7 ms·
I don’t necessarily disagree with the theory you outlined. My disagreement is towards the wording of the part where one may assume a memory is being forever alt
by sysbin 7y ago
I don’t necessarily disagree with the theory you outlined. My disagreement is towards the wording of the part where one may assume a memory is being forever altered or modified and I don’t think that’s how our brains handles storage.
The theory of events being encompassed by a structure similar to many mesh networks of memories and where order of hierarchy rearranges but the previous order may be recalled is what I assume to be more realistic. Basically the sectors may either have more or less frequency of being recalled; by whatever may increase or decrease the likelihood.
- randomvectors 7y ago> My disagreement is towards the wording of the part where one may assume a memory is being forever altered or modified and I don’t think that’s how our brains handles storage. The majority of cognitive neuroscience disagrees with you. Doesn't mean that you're necessarily wrong but you'll need to make some really good points for your argument to be taken seriously.