| > It implies enough capacity to store everything. But what you describe is not storing everything. I am describing what GP is describing. The original comment does not imply storage any more than mine. The comment didn't say anything about storage, you inserted that yourself. > Which means you're not storing all the information. You're not storing everything. Again, storing everything was never a requirement. If someone pulls up a JPEG of the Mona Lisa and asks you what it is, you say it's the Mona Lisa, despite the compressed format. Put a gaussian blur over it, make it black and white, reduce it to an 8 by 8 grid, it's still the Mona Lisa. You remember what it looks like, even if you can't perfectly recreate it. Loss of data associated with a memory is not the same as loss of the memory. > In other words, each time you store a new memory, you throw some old information away. No, that is not equivalent. Paint a canvas. Then paint more on the canvas. Keep doing it again and again, each brush stroke smearing those beneath. Eventually you won't be able to see your original brush strokes, but at no point in time did you remove any paint from the canvas. Your first brush strokes are still there. They contribute to the final form, even if they've been radically transformed such that their individual contribution could not possibly be isolated. > Which the person I was responding to said does not happen. And it doesn't. The original comment stated very clearly that memory does not work like a computer filing system. That doesn't mean the brain works like a computer filing system with unlimited storage capacity, it means the brain uses a fundamentally different architecture without analogues to storage and deletion. |
It might not be for you. I think it was for the poster I originally responded to. If you don't, then I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. From other posts in this discussion, I don't think I'm the only one who was interpreting what that poster said the way I interpret it.
For the rest of your post, it seems to me like you're shifting your ground. At any rate, I don't understand what your model of human memory actually is. If you have some kind of reference that describes it, that would be helpful. Your analogies are not conveying anything useful to me.