On Jan 19, 1998 Natasha and Anders discussed:
"Natasha Vita More (fka Nancie Clark)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Check out cover article "How Memory Works" (Newsweek, June 15) by Geoffrey
> Cowley and Anne Underwood.
> Interesting point: "Perfect retention may sound like a godsend, but when
> the hippocampus gets overly permissive, the results can be devastating."
> Superhuman memories: "These savants can recite colossal strings of facts,
> words and numbers. But most are incapable of abstract thought. Lacking a
> filter on their experience, they're powerless to make sense of it."
It might turn out that the way we develop semantic memories, i.e. abstract information, is the gradual melding together of our memories. That means we tend to loose their clarity, but we gain in generalization ability.
This is something that interests me with memory enhancement. Is it possible to both have the cake and eat it? If the multiple memory trace model of Moscovitch and Nadal is true, then it might be possible to tweak the consolidation processes to retain clear memories and get abstraction. But this model is rather controversial (cf. the latest issue of Current Opinion in Neurobiology).
Questions for Anders and anyone else who feels qualified:
(1) What do you believe the feasible limits of memory enhancement will
(1) What do you believe the feasible limits of memory enhancement willbe ultimately?
(2) Would uploading likely remove all the blocked pathways and enable complete access?
(3) How useful would these recovered memories be if their clarity was compromised due to the constructive and confabulatory nature of memory?