This is a tough one. Pretty convoluted.
I can't testify to any one else's memory but I have a theory about my own. It may sound familiar to some of you.
When I was taking my boards for my chiropractic license, one of the doctors monitoring the test looked at my answer booklet and advised me to write longer answers to the questions. When I asked him why and indicated I had answered the question, he said "That's what they want". To me, any question which can be answered "yes" or "no" should be answered that way. It was then that I began to reflect on how I stored and retrieved information.
This process led me to a theory which, right or wrong, describes what I believe. Whatever the subject, any and all information coming in through all my senses is collated, analyzed, an impression or judgement made which is the essence of the meaning of the information. I believe that for me, this result is stored in one place and the information which led to the result somewhere else. Much like the computer, a trail or address is stored for its retrieval at a later date. When this information is to be retrieved, the essence is encountered first and, if the detail is not required at the moment, it is left undisturbed. A problem arises when the detail is not accessed for long periods of time. The address of the location becomes dimmer and dimmer until finally they are lost. An example of this is when you know someone in present time whom you really don't like, and you don't see that person again in a very long time, when you encounter him again, you remember that you don't like him but can't remember why. Has that happened to you?
At any rate, to get back to my story, the high level memory serves me well until someone asks me "why?"
If I can't locate the details, I look stupid. Others I know have memories which seem to store all the information in one place as a package. For them, it's a matter of going to one location, which is accessed more frequently, to retrieve everything at the same time. I think this is better because it doesn't leave information dormant and easier to lose or forget. You can't tell yourself, "I'll never need that again", like a person's name. Maybe if information isn't accessed for long periods of time "auto delete" takes place.
Sciences are different in that even if you get the gist of the thing under consideration, it is not enough. In this case the essence is not adequate. You must remember the details. I don't see how my memory can separate the two, essence and detail, as it does in the circumstances above so it must store them together. Why, I ask, if it can do this here, why not there. I think it is a matter of necessity because it can't distinguish the detail from the essence.
If any of you think this is an attempt to excuse my forgetfulness, you are wrong but to tell the truth, I can't remember why I thought this was a good idea.
\
I can't testify to any one else's memory but I have a theory about my own. It may sound familiar to some of you.
When I was taking my boards for my chiropractic license, one of the doctors monitoring the test looked at my answer booklet and advised me to write longer answers to the questions. When I asked him why and indicated I had answered the question, he said "That's what they want". To me, any question which can be answered "yes" or "no" should be answered that way. It was then that I began to reflect on how I stored and retrieved information.
This process led me to a theory which, right or wrong, describes what I believe. Whatever the subject, any and all information coming in through all my senses is collated, analyzed, an impression or judgement made which is the essence of the meaning of the information. I believe that for me, this result is stored in one place and the information which led to the result somewhere else. Much like the computer, a trail or address is stored for its retrieval at a later date. When this information is to be retrieved, the essence is encountered first and, if the detail is not required at the moment, it is left undisturbed. A problem arises when the detail is not accessed for long periods of time. The address of the location becomes dimmer and dimmer until finally they are lost. An example of this is when you know someone in present time whom you really don't like, and you don't see that person again in a very long time, when you encounter him again, you remember that you don't like him but can't remember why. Has that happened to you?
At any rate, to get back to my story, the high level memory serves me well until someone asks me "why?"
If I can't locate the details, I look stupid. Others I know have memories which seem to store all the information in one place as a package. For them, it's a matter of going to one location, which is accessed more frequently, to retrieve everything at the same time. I think this is better because it doesn't leave information dormant and easier to lose or forget. You can't tell yourself, "I'll never need that again", like a person's name. Maybe if information isn't accessed for long periods of time "auto delete" takes place.
Sciences are different in that even if you get the gist of the thing under consideration, it is not enough. In this case the essence is not adequate. You must remember the details. I don't see how my memory can separate the two, essence and detail, as it does in the circumstances above so it must store them together. Why, I ask, if it can do this here, why not there. I think it is a matter of necessity because it can't distinguish the detail from the essence.
If any of you think this is an attempt to excuse my forgetfulness, you are wrong but to tell the truth, I can't remember why I thought this was a good idea.
\
No comments:
Post a Comment