The former things will not come to mind...

[a believer]

The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. —Isaiah 65:17 Berean Standard Bible

Perhaps it will not be unlike what happens during our infancy and pre-toddlerhood.

The former memories will be done away with as new memories are set into motion.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. —Isaiah 65:17 Berean Standard Bible

Perhaps it will not be unlike what happens during our infancy and pre-toddlerhood.

The former memories will be done away with as new memories are set into motion.

This actually reflects the creative neural pathway that came into effect when Jehovah created man. He first formed man out of the dust and then breathed life into him. Two separate acts within the creative process. The life then connects with the brain that in turn enables life to express its self.

It is not strictly true that new memories will push out old ones and thus one would “forget” the past events. The brain learns from each event and the lessons are stored as informative experiences. Thus someone run over by a car may “forget” the experience, but the lesson not to step in from of a moving object; the pain and trauma caused, will be remembered. If the element of memory persists then, how can the event that caused it not?

The answer is in association as the memory is not just a single box but has many compartments within it. Thus ‘factors’ within an experience also form their own collective experience and thus responses. Does this block the actual event? Yes and no. But we are all familiar with a sense of what to expect. Walk into a dark alleyway with many doors and hiding places and many non-factual-based fears spring up from a collective sense of what happens.

The scriptures say that the former things will not be brought to mind. So they won’t. But, though the song has ended, the melody lingers on.. We will not make the same mistake twice. (Hopefully).

 

[Nomex]

What about the former things you used to remember but can't anymore? And the worst part about that, is you don't know what you don't know...or is it knew? I guess it could be worse. You could not know, that you don't know! Who knows? I know, I don't know.

What were we talking about again?

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

What about the former things you used to remember but can't anymore? And the worst part about that, is you don't know what you don't know...or is it knew? I guess it could be worse. You could not know, that you don't know! Who knows? I know, I don't know.

What were we talking about again?

It’s a valid question: the answer to which is ‘association’ -what are called “learnt behaviours” leading to “learnt responses”.The brain is not an on/off mechanism but as with AI principles, which copy it, links experiences with a multiplicity of genres of life experience - e.g., water, speed, darkness, taste, etc; etc: What it means is that the collective life experience is linked not so much to the specifics, but the experience of the event and the conglomeration of sensual activity that makes up the memory of that experience. Thus: a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Niobium]

This is something I have often mulled over.

The NWT renders this verse as:
17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart.

It does not use the word "remembered"
And also does the phrase "brought to mind" mean the same thing as remembering. Or not remembering? There seems to be a subtle difference.

Remembering: the state or outcome — having information stored and then retrieved into conscious awareness (can be deliberate or spontaneous).

Bringing something to mind: the act or process that causes that retrieval — often implies an external cue or a deliberate effort that makes the memory appear.

So whether or not that makes any difference it still begs the question what exactly are the former things that will not be remembered or brought to mind? Is this referring to something on an individual basis or is it more to do with the collective consciousness of the past for everyone.

When someone is resurrected it is presumed that all of that persons memories will be restored. Not just the pleasant ones. If there is a selective removal of some events in that persons life, ( or more correctly a selective "blocking" are they really exactly the same person that they were when they died? The answer has to be, no. A persons make up is dependent upon all of that persons' life events and to remove or block some of those events must create a different person, albeit in a subtle way, but all the same it will be noticeable.

So is it proper to say that people will not remember some things,( whether a resurrected person or not ) especially traumatic events, as it will be detrimental to that persons happiness? Is not the opposite true? Knowing that certain events have been selectively deleted may in itself cause trauma. And we do learn from past mistakes and challenging situations in life that have an effect on our personality. Even if not a specific personal individual experience the observation and knowledge of a traumatic event has an impact on us in some way.

As has been said there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

Will that continue to be the case?

That we may have the memory of an event but it is so faded and distant that it becomes difficult to bring it to mind whether it be a personal individual event or a collective event that affected many people negatively.

It seems to be a known unknown right now.

 

[kenmuldoon55]

What about the former things you used to remember but can't anymore? And the worst part about that, is you don't know what you don't know...or is it knew? I guess it could be worse. You could not know, that you don't know! Who knows? I know, I don't know.

What were we talking about again?

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

This is something I have often mulled over.

The NWT renders this verse as:
17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart.

It does not use the word "remembered"
And also does the phrase "brought to mind" mean the same thing as remembering. Or not remembering? There seems to be a subtle difference.

Remembering: the state or outcome — having information stored and then retrieved into conscious awareness (can be deliberate or spontaneous).

Bringing something to mind: the act or process that causes that retrieval — often implies an external cue or a deliberate effort that makes the memory appear.

So whether or not that makes any difference it still begs the question what exactly are the former things that will not be remembered or brought to mind? Is this referring to something on an individual basis or is it more to do with the collective consciousness of the past for everyone.

When someone is resurrected it is presumed that all of that persons memories will be restored. Not just the pleasant ones. If there is a selective removal of some events in that persons life, ( or more correctly a selective "blocking" are they really exactly the same person that they were when they died? The answer has to be, no. A persons make up is dependent upon all of that persons' life events and to remove or block some of those events must create a different person, albeit in a subtle way, but all the same it will be noticeable.

So is it proper to say that people will not remember some things,( whether a resurrected person or not ) especially traumatic events, as it will be detrimental to that persons happiness? Is not the opposite true? Knowing that certain events have been selectively deleted may in itself cause trauma. And we do learn from past mistakes and challenging situations in life that have an effect on our personality. Even if not a specific personal individual experience the observation and knowledge of a traumatic event has an impact on us in some way.

As has been said there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.

Will that continue to be the case?

That we may have the memory of an event but it is so faded and distant that it becomes difficult to bring it to mind whether it be a personal individual event or a collective event that affected many people negatively.

It seems to be a known unknown right now.

It’s correct that memory maketh man as you point out. It is unlikely that after being resurrected that Christ has forgotten the event of his death. Its significance stands forever in law. I agree that we cannot be stripped of memory as it is what makes us whom we are. Rather, I feel, probably much the same as you, that the scripture may refer to the need to remember. Thus we will not bring these things back to mind because there will be no need for its recollection.

Time is also a factor. We live in the present and for a comparatively short time. Even within that space, unless the memory is still required it fades and the “space” within the neuron system either becomes redundant because it is no longer needed or the connection decays and is replaced. But the lessons of memory are always being used because they are universal not only to our behaviours but our existence. Consider inhibitions for instance - or also affections. Loss evolves into longing and longing becomes accepted as part of life and can become an equation so to speak with other feelings we may develop later on. Memory is accommodated along with new experiences but its values are separate. It’s another form of memory and develops into our ‘character’ of whom we are as an individual.

The final part of the issue is choice. If we are content, and unoppressed, happy, fulfilled; we naturally do not dwell upon things that no longer concern us. In this system we live under constant reminder of oppression, loss and change. That will not be the case in the system to come, for the former, needless, hurtful, unnecessary problems and stresses will not exist. Why go back there?

 

[Niobium]

It’s correct that memory maketh man as you point out. It is unlikely that after being resurrected that Christ has forgotten the event of his death. Its significance stands forever in law. I agree that we cannot be stripped of memory as it is what makes us whom we are. Rather, I feel, probably much the same as you, that the scripture may refer to the need to remember. Thus we will not bring these things back to mind because there will be no need for its recollection.

Time is also a factor. We live in the present and for a comparatively short time. Even within that space, unless the memory is still required it fades and the “space” within the neuron system either becomes redundant because it is no longer needed or the connection decays and is replaced. But the lessons of memory are always being used because they are universal not only to our behaviours but our existence. Consider inhibitions for instance - or also affections. Loss evolves into longing and longing becomes accepted as part of life and can become an equation so to speak with other feelings we may develop later on. Memory is accommodated along with new experiences but its values are separate. It’s another form of memory and develops into our ‘character’ of whom we are as an individual.

The final part of the issue is choice. If we are content, and unoppressed, happy, fulfilled; we naturally do not dwell upon things that no longer concern us. In this system we live under constant reminder of oppression, loss and change. That will not be the case in the system to come, for the former, needless, hurtful, unnecessary problems and stresses will not exist. Why go back there?

Indeed and on top of that there is the fact that memory is like gravity. No one really understands how it all works. Of course there have been studies into it and there are numerous research papers that delve into the mechanisms of memory and the various "types" of memory such as
Sensory memory/Short-term/working memory/Long-term memory/Prospective memory.... among others.

So how the "former things will not be brought to mind" is probably something that we cannot really comprehend as it involves processes that we can only guess at right now.
How, for example, in Jesus case we are told

(Matthew 3:16) . . .After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him.

What exactly it means by the heavens were opened up we can't imagine but it would seem that at the time of his baptism and his being anointed with holy spirit, Jesus’ memory of his prehuman existence was evidently restored to him.

So did Jesus have such memories already in his brain but were somehow "blocked" until they were released at that time or did Jehovah somehow transfer those memories into his brain at that time?

It does not tell us, of course, but if Jesus had such memory already implanted from birth waiting to be released at the right time, then it would seem that there can be selective blocking of certain memories without that having any negative impact. So could that be the case that in the New World Jehovah will consider that certain memories can "erased" from a persons mind without affecting that persons persona because they are needless in the sense of not contributing to a persons life in any positive way.

Have we not ever experienced a time when we have said to ourselves "I wish I could delete this memory from my mind. I don't want to remember that situation as it causes me too much pain" Perhaps the suffering of a loved while sick in hospital although being part of life only serves to make a person sad that they remember the suffering that they could not alleviate. Some of these types of memories seem to be burned into the fabric of a persons consciousness and whether we like it or not will surface from time to time and can be so real that it is as if it was happening all over again.

Would Jehovah kindly "block" such memories as it serves no real useful purpose to have them recalled and only causes the pain of that time to return. Perhaps there are things that are better forgotten or erased

In Jehovah's case he not only forgives but also forgets. ( Jeremiah 31:34)

So perhaps the former things refer to just the traumatic experiences that Jehovah decides do not need to be kept in memory or are blocked in the sense that they will never be brought to mind ever again. Only Jehovah can really understand how memory functions and how it can be controlled in a way that is beneficial for any particular person.

 

[Nomex]

It does not use the word "remembered"
And also does the phrase "brought to mind" mean the same thing as remembering. Or not remembering? There seems to be a subtle difference.

It's funny you bring this up I was just talking to my kids about this very thing the other day. If you recall Revelation uses terminology like them "burning forever and ever" the world likes to use that as "evidence" of hell fire, but we understand it to mean this period of time that is to say, Satan's system will stand as a testament for all eternity the out come of his rebellion. So, as I explained to my kids, what I think it's really referring to, is those things will not be "called to mind", things like grief from the loss of a loved one. When they are resurrected there will be NO, grief and sorrow, "the former things have passed away."

So I think what it means in a practical way, is those things will not cause us sorrow because "all things will be made new." Those memories will NOT affect us the way they do now. Not only that, there will be no need to "call those things to mind." However, those memories are part of that testament of that "smoke that rises forever and ever." But I think he intent of the wording is to call to mind the prospect of paradise where those things in our past no longer matter and can no longer harm us, mentally, physically, and emotionally.

 

[seeks2kno]

I'm confident that if Jehovah can do what he has done in the past concerning miracles, that I can remain with my WORST memories and still somehow have peace with them. Not needing them to be deleted. Right now, no, I struggle like anyone. But I believe he to be like A drug, and will numb the pain while retaining the data.

 

[BARNABY THE DOG.]

Indeed and on top of that there is the fact that memory is like gravity. No one really understands how it all works. Of course there have been studies into it and there are numerous research papers that delve into the mechanisms of memory and the various "types" of memory such as
Sensory memory/Short-term/working memory/Long-term memory/Prospective memory.... among others.

So how the "former things will not be brought to mind" is probably something that we cannot really comprehend as it involves processes that we can only guess at right now.
How, for example, in Jesus case we are told

(Matthew 3:16) . . .After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him.

What exactly it means by the heavens were opened up we can't imagine but it would seem that at the time of his baptism and his being anointed with holy spirit, Jesus’ memory of his prehuman existence was evidently restored to him.

So did Jesus have such memories already in his brain but were somehow "blocked" until they were released at that time or did Jehovah somehow transfer those memories into his brain at that time?

It does not tell us, of course, but if Jesus had such memory already implanted from birth waiting to be released at the right time, then it would seem that there can be selective blocking of certain memories without that having any negative impact. So could that be the case that in the New World Jehovah will consider that certain memories can "erased" from a persons mind without affecting that persons persona because they are needless in the sense of not contributing to a persons life in any positive way.

Have we not ever experienced a time when we have said to ourselves "I wish I could delete this memory from my mind. I don't want to remember that situation as it causes me too much pain" Perhaps the suffering of a loved while sick in hospital although being part of life only serves to make a person sad that they remember the suffering that they could not alleviate. Some of these types of memories seem to be burned into the fabric of a persons consciousness and whether we like it or not will surface from time to time and can be so real that it is as if it was happening all over again.

Would Jehovah kindly "block" such memories as it serves no real useful purpose to have them recalled and only causes the pain of that time to return. Perhaps there are things that are better forgotten or erased

In Jehovah's case he not only forgives but also forgets. ( Jeremiah 31:34)

So perhaps the former things refer to just the traumatic experiences that Jehovah decides do not need to be kept in memory or are blocked in the sense that they will never be brought to mind ever again. Only Jehovah can really understand how memory functions and how it can be controlled in a way that is beneficial for any particular person.

Yes. I quite agree. I feel the answer that you touch upon certainly has gravity. I look at the subject based upon the scripture describing Adam’s creation in that Jehovah formed his body and then, breathed life into it. Two separate acts. What adds weight to this is of course that angels do not have a blood and flesh body but can (have the ability) to create one for themselves. I don’t know if you have ever studied the theory of “Dualism” that describes the separated condition of life from the body. I.e., that life is the causation of the functions of the body as a means of expressing itself. There are several references to it within the Bible that one may understand our function to be that way, in that man’s existence is a “little lower than the Angels” who do not need a physical brain - and yet they have the same degree of autonomy within the law of Jehovah as we do.

Thus the consideration that memory may not be that of a collection of experiences to refer to, so much as what is learnt from them, has some validity. We get a glimpse of this through the growth of the memory through childhood amnesia that is present during the first three years of life, and yet, look at the progress that the child makes behaviourally during that time, from potty training to language skills and the retrieval of information.

It begs the question as to whether life is inert until given the means of expression. Memory is a reaction, a response to life. Was Jehovah alive, as we understand life, before He created Jesus? The fact that Jehovah has always existed is not bound by time is it? Jehovah created the laws we experience and therefore the existence of time. And if time did not exist, where is memory or existence? Memory therefor is the substance of retention of events. How those events are interpreted may either include whether they were recalled as the event, or, as the substance of its experience. The two are not necessarily co-dependant upon the other.