also, thanks for the ikiru link. Sounds interesting. I'll probably view it shortly.
I'm not questioning the storage capacity of our memories. More the retention rate and the fidelity.InkL0sed wrote: Actually, you probably remember far more than you think you do. The brain's "storage", so to speak, is far greater than you'll ever need.
For an extreme example, take the Russian journalist called S in scientific literature who had a synesthesia which converted words into images. This allowed him to remember literally everything he ever heard, by unconsciously using the method of the loci. And when I say everything, I mean to the point where a psychologist who tested him for years would ask him to repeat long series of random numbers which the psychologist read aloud just a few moments ago, a few days ago, months, years – and S remembered perfectly every time. He couldn't not remember everything.
I don't know about you, but I've had plenty of cases where I forget something, I try to remember it and I do, and I'm absolutely sure I have the correct memory, only it turns out it's wrong. Our mind really likes to fill in the blanks.
Also, I've read that as you remember stuff, your original memory doesn't remain unchanged as it would on a computer, but is actually sort of fussed with the memory of you remembering the original memory, which again can distort it.
Ah, found a link: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/03/ ... on-effect/
Is it verified in any way that his memories are true?InkL0sed wrote: Another guy once conducted a very simple experiment on his memory: every day, he wrote something down - just a few sentences - about something memorable that happened that day. He did this for a decade (I think; in any case it was a long time). After he stopped, he went back through each day. Many days he could remember simply by reading the sentences; if he didn't, he did his best to find people or things or places associated with that day, in order to remember it. It turned out that after a while, he could remember something of every day. Just to be clear, this man was not a savante, not abnormal in any way.
agree that humans are in a state of flux. Why must our identities incorporate this fact?InkL0sed wrote:Also, Haggis, Sartre would say that humans are always in a state of flux. Therefore our identities must incorporate the fact that we change.
How about our identities incorporate some ammount of change, but when it passes a certain threshold you become a different guy.
Yes, strictly speaking the me from a milisecond ago is different from the current me, but this doesn't invalidate my argument, to quote you: beardy-guy fallacy :p
Well, I agree with that. I view life in a similar way.BigBallinStalin wrote: For me, I like to borrow from Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Different stages with their respective segments are slowly progressing towards some optimum amount at various rates until each one meets an ideal equilibrium. In other words, my self is experiencing constant growth and change. I'm not "dying" or going through stages A, B, C, D, then E in chronological sequence (as Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests). Instead, I am constantly evolving into an ideal version of my self, and that ideal version tends to shift as I can look farther over the horizon.
Death is the end of the progress.
However, you haven't really said why "closer to equilibrium current you" should be considered the same person as "farther from equilibrium, 10 years ago you".
