And in order to have any practical physical value or relevance at all, the memory of those visual experiences / images must be stored somehow, somewhere in the physical brain's neurological "wiring" - no matter what condition that brain was in at the moment of perception; conscious, semi-conscious, super-conscious or even unconscious.


You really love your wetware, doncha? :D. How about this -- visual memories are recreatable potentials of energy created by spiritual beings in seeking certain experiences conveniently labeled as "past". They are non-material potentialities until regenerated by the spiritual viewpoint, at which point htey are re-created in very high-frequency patterns of mental energy witht he postulated dimensionality of the viewpoint and thus viewed. The act of viewing and interacting with memory CAN (but does not necessarily) cause the stimulation of the being's connection to the brain, producing electro-chemical brain responses in some instances.

This applies to non-traumatic memories. Images which are highly charged with physical pain or emotional duress operate slightly differently, from the view point of experience. Basic mechanism is same same.

The brain is just an external interface to the physical universe, independent of the memory process.

---

There's a perfectly good model for you which not only accounts for memory but also accounts for the occasionally stranmge phenomenon such as remember past lives, out-of-body experience (near-death or otherwise), or being able to see another person's memories without hearing about them first. The brain-as-storage-container model doesn't account for these.

IF you ar elocked in to the wetware dependent model, then you are left with the elimination of anomalous data as unreliable data. A facile solution to the cognitive dissonance presented. But not if it keeps coming up over and over.

A