developing photogenic memory
Pages: 12
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
I have noticed that the immense amount of studies that me and my friends have been doing is making us develop the ability to learn things really fast as in my country we have a rote learning system of education.
My main point is that something happens to the human brain when it tries to cram huge amount of information in a short amount of time again and again.
Its really weird as initially it took me a large amount of time to learn even small things but now even undeliberately am i remebering the number plates of vehicles , almost every word of some week old conversations.
Do you think that if each and every human being in the world tries to study even a little bit then humans would evolve super minds in a few generations such that they are able to retain information for long periods of time like computers and store data in their heads as fast as oomputers?
PS-sorry my english is bad.
My main point is that something happens to the human brain when it tries to cram huge amount of information in a short amount of time again and again.
Its really weird as initially it took me a large amount of time to learn even small things but now even undeliberately am i remebering the number plates of vehicles , almost every word of some week old conversations.
Do you think that if each and every human being in the world tries to study even a little bit then humans would evolve super minds in a few generations such that they are able to retain information for long periods of time like computers and store data in their heads as fast as oomputers?
PS-sorry my english is bad.
First off, I don't believe the initial premise (that your memory has been improving from memorizing things), nor do I believe that rote memorization is effective as a learning method, as learning involves more than simple information storage.
No. Lamarckian evolution has been disproven.
| Do you think that if each and every human being in the world tries to study even a little bit then humans would evolve super minds in a few generations |
Last edited on
No, it is a cool skill to have developed, but there is a significant limit: you really only retain what you use. There may be that one or two car plate or computer code that stands out after years, but all the other ones will fall into “stuff kind of like that” and be generally forgotten mush.
There is also a misconception that humans record information verbatim. Human memory is actually reconstructive. So those conversations you are ‘remembering verbatim’ are... well, not actually verbatim. You have actually changed details about them and are unaware of it, simply because that’s how the human mind works.
You can do a simple informal experiment: Digitally record a conversation with a friend which you intend to remember. Wait two weeks before listening to the recording. You’ll be surprised both by what you do remember and what you have changed. (Remember, this “experiment” is strictly non-rigorous.)
Human perception and memory systems is a fascinating area of study if you want to get into it.
[edit] Oh, er, also: learning doesn’t affect genetics, alas.
There is also a misconception that humans record information verbatim. Human memory is actually reconstructive. So those conversations you are ‘remembering verbatim’ are... well, not actually verbatim. You have actually changed details about them and are unaware of it, simply because that’s how the human mind works.
You can do a simple informal experiment: Digitally record a conversation with a friend which you intend to remember. Wait two weeks before listening to the recording. You’ll be surprised both by what you do remember and what you have changed. (Remember, this “experiment” is strictly non-rigorous.)
Human perception and memory systems is a fascinating area of study if you want to get into it.
[edit] Oh, er, also: learning doesn’t affect genetics, alas.
Last edited on
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
Lamarckian evolution its for immediate generation.I am talking about longer periods of time like 1000 years or so.Just like we got eyes because we needed to see, hands because we needed to work etc.
No, Larmarckian evolution is the idea that acquired traits can be passed down. Time or number of generations are not boundary conditions.
Eyes and hands are the result of random mutations and selective pressures. You can't train your body to grow hands, unless your body is somehow already able to do that.
Eyes and hands are the result of random mutations and selective pressures. You can't train your body to grow hands, unless your body is somehow already able to do that.
Yes suyashsing234, under selective pressures, a population's average intelligence can change for better or worse (over the course of thousands of years), but that really doesn't relate to the concept of practicing memorization to help your offspring become smarter, learning like that is not genetic to any degree. Your first post said "if every human being in the world tries to study a bit, [they would] evolve super minds in a few generations" -- that is not feasible, and would only be feasible over very long periods of times, where only the most intelligent were encouraged to breed by the society.
But apart from the questionable ethics of that, I'd hazard to guess there could be negative implications of such a society if taken to the extreme (in order to be a selective pressure), where intelligence almost becomes a ritual, and more and more complicated customs and rules have to be set as means of pruning the population, which could then bring undesirable traits, and lower trust and cohesion between those who are seen as unintelligent, and those who are seen as more intelligent
But encouraging people to study and go to school is certainly something admirable! I get carried off by the extreme example.
But apart from the questionable ethics of that, I'd hazard to guess there could be negative implications of such a society if taken to the extreme (in order to be a selective pressure), where intelligence almost becomes a ritual, and more and more complicated customs and rules have to be set as means of pruning the population, which could then bring undesirable traits, and lower trust and cohesion between those who are seen as unintelligent, and those who are seen as more intelligent
But encouraging people to study and go to school is certainly something admirable! I get carried off by the extreme example.
Last edited on
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
We could really build a society of superhumans where only the people who excel in their fields are allowed to have children.Like only the top athletes,top scientists,top entertainers,top workers,etc are allowed to have children.
I read about natural selection 2 years back in beetles where all the green beatles survived because they could hide in the grass but all the red beatles died because they could could be seen by eagle in the green grass.
We could make it to natural selection done by humans.
I read about natural selection 2 years back in beetles where all the green beatles survived because they could hide in the grass but all the red beatles died because they could could be seen by eagle in the green grass.
We could make it to natural selection done by humans.
suyashsing234: I'm just going to leave you this homework. Have a think on these questions and then report back to us.
1. Who gets to sort athletes, scientists, entertainer, workers, etc. from "best" to "worst"?
2. What percentage of each of those groups would you say should get to reproduce? Why that number instead of another?
3. What economic effects can you predict from your answer to question #2? For example, some countries are being forced to increase the minimum retirement age because their younger generations are less populous than their older generations, and the reduced income from young workers would otherwise not be enough to sustain the retirees.
4. Would you be willing to give up your right to reproduce in order to be a part of this hypothetical society, even when the benefits might not manifest in a hundred generations?
1. Who gets to sort athletes, scientists, entertainer, workers, etc. from "best" to "worst"?
2. What percentage of each of those groups would you say should get to reproduce? Why that number instead of another?
3. What economic effects can you predict from your answer to question #2? For example, some countries are being forced to increase the minimum retirement age because their younger generations are less populous than their older generations, and the reduced income from young workers would otherwise not be enough to sustain the retirees.
4. Would you be willing to give up your right to reproduce in order to be a part of this hypothetical society, even when the benefits might not manifest in a hundred generations?
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
1. Their perfomance in their respective fields sorts them out.
2.I read somewhere that 4 billion is believed to be the adequate population that should be present on earth so percentages would be divided equally or according to some really well thought out formula such that population remains around 4 billion.
3.Everything has a bad side which we can only reduce but not eliminate.Better control population now than never.They have almost stopped pensions in India to government employees(not in army,air force and navy).
4.Ofcourse.
PS-Remember i am 16 years old and probably adults have the craving to produce children which i dont know about because i have seen even people who cannot afford a 1 time meal produce 2 children.
2.I read somewhere that 4 billion is believed to be the adequate population that should be present on earth so percentages would be divided equally or according to some really well thought out formula such that population remains around 4 billion.
3.Everything has a bad side which we can only reduce but not eliminate.Better control population now than never.They have almost stopped pensions in India to government employees(not in army,air force and navy).
4.Ofcourse.
PS-Remember i am 16 years old and probably adults have the craving to produce children which i dont know about because i have seen even people who cannot afford a 1 time meal produce 2 children.
1. You haven't answered the question. Presumably for each field we would want an objective metric that's representative of their contribution to society. Who gets to decide what that metric is? Like, suppose we sort entertainers by popularity. Why that metric instead of a different one?
2 and 3. Again, you haven't answered the question.
The point of my questions was to make you think about the implications of your idea. There's no way you really did that in 15 minutes. If you can't answer these questions then the intellectually honest conclusion you should come to is that perhaps it's not a good idea after all.
2 and 3. Again, you haven't answered the question.
The point of my questions was to make you think about the implications of your idea. There's no way you really did that in 15 minutes. If you can't answer these questions then the intellectually honest conclusion you should come to is that perhaps it's not a good idea after all.
@suyashsing234
Did you really write this?
Do you know what "eugenics" means?
Do you know what happened in Europe in the middle of the 20th century?
I think perhaps you should read a little history as well as computer science.
In case you aren't familiar with it, here is the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which your country is a signatory.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
You can start with Article 1.
Did you really write this?
| We could really build a society of superhumans where only the people who excel in their fields are allowed to have children. |
Do you know what "eugenics" means?
Do you know what happened in Europe in the middle of the 20th century?
I think perhaps you should read a little history as well as computer science.
In case you aren't familiar with it, here is the UN Declaration on Human Rights, to which your country is a signatory.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
You can start with Article 1.
Last edited on
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
I think i am sounding evil but i am not evil.
Yes eugenics was also followed by hitler.(something about Aryan race)
I will be reading history next year possibly while preparing for UPSC exam.
Yes eugenics was also followed by hitler.(something about Aryan race)
I will be reading history next year possibly while preparing for UPSC exam.
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
i get sorted out through my exams and then no one cares about failures because they are useless.I am above average student but there are lot like me.This means i am incompetent while toppers are competent so their kind will be better for earth.This goes for every field like entertainment, science, government etc.This way there will be toppers among toppers who will be much better and so on.Especially there will be no completely useless people like beggars.
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
@lastchance
There are so many examples where these articles are not followed.I dont remember much about them but probably an international journalist would.
There are so many examples where these articles are not followed.I dont remember much about them but probably an international journalist would.
I think at this point it's worthwhile to list some of suyashsing234's beliefs about people.
1. People can be trivially sorted into a 1D axis that summarizes their quality as a person.
2. Exam scores are apparently a good enough metric for this purpose.
3. "Toppers" can do no wrong, and "bottommers" can do no good.
4. Homeless people are not homeless because of unfortunate circumstances that may be beyond their control, or anything like that. They're homeless because they're shit people.
5. (Corollary of #3 and #4) No "topper" will ever be homeless, nor will suyashsing234 ever be homeless.
Is this a cultural thing? Is it because of the castes thing in India?
1. People can be trivially sorted into a 1D axis that summarizes their quality as a person.
2. Exam scores are apparently a good enough metric for this purpose.
3. "Toppers" can do no wrong, and "bottommers" can do no good.
4. Homeless people are not homeless because of unfortunate circumstances that may be beyond their control, or anything like that. They're homeless because they're shit people.
5. (Corollary of #3 and #4) No "topper" will ever be homeless, nor will suyashsing234 ever be homeless.
Is this a cultural thing? Is it because of the castes thing in India?
Last edited on
Once again I have managed to inadvertently join a thread that is going to quickly degenerate into some stupid flame war.
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
@helios
1 yes
2 yes for those in academic field
3 not true.Even high level people commit crimes
4 all the homeless people i see in my city are either well bodied youth, old people who were well bodied youth, or children produced by homeless people and sometimes their arms and legs are chopped off so they can get more money from people.
5.i f i get homeless my producing children will negatively impact me and the society.True that there are exceptions where a child from humble beginnings becomes an asset but their contribution becomes very less by the damage caused by other homeless.
Yes there is still a caste system in India much supported by the government.The government wants to remove caste system by giving benefits on the basis of caste system.
1 yes
2 yes for those in academic field
3 not true.Even high level people commit crimes
4 all the homeless people i see in my city are either well bodied youth, old people who were well bodied youth, or children produced by homeless people and sometimes their arms and legs are chopped off so they can get more money from people.
5.i f i get homeless my producing children will negatively impact me and the society.True that there are exceptions where a child from humble beginnings becomes an asset but their contribution becomes very less by the damage caused by other homeless.
Yes there is still a caste system in India much supported by the government.The government wants to remove caste system by giving benefits on the basis of caste system.
closed account (1vf9z8AR)
@Duthomhas
I did your thing and i discovered that the information i remebered was accurate but it was in different sentences(like video converts from mp4 to flv).I read on net and discovered it is called mandela effect and everyone remembers the information in same way.
I did your thing and i discovered that the information i remebered was accurate but it was in different sentences(like video converts from mp4 to flv).I read on net and discovered it is called mandela effect and everyone remembers the information in same way.
Pages: 12