The eidetic memory thing...

[tulpa001]

Has any tulpa actually been able to recall the exact words of a book you read once long ago, or is this a complete myth?

 

We don't think this is physically possible for the vast majority of the population, tulpa or no.

[Floh]

Cora didn't, and i'm prettymuch convinced it's not possible for a "normal" human brain.

 

A brain isn't a computer, memory is altered by time and is full of holes and affected a lot by feelings and perceptions.. Would have been great but I don't believe it's possible.

[Tewi]

A few people (just a few) have claimed this ability in the past. Also that their tulpas were the only ones that could do it. Of course, there are many more who are convinced their cats can sense their tulpas. They both have the same amount of evidence.

 

This is another "Nope" for us. The only type of thing related to this we may do is simply changing what would've been thought about, since we have different perspectives and ways of thinking from each other. Normally seen as "Get a second opinion from someone with a different perspective - in your own mind", but it can apply to a lot more. We can't recall things any other can't, but just based on how we specifically think we can get a similar, more realistic effect. Some of us remember things differently, not as in remember what happened differently but the process of recalling is from the same "lens" that we personally make our memories in, which we say "tints" them with a different feeling. Certainly each of us have remembered things that others have forgotten.

 

But it's definitely not eidetic. Nothing our mind wasn't probably capable of with just a single person in it. Rather, it ends up working differently in those same confines due to our influence, if that makes sense.

[tulpa001]

A brain is a computer, but it performs a type of lossy data compression on linguistic information that makes it impossible to remember exact words from your primary memory of a work. Repeated exposure can reduce this compression.

 

This is in addition to the memory fading over time. But my host has been able to recover lost memories that faded through prolonged internal focus.

[Two-tailed-tulpa]

"It really depends, I actually have pulled stuff from Kyle's memory that he completely forgot, but it's not precise enough to recite like a whole book or anything"

[jean-luc]

A brain is a computer, …

 

[rant]

 

No, it's not. The circuitry inside a CPU is designed to give the exact same answer every time. If a voltage of either 0 or 1.5v is expected but 1v is recieved, the signal is normalized back up to 1.5v. Everything happens in lock-step fasion, or is done in such a way to appear as if done in a lock-step fasion. Things happen exactly a certain number of times per second based on the clock cycle. When a packet of data is sent over the internet, a checksum is included such that even if a single bit changes due to RF noise or whatever, the packet is discarded and the sender tries again. At every layer, the computer performs every step exactly as instructed to a fault. In a human brain, absolutely everything is wishy-washy, there is no CPU clock, neurons just activate other neurons over and over, sometimes faster sometimes slower. All information is processed in a haphazard, chunky way. Everything is stored as things relating to other things. This is why humans can be bad at arithmatic compared to computers (what's 572.54*98888? Computer figured the answer out before you finished reading), yet there are no computer mathmeticians. A computer can emulate a brain very slowly, and a human can do math very slowly compared to computers.

 

So please, do not say that “a brain is a computer”, because they differ at the fundamental level.

 

[/rant]

[Linkzelda]

When asked this question, I think a mirror is set up on the host as well, and the connection they have with the inner workings of their mind that has all sorts of nuances, and chaos in general. Aspects like how important certain experiential context were, the impact they had in one's pursuit of knowledge, and such contribute to whatever accuracy involved in recalling information. Some people who claim to have this memory through birth react differently: some feel it's an exclusive thing that's given through birth, and cannot be learned, or, they believe that even if they got it through birth, conditioning it is just as important.

 

In other words, people who may not have been blessed with a better recall of information and experiential context can still reach towards it. And for the person that did get it through birth, presumably, if it's not conditioned, at some point when their cognition is compared to others, the brain may be less efficient. But again, this is all speculation, especially when talking about what neural workings are permanent can raise some eyebrows, or become branded as pseudo-science.

[Solune]

[rant]

 

It might be wrong to say brain = computer, but I definitely use computer analogies when thinking about brain/tupper stuff.

I don't know man, what else would you compare it to? I can't understand shit without comparisons. Das just how I do.

[Tewi]

We say that your brain "runs" tulpas parallel to you all the time. The brain is not really a computer in the traditional sense, but on the macroscopic level that most of us are capable of understanding, it basically is.

[| Eva |]

We say that your brain "runs" tulpas parallel to you all the time. The brain is not really a computer in the traditional sense, but on the macroscopic level that most of us are capable of understanding, it basically is.

 

What are the distinctions, to you, that makes the macroscopic level more understandable than the traditional sense that's just used as an analogy? Isn't the traditional sense basically understanding that the analogy is used to try and explain the inner workings of the brain? It seems macroscopic and traditional sense seems more like the same thing, unless of course, the macroscopic level you're talking about is more than representational models.

 

But if this is the case, it seems it's diving more into actually knowing the back-office of the brain; what instantiates this, that, and such.