[jwco]

Not clear what you lose. Your brain probably still has whatever memory of these moments it would have without the video, and you can choose not to watch the video. All I think you lose is the time you spend taking the video. But if the moments you spend taking the video are just moments you would spend simply observing, the difference is very little.

[mmahemoff]

Your brain doesn't have a cinematic memory of every moment. It's very malleable and memories will probably degrade more as you rely on this kind of thing more. Net effect may well be worthwhile, but it's definitely a downside to consider.

[jwco]

It's not clear how memories degrade as you rely on videos more, but it is an interesting hypothesis.

[atsaloli]

I agree with mmahemoff, your mind will be weaker to the extend you don't use it. Just like math -- if you start using a calculator, then when you don't have one, it'll take longer and harder to do it in your head.

Every moment of your life is recorded in your mind with full perceptions and a time tag and is /potentially/ accessible.

Dianetics posits it's pain and unconsciousness that obscures memories, and if you contact and discharge them, memories return (http://www.dianetics.org).

Personally, I found this to be true. It's very interesting (and pleasurable) to recover a "forgotten" experience in a Dianetics session, which you can do by twinning up with another person that's read Dianetics, or by getting a free intro session at a local Scientology organization.

http://www.amazon.com/Dianetics-Modern-Science-Mental-Englis...

[lwat]

Ah you're a scientologist - that explains your aversion to psychologists. Scientology is the worst, most evil organization I've ever had contact with. Just disgusting.

[TeMPOraL]

> Your brain probably still has whatever memory of these moments it would have without the video

I don't have a citation now, but there were studies done that suggest you actually don't have reliable memories of past events; the brain actually recomputes parts of them based on what you know now, thus sometimes making false memories.

[a-priori]

You're referring to the "generate-recognize" theory of memory recall. It's actually an interesting theory, which states that you can't actually recall memories directly -- at least ones from more than a few weeks ago -- because your brain does not store that much detail about them.

Instead, the theory states, memory recall is a rapid-fire, iterative process of "generating" details of a memory, then checking whether it matches the original. If it does, then the detail is 'recalled' and the process moves onto other details, in this way hopefully producing a reasonable reproduction of the original memory. There is some experimental evidence of this theory, but as far as I understand it, the theory is not entirely accepted. In my opinion, it's probably part of the story but not all, perhaps as an 'error correction' mechanism that fills in gaps but not for producing the entire memory.

What you're referring to about false memories is somewhat different and much better accepted. There's a lot of evidence that shows that memory recall is a destructive process: after recall, a memory becomes labile and must be reconsolidated into long-term storage. Essentially, recalling a memory destroys it and it must be re-encoded as a new memory. In that time while it is labile, details can be added or removed and changes can creep into it from your own thoughts or the suggestions of others. The changed version is usually indistinguishable from the original.

[jwco]

I'm interested in these comments. Do you have references and/or search terms for further learning?

[mmahemoff]

Many studies referenced here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory