I have a theory that memory is not what we think it is. I think we don't store copies of the entire history of the physical world inside our brain (really, think how preposterous such an idea is). Instead, when remembering an event we travel to the past, look at the scene to regain an awareness of it, then come back to the present. This happens outside of time so you perceive it as being instantaneous.Trifeck wrote:I've come across several references to photographic memory, something that savants seem to share, although that's not always the case.
The idea is based on Einstein's observation that if you could travel faster than light you would see your past (you are traveling faster than the images and catching up with them). Of course your body cannot do, and is obviously not doing that, but there is no proof, only conjecture, that your consciousness is restricted to your body.
Anyway, without getting into the mind-body debate, I just think relativity has opened our minds to the possibility that our experience of time is somewhat illusory. If that is the case, then our experience of the past may not be what we think it is.
If the past still exists in a photographic sense (the image is there but can't be changed and memory is simply a quick observation of the photographic past), then individuals with photographic memory are simply people who can make that observation with good clarity.
I would think it's an innate talent, pretty much like your ability to see. Some people can see with perfect clarity, others need glasses.if such a thing as photographic memory, or even perfect recall existed - would such a thing be an innate talent, an acquired skill, or perhaps both?
