Gordon:
> >So it defies the "laws" of physics. Well, that's pretty
> >interesting.
Dace:
> Yes, it is, and I'd be extremely interested to know exactly how it is that
> this notion of memory is in conflict with physical laws.
Memory is information. In order to record or transmit information, one must use energy, a fact of considerable interest and importance to those who think about how machanical and animal brains work. This energy occupies time and space, as energy always does (in the physics I know about, anyway).
> >So, all this time we could have tossed those messy animal
> >brains, computer chips, tapes, papers, graven tablets, knotted
> >strings, and other inconvenient, energy-consuming, space-
> >obtruding objects?
> These are examples, not of memory, but of memory aids. They've obviously
> been of some use to us down the centuries.
They certainly have. Would you care to point out an example of aidless (immaterial) memory? Maybe that would clarify your idea for me.