I find memory completely mysterious. I mean I know, of course, regions of the brain where memories are stored but the amazing thing is that we don’t actually know the physical changes in the brain that store memory. On the other hand, of course, we have a lot of analogies from computer memory. I mean we know that modification of a physical system can store information as, indeed, when you write on a page with ink, I mean one is producing a physical change which represents abstract ideas, represents the past, anticipates the future, gives you an idea, right or wrong, completely separate from the paper and the ink or the electronics in the computer, takes on a life of its own, software, if you like. And I think this is one of the wonderful things that technology is helping us to understand the brain through analogies actually and I think the hardware, software distinction, you’ve got the physical system, which can represent by rules, by encapsulating and calling up knowledge symbolically, is the key, how the brain works, memory and so on, also, of course, for computers. There’s a big analogy there, I think, actually, but the trouble is we don’t really know exactly what the hardware of memory is. It’s amazing. I mean it’s almost certainly that you get immediate memories lasting for a few seconds which are dynamic oscillatory circuits and then that’s laid down as changes which are probably connections, synaptic connections between nerve cells which form more or less permanent groups of cells which fire, you know, but the details of that are simply not known, which is extraordinary. There must be half a dozen Nobel Prizes sitting there to be won.