Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

As a species? I haven't seen any research showing that other animals are any better at memory. The more interesting observation would be that we tend to be a lot more confident in the accuracy of our memories than we should be.

There might be a good reason for that. There's no functional reason for memory to be accurate or to self-question. The purpose of memory, evolutionarily speaking is all about how you take future action based on what's stored. Lacking confidence in the accuracy of your memories would have been a surefire way to be eaten alive by lions while you're emo-ing out about whether your memories are true or false.

[Frumple]

Aye, problem is that we can say that we have bad memories, but bad compared to what?

Compared to what actually happened. That our memories are pretty likely to not be accurate recollections of previous events doesn't need much of a reference point. Our confidence is tangential to the fact the bloody things aren't particularly reliable.

[Egan_BW]

Compared to what actually happened. That our memories are pretty likely to not be accurate recollections of previous events doesn't need much of a reference point. Our confidence is tangential to the fact the bloody things aren't particularly reliable.

What actually happened is a perfect version of what actually happened. It's also permanently lost to time. We can't expect anything to be so accurate, so all things considered what our brains manage to do is pretty fucking impressive. Expecting perfection from this universe is how we end up totally trusting inaccurate memories.

There might be a good reason for that. There's no functional reason for memory to be accurate or to self-question. The purpose of memory, evolutionarily speaking is all about how you take future action based on what's stored. Lacking confidence in the accuracy of your memories would have been a surefire way to be eaten alive by lions while you're emo-ing out about whether your memories are true or false.

Trusting false memories is also a good way to get eaten.

[Reelya]

Like I said, we didn't evolve to be accurate recording devices, because recording precisely what happened in the past is not actually a very important thing in terms of survival. The past is gone, the future is what counts so we're future-oriented, as in we act by creating a future image of where our actions will take us, and memories are only important to the point that they shape expectations of those future actions.

Trusting false memories is also a good way to get eaten.

Yeah but history tells us otherwise. the confident iffy-memory people spread out and took over the world. We can argue that our shoddy memories should have gotten us all eaten, but we have the evidence that we're sitting here after millions of years of human development, able to muse about it in comfort to prove otherwise.

A good memory records all events perfectly. But have you actually seen articles about those people with actual perfect recall? They're fucking dysfunctional and most of them are either being cared for by their parents, can't hold a job down or they're on government benefits due to the constant hammering of accurate memories in their heads that won't go away. They have no filter, they're not able to function or usefully apply memories to take action for the future. Perfect memory is an illness. Say that one time, someone stabbed you with a knife, and you have perfect recall. Then, every time you see a knife you remember the time you got stabbed in pefect detail, and you also recall all the other times you saw knives and had the same flashback. It's permanent PTSD basically.

A useful memory streamlines down to just the important bits, simplifies things and fits memories into patterns that have been useful in the past, even if that pattern isn't 100% accurate for the specific memory - because the purpose of memory is for prediction, so you just want aggregates / averages.

[Egan_BW]

The fact that evolution gave us imperfect memory isn't proof that imperfect memory is optimal.

[wierd]

I would conjecture that moldable/modifiable memories (eg, inaccurate ones) are beneficial to the individual, and thus to the society.



EG, a person remembers individual details that have no really intrinsic value in life preservation or future decision planning capability less but key highlights are reinforced which produce the desired survival rate increase.  EG, you might not remember exactly what that toxic mushroom looked like, but you do remember it being small and brown, and that it gave you chills, wicked diarrhea, and systemic lethargy for days.  As a consequence, you avoid all brown mushrooms in the future.

It is better for the human in question, because it ties up fewer neural resources, and is thus more "efficient."   It also means that memories are pliant, and can change over time based on additional experiences that connect with those key points that get stored. This has implications in social interaction, where a perception about another person can change over time, and the memories the individuals in the society have for that person change as well.  This is beneficial for both individual humans (who may be remembered more favorably than they actually deserve merit-wise), and sociologically for the group as a whole, because the group narrative that comes out from sharing stories creates a more inclusive and cohesive framework for the society to cooperate in.  (It does not matter that the narrative is actually faithful to what actually transpired.)

Evolution is not some rush to a hypothetical pinnacle of perfection. It is an incremental process by which individuals with a lower survival rate or lower reproductive rate get outcompeted by individuals that survive better or produce more offspring.

"Good enough", and "somewhat better than" are the focus, not perfection.  This is because pareto-optimality is a thing.

Perfect memory would require significantly more dedicated neural hardware to store the memories, would be slower on recall, and would make humans less fit for rapidly changing environments.  You can find some aspects of that when exploring the consequences of "Perfect autobiographical memory" in the few humans that exhibit it. There are often sociological and psychological pitfalls associated with it.

[Reelya]

Another thing that's commonly objected to as inaccurate is movie quotes. For example the Star Wars "Luke, I am your father" "quote"has poindexters adjusting their glasses and saying "well no actually, the precise quote is "no, I am your father. Say it properly from now on".

The lesson here is that nobody uses the correct quote, not even the people who go on about how you should use the correct quote.

The problem here also explains why the misquote spreads. The "wrong" quote is succinct and immediately expresses the correct context without needing further explanation, while the "right" quote is basically useless for expressing anything. So, like condensed memories the inaccurate quote is actually useful for something while the perfectly-recalled quote is pretty much a waste of space.

[scriver]

Man, I first learned about Red Caps in Prisoner of Azkaban. Long before I ever even knew about Pathfinder.

I read Azkaazabana in Swedish. Redcaps did not feature.

[Sirus]

They weren't featured, really, they were just one of the creatures HP and Friends learned about in Defense Against the Dark Arts.

[Flying Dice]

The fact that evolution gave us imperfect memory isn't proof that imperfect memory is optimal.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the process of natural selection. It's not about the engineering of optimal traits, it's about the perpetuation and dissemination of the best available traits. If a species has a widespread trait, it's because at some point in their history that trait made it easier for them to live long enough to reproduce, or was tied to a trait that did so.

Leaving aside the dubious nature of claims about photographic memory, eidetic memory has only been demonstrably found in young children, and loss thereof is generally believed to be tied to the acquisition of language skills.

In other words, in evolutionary terms, the ability to describe and think about things in abstract terms has survived as a functionally universal human trait, while the ability to perfectly recall memories as images was directly lost as part of that development. If perfect memory recall were so important from an evolutionary perspective, we would never have developed language, because any early vestiges of that sort of abstract thought would have killed whatever advantage eidetic memory would have provided.

Eidetic memory exists functionally nowhere in the adult population, and was discarded for the sake of the ability to abstract and summarize thoughts and memories into discrete, communicable chunks. QED it's neither optimal nor even the best available method of recall, in terms of reproductive success and survival as individuals.

[scriver]

They weren't featured, really, they were just one of the creatures HP and Friends learned about in Defense Against the Dark Arts.

I just meant that their name would be in Swedish, and it's hard to translate the name without it becoming a tomte/vätte(elf/gnome/goblin)-creature (since they are popularly portrayed with red caps), who while they can be mischievous, vindictive and even malicious are hardly cruel in the "bloody torture and murder for kicks" kind of way.

Also not commonly associated with castles. Castles have pale-lady-ghost-spirits in them, not old-fart-gnome-spirits.

[Frumple]

The fact that evolution gave us imperfect memory isn't proof that imperfect memory is optimal.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the process of natural selection. It's not about the engineering of optimal traits, it's about the perpetuation and dissemination of the best available traits. If a species has a widespread trait, it's because at some point in their history that trait made it easier for them to live long enough to reproduce, or was tied to a trait that did so.

Though as always, it's probably a good idea to emphasize that last bit. Evolution's definition of best is fairly specific, and only incidentally congruent with what we'd probably use the term for. If it doesn't effect reproduction and proliferation it basically doesn't matter; extended survival, health, happiness, improved capability, etc., is all secondary (if that) to that.

It's not so much best available as best available that has a sufficient impact on reproductive capability and genetic proliferation at a specific point in time. Which can be a pretty damn limited (and borderline random) subset of traits

[scourge728]

I remember reading some book that said that chimpanzees were significantly better at recognizing numbers flashing onto a screen for incredibly short periods of time than humans are.

[smjjames]

Maybe they're just better honed in that particular way than we are? Not neccesarily about numbers, just being able to recognize something flashing by in an incredibly short period of time. That'd be useful in dense jungles where you might not have a long time to look at something whereas we humans evolved in the open savannah.

[Flying Dice]

The fact that evolution gave us imperfect memory isn't proof that imperfect memory is optimal.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding the process of natural selection. It's not about the engineering of optimal traits, it's about the perpetuation and dissemination of the best available traits. If a species has a widespread trait, it's because at some point in their history that trait made it easier for them to live long enough to reproduce, or was tied to a trait that did so.

Though as always, it's probably a good idea to emphasize that last bit. Evolution's definition of best is fairly specific, and only incidentally congruent with what we'd probably use the term for. If it doesn't effect reproduction and proliferation it basically doesn't matter; extended survival, health, happiness, improved capability, etc., is all secondary (if that) to that.

It's not so much best available as best available that has a sufficient impact on reproductive capability and genetic proliferation at a specific point in time. Which can be a pretty damn limited (and borderline random) subset of traits

Yeah, you'd like to hope that people understand that evolutionary advantage is wholly centered on reproductive efficacy, but it seems to be a pretty common misconception that it's about making the "perfect" being or some shit. I blame the conflation of religious ideas with reality, as per usual for this sort of dumb human-centric shit. That, or Pokemon.