I was reading up on eidetic and photographic memory and decided to construct a quick model regarding memory. Rather than concerning myself with stores of memory (as other models would seem to) I simply split it into 3 simple stages as follows:

1) Intake - The ability to take in information, all information can be took in eventually, only speed of intake varies.
2) Storage - The ability to hold information, the more information took in the faster it is lost, and the less information took in the more unpredictable its loss is. Would have similar pattern to radioactive decay half-lives.
3) Recollection & Separation - The ability to recall information and separate it from unrelated information (information from other memories). I could conceive these as perhaps being two separate stages, happening simultaneously.

I was wondering, what do you guys think of this model?

If I understand it correctly, what is new here is just one store. I can go with that. I can go with limited capacity thus need to lose information. But I cant go with random or unpredictable loss as universal principle.

tuco wrote:If I understand it correctly, what is new here is just one store. I can go with that. I can go with limited capacity thus need to lose information. But I cant go with random or unpredictable loss as universal principle.

Stages, not stores. Not separate locations to hold information, but periods in the holding of said information.

It's not random or unpredictable loss of information when you have lots of information in the sense that, you can say when half of the information will be lost. It's just unpredictable if you took just a single indivisibly small piece of information. You can therefore conclude the trend of losing information, but can't tell when someone will lose a specific piece of information.

Stages still take place somewhere but alright.

I am lead to believe, based on my experience with people with mental conditions, that its not all that/always unpredictable what information will be kept and lost.

tuco wrote:Stages still take place somewhere but alright.

I am lead to believe, based on my experience with people with mental conditions, that its not all that/always unpredictable what information will be kept and lost.

Well, when memory blocks take place it'd certainly be predictable as it's less a case of the natural memory process but the mind stepping in to ensure the failure of such process, but in other cases where it's predictable couldn't it be down to the time given to take in the information?

It could be number of factors. I was commenting on this:

the more information took in the faster it is lost, and the less information took in the more unpredictable its loss is. Would have similar pattern to radioactive decay half-lives

Which, in my ignorant opinion, is not how it works in general. If it would, people with Alzheimer would remember what they had for lunch, which they do not. They do however remember what happened 50 years ago. Well, at least have, more or less accurate, recollection. Now, its not possible to determine how much time they had to store such information, but it seems clear that time/volume ratio is not the only factor, perhaps not even the most important one.

I do understand that, for example, hearing 200 words per minute and hearing 2 word per minute influences recollection of said words, but but this is not a principle (new) model of memorization can be based upon.

The other factors, influencing recollection, are imo of most interest.

tuco wrote:It could be number of factors. I was commenting on this:

the more information took in the faster it is lost, and the less information took in the more unpredictable its loss is. Would have similar pattern to radioactive decay half-lives

Which, in my ignorant opinion, is not how it works in general. If it would, people with Alzheimer would remember what they had for lunch, which they do not. They do however remember what happened 50 years ago. Well, at least have, more or less accurate, recollection. Now, its not possible to determine how much time they had to store such information, but it seems clear that time/volume ratio is not the only factor, perhaps not even the most important one.

I do understand that, for example, hearing 200 words per minute and hearing 2 word per minute influences recollection of said words, but but this is not a principle (new) model of memorization can be based upon.

The other factors, influencing recollection, are imo of most interest.

Ah yes, people with Alzheimer do have predictable memory loss due to Alzheimers, I'm talking about a typical person, ignoring any additional factors like mental conditions or so forth.

If we tried to model standard memorisation alongside all the different possible memory-affected conditions, it would undoubtedly be an impossible task. You have some conditions causing loss of recent memory, some causing loss of the oldest memories... At least some of those however, can be deduced down to an altering of the normal functioning of a persons brain due to a change in structure or damage of the structure of the brain.

Mind you, I'm probably at an equally ignorant and naive point as you.

Alright, Alzheimer was not a good example. How about drug abuse?

Do I understand it correctly then this model basically says the higher volume/time input ratio the lesser rate of storage and recollection? Because if so, that is pretty much ordinary and I do not see what new it brings

In general ability to store and recall information, given constant input, is based on other factors like learning method, materials or environment - associations.

Analyzing composability in a sparse encoding model of memorization and association - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4640826/

A new mathematical model for assessment of memorization dynamics - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16255383

Unlike random decay.

tuco wrote:Alright, Alzheimer was not a good example. How about drug abuse?

Do I understand it correctly then this model basically says the higher volume/time input ratio the lesser rate of storage and recollection? Because if so, that is pretty much ordinary and I do not see what new it brings

In general ability to store and recall information, given constant input, is based on other factors like learning method, materials or environment - associations.

Analyzing composability in a sparse encoding model of memorization and association - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4640826/

A new mathematical model for assessment of memorization dynamics - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16255383

Unlike random decay.

Drug abuse I'd also probably place under a change to the normal functioning of the brain...I'll have to read up those documents (not got time at the moment), it'd be rather interesting if they have a mathematical pattern for it.

Why do you assume limits to memory storage? It's my understanding there isn't any known limit, there must be one at some point, but supposedly none of us really get to it. The eidetics obviously store vast amounts of info, far more than most folks, it they're not hitting limits, I don't think it's going to be a factor. Or I'm full of it, I can't remember where I've read that, but it was 2 or 3 independent, decent sources that I've heard that from.

crank wrote:Why do you assume limits to memory storage? It's my understanding there isn't any known limit, there must be one at some point, but supposedly none of us really get to it. The eidetics obviously store vast amounts of info, far more than most folks, it they're not hitting limits, I don't think it's going to be a factor. Or I'm full of it, I can't remember where I've read that, but it was 2 or 3 independent, decent sources that I've heard that from.

Well that would come back to the point of memory loss being like radioactive decay (but in another sense to previously mentioned).

Using the analogy, if you have 100 particles of an element with a half-life of a day, by tomorrow you'll have lost 50 particles, if you have 1 million particles of that element, you'll have lost 0.5 million, a considerably greater amount.

The same principle I think might have with memory, even if it not be quite so proportional...