Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cold Wind · 07-31-2002, 07:56 PM

I have a notoriously poor memory, and even though I am twenty-two, I still find myself failing to remember things that acquaintances do. My short term memory is fine, or even superior, but my long term retention is poor. For instance, at work, I won't remember doing something a week and a half after doing it, and someone to whom I merely mentioned doing it, remembered it with sufficient interest to ask me about it!

I was wondering what this means for experience. Don't consider my specific case, but consider memory soi-m�me. If one imperfectly recalls an experience, or does so not at all, have they even really experienced it? Has it, then, any meaning (butterfly-effect aside) to their current state?

If I binge on alcohol and don't remember the evening of revelry, is that somehow worse or better than if I spend it in an activity, no matter how mundane, that I will recall for months? If I read a book and one year later remember it little enough that a rereading is almost as if for the first time, what was the point of my reading it in the first place?

I am unable to reconcile the idea of pleasure at a point with the idea of the memories of it extending throughout my future.

In Western culture, it certainly seems like the focus is on the beauty of forgetting. Darker grows the valley, more and more forgetting: so were it with me if forgetting could be willed. And yet, I find forgetting hideous, painful, and scary, while remembering is part of that which separates us from other animals.

My poor memory troubles me.

excreationist · 07-31-2002, 11:48 PM

Quote:

In Western culture, it certainly seems like the focus is on the beauty of forgetting. Darker grows the valley, more and more forgetting: so were it with me if forgetting could be willed. And yet, I find forgetting hideous, painful, and scary, while remembering is part of that which separates us from other animals.

Yeah, humans who know language quite well can use it to replay the past over and over again inside their heads, which is pretty good.
There can be a downside to this though - this involves indulging in the past too much... e.g. spending a lot of time regretting things, or complaining how things aren't as good as they used to be, etc.
A lot of writers, some of which have appeared on Oprah, like to say how good it is to "live in the present" - to live in the eternal "here and now"... to indulge in memories of the past goes against that.
Of course, being good at recalling the past has many practical benefits... but if you can't do it you shouldn't get too upset over it. You could try and do what you can to get help though.

Quote:

If one imperfectly recalls an experience, or does so not at all, have they even really experienced it?

Well you called it "an experience", and by definition, experiences are experienced.... so they did actually experience it... though they mightn't be aware that they did at that moment in time.

Quote:

Has it, then, any meaning (butterfly-effect aside) to their current state?

Well the experience could have shaped their personality and beliefs even though they mightn't remember the event. e.g. A toddler might have a bad experience with spiders and then have a phobia about spiders... as an older kid they might still have that phobia even though they mightn't have any memory about the events which led to it. Another example - you might learn a bit of trivia or a technique - and not remember the situation in which you learnt it. So experiences that you can't recall can still affect your memories.

Quote:

If I binge on alcohol and don't remember the evening of revelry, is that somehow worse or better than if I spend it in an activity, no matter how mundane, that I will recall for months?

Well during a binge you might get closer to friends, etc, and even if you don't remember it, the possibly positive consequences would still affect your present self. If the other activity is very trivial and worthless then by definition it has little value.

Quote:

If I read a book and one year later remember it little enough that a rereading is almost as if for the first time, what was the point of my reading it in the first place?

You probably would have learnt some things reading it - e.g. it would probably improve your literacy skills a bit. I mean you seem to have developed good literacy skills. Rereading it would help reinforce it so that eventually you would be able to remember it fairly well. (Well that's the theory)

Quote:

I am unable to reconcile the idea of pleasure at a point with the idea of the memories of it extending throughout my future.

I'm not sure what you mean... maybe you worded it wrong...

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Cold Wind · 08-01-2002, 06:05 PM

I believe I explained this poorly. I know that things we do not remember can affect us in ways we do not comprehend. I suppose I am comparing the man who remembers comparatively little to the man who remembers quite a bit. Do we agree that in almost all cases, the latter has an advantage?

Also, activities can mean more to the rememberer. Why would the forgetter bother to study a method [say, in engineering] when he will simply forget it? To the rememberer, this is great - he will retain this knowledge for years. The forgetter will forget what he learned in a year or so. I speak from experience here. I was trained as an electrical engineer in college, and now, one year out of school [and in an profession only peripherally related to that field] I remember almost nothing of my schooling. Quite sad...

excreationist · 08-02-2002, 01:03 AM

Cold Wind:
Yeah, it seems that it is mostly a disadvantage... but at least you've got legs and arms and things like that... maybe there is a way to improve your memory... otherwise you may as well accept reality.

Jamie_L · 08-02-2002, 04:48 AM

Cold Wind:
Like you, my memory is not the bear-trap that others seem to have. I've thought about this some, and here's my take:

Experiences (IMHO) have two effects: they create a memory which can be recalled, but they also shape our mind and change the way we think in subtle ways. It's my belief that even if a memory is lost to me, the experience still leaves its mark on the way I think and interact with people. This may not be true for every little experience (like drinking from a water fountain on the way to a public restroom), but I think in general it's true.

Jamie

LoopHooligan · 08-02-2002, 04:55 AM

I listened to programme on the radio this morning where two wives discussed the very serious memory loss their husbands had experienced as a result of brain damage caused by encephalitis.

The first man discussed had lost most of his life�s memory and had to begin with a short term memory of a second or less. This meant his experience of life became a constantly repeated stream of sudden awakening and realisation, repeated over and over again second after second. He could stand in a room and look around to find the room constantly shifting as he looked, forgot, awoke to see it anew and looked and forgot again.

The second man suffered encephalitis at the age of 57, fell into a coma for 7 weeks and when he awoke had lost all memory of his life from age 14 onwards. He cannot except to this day that he has children or that his mother has died and he is terrified of modern appliances. He is not retarded, he is still capable of understanding logic and yet he cannot accept these things even when it is explained to him.

This got me thinking as too how much of what we perceive as real is to do with logic and understanding that something is the way it is, and how much it is to do with our memory of what it is. Why when the evidence is presented to the second man, when everyone around says it is true, can his logic not accept it as true. Why does he need the memory of the truth?
Does anyone understand what I�m getting at, or am I just talking nonsense?

Jamie_L · 08-02-2002, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LoopHooligan:
Does anyone understand what I�m getting at, or am I just talking nonsense?

Actually, this gets at something that came up in another thread about choosing one's beliefs. A point of contention was how much experience played in the way people make decisions and formulate beliefs. This would seem to confirm the notion that experience is increadibly important (if not all-important), and the notion of making choices or formulating beliefs independent of experience is simply not possible.

Jamie

snatchbalance · 08-02-2002, 08:03 AM

Coldwind,

You don't work as an engineer because you can't remember your schooling, or, you don't remember your schooling because you haven't had a chance to apply it?

I easy to loose information if it's not reinforced.

sb

AtlanticCitySlave · 08-02-2002, 09:05 AM

Just a few comments...

(1) Just because you can't sit there and remember something (such as something concerning engineering), it doesn't follow you don't remember it completely. You may not be able to do a recall with no cue, but it's obvious (or at least very probable) if you went back to the books you would learn the rules, procedures, terminology, etc., of the type of engineering you're into better than someone going at it cold turkey, which shows that you have remembered it in your memory. Yes, over time memory fades, especially with things we don't use and that weren't very meaninful for you. If your father was killed from a faulty built building, it may end up being the case you remember a lot more from your classes (since it may have more meaning to you, i.e. you want to build better buildings so the same thing doesn't happen to other children). The meaning one attaches to what they want to remember is a major factor in recalling something. My overall point is simply that you haven't completely forgotten the information you learned in your classes.

(2) What is often the case is not so much that you don't remember something, but rather that you never learned/memorized it in the first place. People who are constantly saying "I can't remember, I'm such an idiot" often didn't take the time to memorize it in the first place.

(3) People who do seem to memorize things very quickly in actuality probably don't. They may just pay more attention when first hearing it, have previous background knowledge which makes it easier to remember, or just have better coding strategies when they first learn it. For example, I memorized all the president's in American history in under a half hour before, but it wasn't because of some superior memory, but simply because I've taken time to learn memory techiques (mnemonics). I can also tell you what day any date of the week falls on for ten years straight, but this isn't anything amazing. You just memorize the first number of every Sunday, ending up with a 12 digit code for a year. If you can remember that you're money, since if someone says "what is january 14" and the first number in your code is 16, you know to just go back two days and tell them "friday".

(4) What I'm getting at is that even if your memory sucks, there are ways to fix it. Very few people are Will Hunting and remember everything they see the first time (if anyone). The majority of people with good memory just have good techniques that they use without thinking of it. You can learn these by buying some books on memory (not so much popular works, like Kevin Trudeau's "Mega-Memory", although it's okay, but books that are written by actual cognitive/memory researches.

(5) Sorry for babbling, but my memory used to really suck, so I know how annoying it can be. Plus, having a good memory is only going to help you in the long run most likely, such as remembering names, dates, figures, etc., that if you don't know may end up being the difference between promotion or being stuck in a rut (memory makes you look competent and intelligent in other words).

08-02-2002, 12:06 PM

Hey Cold Wind,
My memory is absolutely terrible. It's terribly embarassing to forget your girlfriend's name. Really, it is.

I have also notice curious cognitive illusions that might be related to it. Sitting on the train passing over a river. I notice that after I have passed it, I have crossed a river.

Was I aware of passing over the river, or did I only forget what I knew when I was passing over it?

07-31-2002, 07:56 PM	#1
Cold Wind Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 52	Memory's bearing on experience I have a notoriously poor memory, and even though I am twenty-two, I still find myself failing to remember things that acquaintances do. My short term memory is fine, or even superior, but my long term retention is poor. For instance, at work, I won't remember doing something a week and a half after doing it, and someone to whom I merely mentioned doing it, remembered it with sufficient interest to ask me about it! I was wondering what this means for experience. Don't consider my specific case, but consider memory soi-m�me. If one imperfectly recalls an experience, or does so not at all, have they even really experienced it? Has it, then, any meaning (butterfly-effect aside) to their current state? If I binge on alcohol and don't remember the evening of revelry, is that somehow worse or better than if I spend it in an activity, no matter how mundane, that I will recall for months? If I read a book and one year later remember it little enough that a rereading is almost as if for the first time, what was the point of my reading it in the first place? I am unable to reconcile the idea of pleasure at a point with the idea of the memories of it extending throughout my future. In Western culture, it certainly seems like the focus is on the beauty of forgetting. Darker grows the valley, more and more forgetting: so were it with me if forgetting could be willed. And yet, I find forgetting hideous, painful, and scary, while remembering is part of that which separates us from other animals. My poor memory troubles me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 06:05 PM	#3
Cold Wind Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 52	I believe I explained this poorly. I know that things we do not remember can affect us in ways we do not comprehend. I suppose I am comparing the man who remembers comparatively little to the man who remembers quite a bit. Do we agree that in almost all cases, the latter has an advantage? Also, activities can mean more to the rememberer. Why would the forgetter bother to study a method [say, in engineering] when he will simply forget it? To the rememberer, this is great - he will retain this knowledge for years. The forgetter will forget what he learned in a year or so. I speak from experience here. I was trained as an electrical engineer in college, and now, one year out of school [and in an profession only peripherally related to that field] I remember almost nothing of my schooling. Quite sad...

08-02-2002, 01:03 AM	#4
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Cold Wind: Yeah, it seems that it is mostly a disadvantage... but at least you've got legs and arms and things like that... maybe there is a way to improve your memory... otherwise you may as well accept reality.

08-02-2002, 04:48 AM	#5
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Cold Wind: Like you, my memory is not the bear-trap that others seem to have. I've thought about this some, and here's my take: Experiences (IMHO) have two effects: they create a memory which can be recalled, but they also shape our mind and change the way we think in subtle ways. It's my belief that even if a memory is lost to me, the experience still leaves its mark on the way I think and interact with people. This may not be true for every little experience (like drinking from a water fountain on the way to a public restroom), but I think in general it's true. Jamie

08-02-2002, 04:55 AM	#6
LoopHooligan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: London Posts: 14	I listened to programme on the radio this morning where two wives discussed the very serious memory loss their husbands had experienced as a result of brain damage caused by encephalitis. The first man discussed had lost most of his life�s memory and had to begin with a short term memory of a second or less. This meant his experience of life became a constantly repeated stream of sudden awakening and realisation, repeated over and over again second after second. He could stand in a room and look around to find the room constantly shifting as he looked, forgot, awoke to see it anew and looked and forgot again. The second man suffered encephalitis at the age of 57, fell into a coma for 7 weeks and when he awoke had lost all memory of his life from age 14 onwards. He cannot except to this day that he has children or that his mother has died and he is terrified of modern appliances. He is not retarded, he is still capable of understanding logic and yet he cannot accept these things even when it is explained to him. This got me thinking as too how much of what we perceive as real is to do with logic and understanding that something is the way it is, and how much it is to do with our memory of what it is. Why when the evidence is presented to the second man, when everyone around says it is true, can his logic not accept it as true. Why does he need the memory of the truth? Does anyone understand what I�m getting at, or am I just talking nonsense?

08-02-2002, 08:03 AM	#8
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Coldwind, You don't work as an engineer because you can't remember your schooling, or, you don't remember your schooling because you haven't had a chance to apply it? I easy to loose information if it's not reinforced. sb

08-02-2002, 09:05 AM	#9
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	Just a few comments... (1) Just because you can't sit there and remember something (such as something concerning engineering), it doesn't follow you don't remember it completely. You may not be able to do a recall with no cue, but it's obvious (or at least very probable) if you went back to the books you would learn the rules, procedures, terminology, etc., of the type of engineering you're into better than someone going at it cold turkey, which shows that you have remembered it in your memory. Yes, over time memory fades, especially with things we don't use and that weren't very meaninful for you. If your father was killed from a faulty built building, it may end up being the case you remember a lot more from your classes (since it may have more meaning to you, i.e. you want to build better buildings so the same thing doesn't happen to other children). The meaning one attaches to what they want to remember is a major factor in recalling something. My overall point is simply that you haven't completely forgotten the information you learned in your classes. (2) What is often the case is not so much that you don't remember something, but rather that you never learned/memorized it in the first place. People who are constantly saying "I can't remember, I'm such an idiot" often didn't take the time to memorize it in the first place. (3) People who do seem to memorize things very quickly in actuality probably don't. They may just pay more attention when first hearing it, have previous background knowledge which makes it easier to remember, or just have better coding strategies when they first learn it. For example, I memorized all the president's in American history in under a half hour before, but it wasn't because of some superior memory, but simply because I've taken time to learn memory techiques (mnemonics). I can also tell you what day any date of the week falls on for ten years straight, but this isn't anything amazing. You just memorize the first number of every Sunday, ending up with a 12 digit code for a year. If you can remember that you're money, since if someone says "what is january 14" and the first number in your code is 16, you know to just go back two days and tell them "friday". (4) What I'm getting at is that even if your memory sucks, there are ways to fix it. Very few people are Will Hunting and remember everything they see the first time (if anyone). The majority of people with good memory just have good techniques that they use without thinking of it. You can learn these by buying some books on memory (not so much popular works, like Kevin Trudeau's "Mega-Memory", although it's okay, but books that are written by actual cognitive/memory researches. (5) Sorry for babbling, but my memory used to really suck, so I know how annoying it can be. Plus, having a good memory is only going to help you in the long run most likely, such as remembering names, dates, figures, etc., that if you don't know may end up being the difference between promotion or being stuck in a rut (memory makes you look competent and intelligent in other words).

08-02-2002, 12:06 PM	#10
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	Hey Cold Wind, My memory is absolutely terrible. It's terribly embarassing to forget your girlfriend's name. Really, it is. I have also notice curious cognitive illusions that might be related to it. Sitting on the train passing over a river. I notice that after I have passed it, I have crossed a river. Was I aware of passing over the river, or did I only forget what I knew when I was passing over it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.