Edetic Memory

[Trifeck]

I've recently had the chance to read up on a bunch of stuff that's generally classified as "rubbish science".

Topics, unfortunately, included telekinesis, telepathy, remote viewing, and levitation. Not that I'm un-fond of reality, but some of those ideas really do sound cool.

Getting to the point, however, I've come across several references to photographic memory, something that savants seem to share, although that's not always the case.

I'm not asking about the validity of tests that have been done, or about selection bias, or about a hidden hand, or conjuring tricks. I've read about these things too; I understand that more often than not, these claims turn out to be bullshit.

What I was wondering was - if, 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?

[chaz wyman]

I've recently had the chance to read up on a bunch of stuff that's generally classified as "rubbish science".

Topics, unfortunately, included telekinesis, telepathy, remote viewing, and levitation. Not that I'm un-fond of reality, but some of those ideas really do sound cool.

Getting to the point, however, I've come across several references to photographic memory, something that savants seem to share, although that's not always the case.

I'm not asking about the validity of tests that have been done, or about selection bias, or about a hidden hand, or conjuring tricks. I've read about these things too; I understand that more often than not, these claims turn out to be bullshit.

What I was wondering was - if, 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?

A potential is what you make it. You might well have a innate skill but never know it until you tried it out. So all skills are both innate and aquired.

Few things seem to amaze me after so many years watching wild-lif programmes. but this year the BBC did a programme on animal problem solving.
Image a ordinary tv screen onto which is flashed the numbers fro 1-9 in random places, and ledd than 0.5 secs later they are covered by blank squares.
To pass the test and get a banana you have to tap the sequence in the right place where the numbers are hidden 1-9.
Chimps are able to do this, where it is beyond the capacity of humans
So, not only can a chimp learn the sequence of numbers from 1 -9, but they can remember the positions less than half a second and reveal them as fast as their hand can move.
If I had not seen it I would not have believed it.

Have a banana!

This link might be the right one, but my plug-in is bust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-SQisIY ... re=related

[Trifeck]

Can't open the link, but I've seen the kind of thing you're describing, it's pretty amazing. There's a chimp with some sign language ability as well, if I'm not thinking of Crichton's Congo.

There are some pretty strange true life stories - Shakuntala Devi, for example, who can do all sorts of crazy shit with their minds. She's credited with calculating the 23rd root of a 201 digit number mentally, for example, and multiplying two 13 digit numbers in her head in less than half a minute.

I don't believe for one second that this sort of thing is down to some sort of fortuitous misfiring of neurons. Even savant abilities seem more about the "manner in which" the person thinks, rather than just the "way his brain is" set up.

You know the way in which we're taught to multiply three and four digit numbers - line them up on top of each other, and then multiply across the ones, tens, hundreds, whatever, and add the results?

211
411
= 211*1 + 211*10 + 211*400 = 211 + 2110 + 84400 = 86721

Maybe there's a similar "trick" to thinking about most things?

[chaz wyman]

Can't open the link, but I've seen the kind of thing you're describing, it's pretty amazing. There's a chimp with some sign language ability as well, if I'm not thinking of Crichton's Congo.

There are some pretty strange true life stories - Shakuntala Devi, for example, who can do all sorts of crazy shit with their minds. She's credited with calculating the 23rd root of a 201 digit number mentally, for example, and multiplying two 13 digit numbers in her head in less than half a minute.

I don't believe for one second that this sort of thing is down to some sort of fortuitous misfiring of neurons. Even savant abilities seem more about the "manner in which" the person thinks, rather than just the "way his brain is" set up.

You know the way in which we're taught to multiply three and four digit numbers - line them up on top of each other, and then multiply across the ones, tens, hundreds, whatever, and add the results?

211
411
= 211*1 + 211*10 + 211*400 = 211 + 2110 + 84400 = 86721

Maybe there's a similar "trick" to thinking about most things?

There are short cuts and trick you can teach yourself. Memory Men have way to link facts to well know visual images for example. and there is place theory in rhetoric to remember all parts of a speech.
But its hard to imagine a chimp consciously applying a method like that.

[Trifeck]

Heh, I know this will probably irritate no end, but assume I'm not just out to aggravate.

Chimps, dolphins, and elephants have shown the ability at "intentional" motor skills, as well as the ability to recognize themselves in the mirror. H. floresiensis, a human ancestor (debate goes on as to whether it was actually a .sapien with dwarfism) discovered in Indonesia in 2003, had a brain pan capacity of 380 cm3, which is small for a chimpanzee, yet the skeletons were found in a cave with evidence of fire and tools. Apparently they also hunted dwarf elephants called Stegodon, which is pretty amazing for a dude about three and a half feet tall, with a brain smaller than a chimps.

They probably wouldn't be able to do maths, though.

[bus2bondi]

hi Trifeck, i could share alot of things about the content of your post in relation to myself, but i just wanted to share something 'little' that happened to me today. actually a couple of hours ago. i actually signed on to share it in the lounge, but saw this thread first and so i guess i'll share it here...

i was thinking about someone yesterday out of the blue. she popped into my mind and i was thinking about how i had always respected this person. i don't recall us ever speaking a word to eachother and to her i am probably a stranger upon the street.. but a long time ago i witnessed something she did. and had immediate respect for her. that was a long time ago. i live in a small but not too small town of around 12 to 15,000 people. i don't recall ever seeing her around town before, all this time, not once. and never thought of her aside from that moment i gained respect for her. which was a long time ago. however, for whatever reason she popped into my head yesterday out of the blue and i thought about why i respected her. then, today, i was in line at a store and guess who was right in front of me? this person. i'm sure she had no idea this stranger had immense respect for her and that she popped into her head the day before. the funny thing is, she was having some sort of trouble with a gift card at the counter so the line was held up and me being right behind her had to switch over to another lane, but i don't think i would have noticed it was her if that wouldn't have happened.

little goofy thing huh.

she had no idea (or maybe she did you never know )

anyways, i appreciate your interesting thread.

[Trifeck]

Haha, that's pretty crazy, man. You shoulda said hi.

There's a lot of research currently going on about the more... exotic experiences of the mind. In India, where I live, for example, there's a whole university (of sorts) currently translating and reviewing ancient Sanskrit texts that talk about stuff like this. Unfortunately, it's mostly linguistic translation without any critical thought about what the text is actually talking about, so overexcitable professors from South India are constantly making fools of themselves by claiming on local news that they've found "blueprints for a spaceship" in older texts such as the Vamanika Shastra.

Thanks for sharing, though, and that is pretty damn cool. Sort of suggestive also; maybe human thought isn't quite as limited as we think.

Light, for example, keeps moving until something that it strikes absorbs it. The only way for it to be absorbed is for the thing is strikes to have a frequency of vibration (atomic vibration) that's resonant with its own. So a wave of red light, for example will be absorbed by differently vibrating things than a wave of blue light. If light hits a nitrogen atom with a non resonant frequency, it just gets emitted out the other side. Point is, it keeps moving until it's absorbed.

What if a thought works the same way? It's an energy wave too, after all.

PS: My apologies for the slightly lecturing tone - I was trying to work it out in my head as I typed.

[chaz wyman]

Haha, that's pretty crazy, man. You shoulda said hi.

There's a lot of research currently going on about the more... exotic experiences of the mind. In India, where I live, for example, there's a whole university (of sorts) currently translating and reviewing ancient Sanskrit texts that talk about stuff like this. Unfortunately, it's mostly linguistic translation without any critical thought about what the text is actually talking about, so overexcitable professors from South India are constantly making fools of themselves by claiming on local news that they've found "blueprints for a spaceship" in older texts such as the Vamanika Shastra.

Thanks for sharing, though, and that is pretty damn cool. Sort of suggestive also; maybe human thought isn't quite as limited as we think.

Light, for example, keeps moving until something that it strikes absorbs it. The only way for it to be absorbed is for the thing is strikes to have a frequency of vibration (atomic vibration) that's resonant with its own. So a wave of red light, for example will be absorbed by differently vibrating things than a wave of blue light. If light hits a nitrogen atom with a non resonant frequency, it just gets emitted out the other side. Point is, it keeps moving until it's absorbed.

What if a thought works the same way? It's an energy wave too, after all.

PS: My apologies for the slightly lecturing tone - I was trying to work it out in my head as I typed.

Okay. I think this opinion relates directly to the problem we were having on the other thread.
If you really think that a thought is an energy wave then we have a serious problem with how we conceive the difference between matter and consciousness.
Thought, I agree, has a physical component, such as the energetic state of brain cells, but to compare it to light seems absurd. Perhaps if you would care to clarify this statement then we might get somewhere (as long as you desist with the insults).

[Trifeck]

Excellent! Some progress. Okay. Hang on to that cooperative mood. Let me give you a decent answer.

Brains are incredibly sensitive to electrical potentials. Virtually everything they do is related to controlling, holding, channeling and modifying electric potentials across different sections. This is done via neurons and neurotransmitters, which I'm sure you know all about.
What this amounts to is a fluid network of energy, because a brain never stands "still" as such. Stable patterns of current flow develop, but these cannot be seen as static in any manner.

Moving currents create magnetic fields.

A thought, even if it is a particularly small part of just one set of currents flowing through a brain, will influence the magnetic field. And there's nowhere else for the thought to be, besides the currents in the brain. Therefore, every thought influences the magnetic field.

Magnetic fields interact with every other magnetic field around them. Why would a thought not pulse outward?

For sure, it wouldn't behave like a light wave. That was just a metaphor; so don't hold me to that literally - but feel free to poke holes in the overall logic of it.

PS: And now that I think of it, for sure not like a light wave - but definitely like a miniscule EMP.

[chaz wyman]

Excellent! Some progress. Okay. Hang on to that cooperative mood. Let me give you a decent answer.

Brains are incredibly sensitive to electrical potentials. Virtually everything they do is related to controlling, holding, channeling and modifying electric potentials across different sections. This is done via neurons and neurotransmitters, which I'm sure you know all about.
What this amounts to is a fluid network of energy, because a brain never stands "still" as such. Stable patterns of current flow develop, but these cannot be seen as static in any manner.

Moving currents create magnetic fields.

A thought, even if it is a particularly small part of just one set of currents flowing through a brain, will influence the magnetic field. And there's nowhere else for the thought to be, besides the currents in the brain. Therefore, every thought influences the magnetic field.

Magnetic fields interact with every other magnetic field around them. Why would a thought not pulse outward?

For sure, it wouldn't behave like a light wave. That was just a metaphor; so don't hold me to that literally - but feel free to poke holes in the overall logic of it.

PS: And now that I think of it, for sure not like a light wave - but definitely like a miniscule EMP.

I've taken a co-operative stance all day , in case you had not noticed!

These fields are infinitesimal.
What are you trying to get to with the phrase "pulse outwards"?
I would also suggest that the content of the thought has more to do with the actual state of charge in the network of neurones and that any magnetic field is no more than a by-product and contains no specific information except to suggest that a thinking is in progress through the neural tissue.
MRI and CT/PT scans can reveal which brain sections are active during thinking, but these use massive magnetic fields. MRI scans are powerful enough to make a penny in your pocket go through your hip. If the magnetic fields of the brain were the essence of the thought, then such scanning procedures would not only disrupt thinking it would probably cause confusion and insanity.
However no such result if the consequence of such scans.

[Trifeck]

Lets face it. Neither of us have been particularly cooperative. Bickering further on that score is rather pointless.

"MRI and CT/PT scans can reveal which brain sections are active during thinking, but these use massive magnetic fields. MRI scans are powerful enough to make a penny in your pocket go through your hip. If the magnetic fields of the brain were the essence of the thought, then such scanning procedures would not only disrupt thinking it would probably cause confusion and insanity.
However no such result if the consequence of such scans."

Okay, this is a well reasoned and logical answer to why I'd be wrong. Glad to hear it. Point accepted.

How do you think thought works, then?

[chaz wyman]

Lets face it. Neither of us have been particularly cooperative. Bickering further on that score is rather pointless.

"MRI and CT/PT scans can reveal which brain sections are active during thinking, but these use massive magnetic fields. MRI scans are powerful enough to make a penny in your pocket go through your hip. If the magnetic fields of the brain were the essence of the thought, then such scanning procedures would not only disrupt thinking it would probably cause confusion and insanity.
However no such result if the consequence of such scans."

Okay, this is a well reasoned and logical answer to why I'd be wrong. Glad to hear it. Point accepted.

How do you think thought works, then?

I really can't know that and most Psychologists and neurologist would agree that there is no simple answer.

I think there has been a tradition of looking at the question in a dualistic way that is now being rejected.
And a positive note , the idea of seeing brain and mind as more than simply co-dependant, but integral is proving to be fruitful.
And the notion that the physicality of the brain (matter and energy) is tantamount to mind. It has been unhelpful to see the 'soul' or 'spirit' as something wholly separate.
Not only are their vast problems in how these things are supposed to communicate with each other, it does not satisfy the basic evidence that when the brain is damaged, then the mind is commensurately damaged. It seems hard to get away form the fact that consciousness is the same as or equivalent to what the brain does. Rather then seeing consciousness as the thing that motives moves and command the brain; which answers nothing.
So a memory is the arrangement of neurones, which, if lost will be the same as a loss of memory. A thought is the incidence of networks making connections.

This has also been helpful in the understanding of mental illness. That such states of mind are directly correlated to neurochemicals, cerebral structure and so on.
Mental agitation of any kind can be seen happening in the brain - not outside of it in the "mind"

[Trifeck]

Okay, but then how is a thought "created", as such? I'm not going to quibble on technicalities. I'm actually interested in the logic you use for this theoretical construct.

And on a related note, could you sketch out your definition for "soul" and "spirit?" I think there's some stuff worthy of discussion buried away in there.

[Arising_uk]

There are obviously savants but methods and techniques to improve memory have been around since the Romans and Greeks. Modern memorists still use the Roman Room techniques to remember many thousands of things.

Tony Buzan has a nice little book covering the basics - "Use Your Memory". His own Mind Maps is a very good memory system a well as being an excellent way to note-take.

300 years ago Stanislaus Mink von Wennsshein invented The Major System that allows one to remember up to 10,000 items if one wishes.

Its becoming obvious that the brain actually forgets pretty much nothing, its how we are taught to store and retrieve memories that is the issue. See the Derren Brown TV show where he coaches a man in such techniques as speed-reading and memory retrieval and then enters him into a pub quiz of quizzes competition for an example of what is possible.

[chaz wyman]

Okay, but then how is a thought "created", as such? I'm not going to quibble on technicalities. I'm actually interested in the logic you use for this theoretical construct.

And on a related note, could you sketch out your definition for "soul" and "spirit?" I think there's some stuff worthy of discussion buried away in there.

On the first point causality is a continuity of seamless events and multifaceted effects. I do not see "a thought" as a thing that springs up and goes away. "a thought" is simply a node amongst the complexity of the process of thinking. We choose to delimit one thought from another to more easily deal with products of our living world.
Thus what created 'a thought" was the Big Bang, or whatever approximation you want to offer for the assumed beginning.
To say "I" created the thought would be to misconceive the process, as it is "I" upon which my thought are built; or in a sense I am my thoughts.

As for spirit and soul, they are outdated concepts by which primitive man accounted for that thing which departs the body upon death. It was as shorthand to give account of the most puzzling event in human history; the death of the individual. I just think that the assumption that something leaves is wrong; a thing for which no evidence exists, but which gives reign to many fantasies such as the shades of Hades and the survival of the individual after death. Convenient for the priesthood, but of little use to any Theory of Human Understanding, and of little use to neuroscience.