scottieweiss: Agreed. Our brain retains everything we've ever witnessed.
Even when we dismiss the "using 10% of our brains" (although the dealer said "accessing 20%") as complete bunk, what you said is simply hearsay. There's absolutely no credible evidence that suggests our brains retain every piece of information (in whatever "form") we have witnessed.
There
is evidence that we are able to store particular types of information (e.g. data) with
repeated stimuli; which to us seems obvious and self-evident, but is worth pointing out as it's actually
scientifically verifiable.
There
is also evidence that important events that stimulate the brain (even when one-off) are retained by the brain. But there is simply no evidence that without continual focus (and possibly repetition) the brain will be able to recall and process information that was simply
glanced at in the manner shown in the movie. That's just nonsense.
Hell, we can't even
train the brain to do it, otherwise speeding up our reading time exponentially. The ability to actually process information "blankly" (just by viewing it without
noticing it) was make-believe.
And you can't blame Vernon this time as it was an essential part of how the movie represented Eddie's "talents".
scottieweiss: I've asked two doctors about this. They both say it's true.
Can you point me to the journals that have published their work on this matter? Again, otherwise it's just hearsay.
Doctors can say a lot of cräp. I had one who actually tried to convince me that using BMI was a reliable way to accurately assess whether a patient was a healthy weight. He clearly didn't understand how it worked.
I certainly wouldn't trust a doctor who wasn't in some specialized branch of neurophysiology/brain research.
reply
share
blaqueknight2000
13 years ago
Jewel, have you ever heard of photographic memory?
There is also Superior Autobiographical Memory. Look that up. Its rare but it exists. They found that people with the superior memory trait usually have a larger than normal caudate nucleus and temporal lobe.
The brain is capable of a lot of things that we have yet to fully understand.
reply
share
jewelparsons1234
13 years ago
blaqueknight2000, photographic memory works differently to how it is popularly imagined.
First off, it's not entirely clear that it is actually a novel "type" of memory at all... many ordinary people display this type of visual memory processing when attempting to learn new information. True, those with supposedly "photographic" memory tend to recall the visual cues/elements in detail (e.g. what colour neck-tie someone was wearing). However the same is true of people who use other mnemonic devices (that are not necessarily visual) - thus it is unclear just how "trained" the subject is. People often have incredibly unusual methods of how to rote memorize different sequences. This is the case with, for example, many human calculators (in short, they remember various types of calculations to aid in their processing of a particular result).
In any case, actual documented evidence of eidetic memory recall is far more sparse than is commonly thought. Generally the recall appears to be limited (though I accept in a few cases of unusual "talent" it would be difficult to practically test the limits).
It certainly is a far stretch to go from that and deduce that the brain "retains everything it experiences", even items that were not focused upon (e.g. quick glance of the page of a book 10 years ago like in the movie).
Likewise, I'm not going to get too excited about SAM until more evidence starts poring in and we study it in more detail. The problem with many scientific studies today is that (due to the urgent need/simply desire to get funding) much of the analysis is rushed and very little is followed through. Simplistic headlines grab attention, and the details of the study are often obscured. Much of these things warrant further studies, alas this doesn't occur.
There's a precedent for this. It was once thought that chess grand masters must have eidetic memory, as they were able to recall the exact positions of pieces on a chess board in a given game. However it was later found (or should I say, further study/analysis revealed) that when the pieces were arranged on a board randomly, in such a manner as would never occur in a game, the grand masters showed no better recall than novices. Over time they had developed methods of memorizing different sequences of moves on a chess board, through many years of practice.
I'm not saying Jill Price and Marilu Henner aren't interesting cases; but I'll hold the jury out on anything till we come back with further testing and data.
Again, I'm sure it's possible that the brain is capable of many things we don't yet fully understand, but we shouldn't pre-decide what those things are. Stating that the "brain retains everything we ever experience" has become a tautology and I certainly won't accept it as fact until there is good evidence of the same.
reply
share
blaqueknight2000
13 years ago
Jewel,
I understand the basics of how photographic memory works. I also understand the slight differences between photographic and eidetic memory.
Let's not forget that we are discussing a fictional drug that has fictional effects on the brain. Also, let's not forget that we are not only talking about memory but synthesis of information. Remember when Vernon said "they've found these receptors..." When I first heard that, I immediately thought that he was probably referring to AMPA and NMDA receptors. His explanation was not clear, nor was it complete, plus it was coming from Vernon, so it was not reliable. Still, it was an insight as to the focus of the drug and what the drug could do.
In the book (from what I understand), one of the traits of the drug was that it makes you hyper-focus. While it is not stated in the movie, the writers wrote it with the assumption of that understanding (a mistake on their parts). This omitted trait is part of the reason for so many questions, like why he didn't immediately pay off the loan shark. So, while there is no scientific evidence to support the recollection of say, a name on a book, can trigger memories of pages of information from said book - there doesn't need to be. Its fiction. We can recall all sorts of information randomly that we have long forgotten. Who's to say that this drug isn't some super ampakine that increases synaptic plasticity while also allowing greater connections or even the reformation of memory synapses?
Well, anyway, I agree with you about not accepting the theory that the brain retains everything we ever experience without some proof. For the sake of the movie however, I am certainly willing to suspend disbelief for fun.
reply
share
jewelparsons1234
13 years ago
blaqueknight2000
I'll simply summarize your post rather than get into a long pointless discussion about the feasibility of stimulating specific synaptic receptors etc.
You're saying, "it's fiction". Anything can happen you just have to use your imagination.
I'll respond, "Fine. I don't care. But then don't make assertions that cannot be proved and claim they have a scientific basis". Yes, the other poster did that (or alluded), and if you'll remember I started off by responding to that original tautology I mentioned.
For what it's worth, I really really really enjoyed this film (irony, huh?). Like you I saw it as entertainment. However I can't stand it when people then try and justify the claims of folks who are obviously just writing fiction for the purposes of entertainment. They weren't trying to get you guys to defend their pseudo-science guys. If they really had any clue how to accurately gauge the science chances are they'd be (trill?)billionaire pharmaceutical manufacturers and they wouldn't care what cr^p you guys watched.
So when some clueless jerk tries to say, "oh, but where's the science?" explain to him/her/it this wonderful concept of fiction we humans have and how if he/she/it took his/her/it thumb outta their a--(es) they might actually enjoy life a little more.
You know, for future reference.
reply
share
arentol
13 years ago
There is a kid who started composing music at age 2 with absolutely no training or any external explanation of how musical notes work. He can actually compose TWO songs at the same time, claiming he can literally hear the music for both in his head at once. And when I say he composes songs, I mean he can sit in front of a piece of paper or his computer and write every single note for every single instrument dead on perfect the first time, and do it all in a few hours for an entire orchestra. No re-writes needed, as what comes out on paper is the song as it should be, and nobody can improve on them. He is considered by many to be the greatest composer in over two centuries, his only competition for greatest of all time being Mozart and Bach.
Some people can do math like you can't begin to conceive. Some people can learn languages in a matter of weeks and speak a dozen or more. Heck, even Michael Jordan is clearly a mental aberration. His reaction time, his ability to read the flow of a group of defenders and find the one hole that allowed him to drive the middle and score is truly exceptional. There are people that can partially control autonomous functions in their bodies, most through training, some through "instinct". Many people can do creative things that are beyond the ability of most people. Even writing a decent novel is something 99% of us could never do, let alone a great novel. Watch that Stan-Lee superhero show, there are a lot people on their who's bodies and minds are capable of completely insane things. And the SAM stuff is real, and it is amazing. The fact that everyone one of these people can remember this stuff back to near-infancy is the proof it isn't Mnemonic trick or something. It is the nature of their brain.
We may use 100% of our brain, but that doesn't mean we use our brain to 100% of its ability. There is a HUGE difference there.
reply
share
nickshy
13 years ago
There is a kid who started composing music at age 2 with absolutely no training or any external explanation of how musical notes work. He can actually compose TWO songs at the same time, claiming he can literally hear the music for both in his head at once.
Who's the kid???
reply
share