/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14788395
why would you remember stuff you dont need?
permanence would just clog your brain

>>14788395
I used to have the ability to manually move information to my long-term memory, which is why I can still remember a list of verbs that I memorized for some extra credit thing in sixth grade (am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, has, have, had, do, does, did, may, might, must, can, could, shall, should, will, would). It was just a matter of repeating it enough. Now though, either because I'm storing so much more information or just because I'm old, I can't do it anymore.

>>14788522
Is that scientifically proven or are you defecating that straight from your ass

>>14788540
>scientifically proven
no such thing.
your finite brain cannot hold infinite information. simple as.
the source is indeed my ass

>>14788600
Nigger we don't live forever. Our brains are never getting the opportunity to hold infinite amounts of information.

>>14788540
the brain doesnt store any memory, the "memory" or "thought" is completely reconstructed every time in the brain

>>14788532
I don't think there's really such a thing as "long-term" memory. Our brains aren't computers with hard drives and RAM. The way memory works is more like OP's pic; you use things frequently and eventually the memory decay curve flattens out to a point where you won't have to worry about forgetting certain things within your lifetime.

But none of my memories seem to be immune from decline, including language. When I regularly wrote papers in school, I would rarely have to look up the meaning of a word or look for synonyms for some word I couldn't think of. When I started writing again after roughly a ten year gap, I had to stop and look for words and synonyms constantly because there were so many words I hardly ever used in conversation, but needed for writing. I hadn't forgotten them, I just wasn't easily recalling them. Eventually, I can imagine that my vocabulary would simply shrink back to the size I use for conversation. And if I went long enough without conversation, I'm sure even my conversational vocabulary would degrade as well.

>>14788627
>won't have to worry about forgetting certain things within your lifetime.
But they still decline? I need to confirm this.

>>14788627
this.

>>14788395
As I understand forgetting is an active process. Your brain makes concrete decisions about what memories to delete. You can actually block that process to keep memories alive for longer times.
( as described here: https://youtu.be/jqqU-0UgX0Y?t=70 )

So its not exactly like in OPs pic where memories degrade over time its just that the brain decides there are not useful anymore. You could say that could happen to any memory but in the context of a human lifetime I would make the hypothesis that there are memories you will never forget.

>>14788650
fight
>>14788627

>>14788652
I wouldnt say there is a big contradiction. Memories do degrade over time if there are not useful for you. Its just that the process cant be compared to an apple rotting away but more like deliberately removing branches from a tree.

But okay there is on thing I would fight: There is obviously a short-term and a long-term memory. Denying that is just retarded. As soon as you remembered something so and so often it moves to a space where it can stay for years. This can also happen if you have very strong emotions during the event like the first time you sucked a cock. There is definitely a threshold you pass in that process.

>>14788395
memories always deteriorate because our brain is plastic. if memories wouldnt deteriorate you couldnt form new ones and lose your intelligence. knowledge is overrated when you can have a device in your pocket that gives you access to all of human knowledge at any time anywhere. what matters is that you learn key concepts which you will not forget anyway. learning things by heart is the sign of a midwit idiot

>>14788845
16 year old detected
enjoy your tik-tok syndrome

>>14788395
It's worse than memories always being under deterioration.
The situation is more that memories are made up long after the fact by your brain's attempts to rationalize a story about what logically "must have" happened. Most it is lies.

WOULD ANYONE POST CREDIBLE SOURCES SUPPORTING THEIR ANSWERS INSTEAD OF JUST GIVING THEIR WORTHLESS OPINIONS

>>14788875
>when a normie watches a popsoi video and starts projecting

>>14788845
Not correct at all and all evidence about learning and retention and understanding etc. is against what you're saying.
Memorizing details increases retention and understanding and increases the ability to make connections between topics and develop new novel theories etc.

>>14788890
Idk why anyone would research this, it's obvious. All parts of you are declining as you age, why would memories be any different?

>>14788916
It's a 50-50. I guess I have to go with deteriorating instead of permanence.

>>14788615
Information still needs to be stored in order to perform the reconstruction. Reconstruction is just compressed storage, not an alternative to storage.

>>14788905
>all evidence
show it