Urist wrote: ↑Mon Aug 12, 2024 4:20 am
Odd question, here: how 'narrow' are a listel's memories of an event? That is, does her memory (and ability to recall it later) cover only what parts of some event or scene she paid attention to, or is it wider than that?
To use a well-known IRL experiment, say you told a listel to sit and watch a video of several humans passing a basketball back and forth, and she was under instructions to count exactly how many times the ball was passed and between which players. Then, as in the IRL experiment, another human dressed as a gorilla walked through the middle of the court. Assuming that the listel is like most humans and didn't notice the 'gorilla' because she was too focused on counting basketball passes, could she review her memory later and now 'see' the gorilla?
The short answer is that while a Listel's memory is not quite the same as a video camera that captures a scene in perfect detail, the Listel does remember things she experienced whether she consciously noticed them or not. So yes, she could review a memory and notice things that she did not notice before. Beryl could, for example, recall Alex's speech in English at some future time after she has learned what the words mean, and finally understand it -- which means she remembered the actual sounds that Alex uttered, and not some tokenized list of her conscious understanding of the words, because she didn't understand them at the time.
Since eidetic memory is supposedly a real thing (though as I understand it, there is some controversy around that), I have to make some educated guesses about how it works. The example that immediately comes to mind is music. When I remember a piece of music, it's almost like hearing it playing in my mind, and if I'm listening to music I'm familiar with I can usually tell whether it's from the same recording that I know, or whether it's from a different performance. I may be able to tell that it's different even if I can't consciously say exactly what the difference is. So it would seem that memory is more than just a catalogue of conscious thoughts.
I have seen documentaries about cognitive function in which they were monitoring the brainwaves of rats running through mazes, and they found that the rats seemed to be dreaming about the maze during later sleep, because the brainwaves were nearly identical. They weren't just thinking about it -- the brain activity included the motor sections of the brain -- they were reliving running the maze. A memory seems to be a recording of brain activity, which at the highest level of detail must be very detailed indeed... detailed enough to operate an organism's perceptions and actions.
People who have memories of traumatic events -- the example I am most familiar with is of combat veterans recalling intense moments -- say they can see the moment happening clearly as if it was right in front of them, even many decades later. So it seems that memory has the capability to remember events in great detail, and that our brain processes constantly cull excess information to eliminate that which is deemed not necessary. The chemical state of arousal marks traumatic memories as very important, so they are retained in great detail.
If eidetic memory is a real thing, then I suppose that the way it must work is that all memories are stored as if they are tinged with trauma, and the process of culling short term memory into truncated long-term memory either doesn't work at all or works at a reduced rate.