate can be shown being the only element capable of or truly responsible for all these mental activities, it cannot be memory or has not been proven to be memory.

Consequently, mere statistical analysis of observable quantity changes such as the amounts of RNA synthesized during learning does not prove anything specific to memory formation. Instead, whatever quantitative changes there may have been, or there has never been, does not per se suffice to establish what memory is . As pointed out earlier, memory actually can never be quantified or anatomically confirmed; yet, it is there

This unfortunately impossible situation has been created by the incapacity of any visible substance to have the essential properties for memory particles to give rise to all the magical functions of a brain or in lower animals, of the central ganglion. Both molecules and atoms can be visible under magnification. However, neither has the necessary properties to be memory particles such that they could participate in memory retrieval, thought formation, and wilful locomotion. Even electrons, for their lack of distinguishing features to make one representing a memory different from all other electrons, cannot themselves be memories. The only thing left is the sub-electronic eMs contained in or propagating outside of the electrons to serve as memory traces.#FNT2 Because there can be almost an infinite number of eMs each frequency-specific, there is no problems there for them to serve as and satisfy the requirements of memories being each event-distinct, i.e. there are at least as countless number of memories as there are fragments or elements of perception, reality, hearing, thinking, knowledge, smell, locomotion, behaviour. . .. By the process of elimination alone, then, it has become apparent that memory cannot be anything other than eMs.

However, that is merely a sound theoretically exclusionary conclusion. To prove its truth or make it more concrete, more conclusive, the best is to experimentally demonstrate it. Often people harbour the ignorant notion that to experimentally study anything at all, there has to be in vitro well controlled or even outright test-tube experiments. In many instances, this is the scientifically necessary approach. But in the case of the brain, the latter is in itself that miracle laboratory in which sensable activities(e.g. thinking, feeling, etc.) occur and from which countless phenomena arise(e.g. wilful behaviour). As a result, anything pertaining to the brain[ or the highest central ganglia in lower animals] can be and must be taken as observations or data having relevance to establishing what memory is.

The most determinative functional demand on the thinking ganglia or the brain is for the incoming "memories" to be sensable (perceivable) and then retrievable as re-sensable and re-sensed elements within the brain. Otherwise, the thing being claimed being memory cannot possibly possess the basic properties of memory, and therefore cannot be memory whatsoever.

While molecules such as RNA definitely cannot be memories, eMs satisfy all the functional requirements, account for and are compatible with the the most basic and yet most fantastic aspects of brain activities being able to be sensed by or cause sensations in the brain ( or, in lower animals, central ganglionic) sensory neurons. Once so sensable(i.e.,sense-able) these eMs can be and are re-sensed when activated, which is the phenomenon of memory recall, or dreaming when they are randomly resensed by the brain sensorineurons.

First, when sensing something for the very first time, a process without which there can be no memory of anything at all, the sensorineurons make stimulus-specific sensing of the incoming eMs representing the various stimuli. In my earlier volumes, it was deduced that since
(i) from the same afferent (inputting) neural pathway, the neurotransmitters and propagating action potential impulses(Fig. 7) directed onto and impinging on the central sensory (memory)
#FNT3 neurons cannot and do not vary from one second to the next; the same neurotransmitters serve to carry impulses across the synapses for that pathway, and the impulses from that same pathway preserve the same configuration or shape and size within a short duration of time, say, the same on the same day;

(ii) the incoming electrons contained in the impulses cannot differ from one another other than by what they each contain, i.e. eMs;

and yet (iii) the same pathway causes the central sensory neurons to rapidly sense different things corresponding to the changing stimuli which activate this neural pathway(i.e., from this same pathway, for instance, in the visual system, as a plane flies into its visual field just a second ago being occupied by a bird, one would sense a bird this second, and yet a totally differently coloured airplane the next second);

the only thing enabling the same visual or other sensory neurons to make this type of stimulus specified and not pathway-specified( i.e. the same neural pathway gives rise to sensations, in this way, specified not by that pathway, but by the specific properties or attributes of the effective stimuli to that sensory system: visual images evoking vision are effective stimuli for the visual system; but, different visual objects give rise to different visions so that we can see objects as different from one another as they are in reality, and not seeing all different visual objects as being the same ) discriminative perception can only be the differences in the eMs contained in the incoming impulses and downloaded into the central sensorineurons. As the colours change on the external objects, the incoming eMs representing and from these objects change accordingly. As a result, there would be corresponding changes in the eMs contained in the afferent optic nerve impulses into the brain visual neurons. When a green object is replaced by a red object in the same visual field, the incoming eMs from that visual field into the visual neurons change from being green to being red. The brain or other central sensory neurons are simply sensitive to and can very precisely sense, discriminate, and distinguish different eMs from one another.

This undeniable fact of science is further illustrated by people's brain neuronal sensitivity to electromagnetic impulses. If an electromagnetic or electronic beam is directed at someone's head, one would sense this beam as some sort of "electricity." In some people, their brain neurons are so hypersensitive to electromagnetic impulses that they could not live around radio broadcasting stations.

In the case of a 14-year old Mary Walton, her greater-than-normal sensitivity to radio waves caused her to exhibit psychotic or bizarre behaviour when a nearby radio station antenna was turned on: such as running naked out onto the streets, throwing herself onto the doors, using pencils to stab herself, etc.
#FNT4 Obviously, brain cells are sensitive to eMs (Fig. 6).




Site Home


Cheng Review Home

Cheng Review I:1 Home

I:2 Home


Memory & Vision

Heart Attack; sunlight

Great Proof: Memory and Voluntary locomotion

I:4 Home

Cheng Review I:3

1 . See also: KC Cheng, The Electromagnetism of Memory is no Longer a Hypothesis, but a Proven Theory, a Scientific Fact, an Undeniable Reality( 16/11/86).

2 . KC Cheng, Cheng Review, I:1, p1, 1997.

3 See p 1, this issue: Memory and Colour Vision.

4 K.C. Cheng, Mystery of the Mind, in press.

5 Sing Tao Daily, 29/6/91, p 13.