I've been nursing an idea in my head for a few years now, and I thought I'd let other people give it life while I sit quietly by and watch. =) What better place to develop ideas than a forum where everyone is obsessed with a game that requires both analytical exactness and unrestrained creativeness? Maybe obsessed is too strong a word. How's about completely and nonsensically attached to.

Back on topic, here's the idea.

Everyone has had experiences where their dreams are capable of drudging up old memories that are clear as day, while in real life we couldn't bring those faces into our minds if our lives depended on it. And those who haven't, you've read about it. I've had several odd dreams of late. In an effort to be at least a little bit succinct, they've all involved the same basic principle: first, an image I've seen only once appears in the dream. The most recent involved a forum post I glanced at right before I went to bed. This same image appeared in the dream.

The premise: is this where the secret of photographic memory lies? Let's not assume anything. If this is indeed true, then from where and how do dreams bring these p.memories (distinguished from non-alien 'normal' memories, i.e., "I remember last year's dinner had something green on it") into our mind's eye? Where and what is the "mind's eye"? How can we consciously (how do, maybe, is the better question) go through the same process as our dreams?

_________________
??/10,000

Don't know! Haven't been counting. Will count eventually...

there are seven levels

It isn't obvious to me that people experience this. I am familiar with the way things in dreams may seem to be perfect when they are in fact not, though. It seems hard to prove that the memory is perfect, when a simpler explanation may be that the feeling of perfection is a delusion.



Given my hypothesis that dreams don't actually show you someting you couldn't remember, I don't think this process is possible to any real extent. I wouldn't like to say that you can't remember slightly more than normal if you use some particular techniques, but anything like perfect recall seems unlikely.

It's true that it would be difficult (maybe impossible) to show dream-memory is perfect. Details may be missing that our dream-selves wouldn't notice while in the dream. This brings up another interesting point: perception filtering.

Our dream-selves filter the missing details so that our perception of the memory is, as you say, delusionally perfect. We do that while we're conscious, as well. When you look at a piece of paper, you are always filtering something, be it faint smells, sounds, or even an object in your peripheral vision that has always been in your peripheral vision. The easiest way to explain it for me is to think of a dust speck on eyeglasses. When it first appears, I notice it. As the day goes on, I seem to "forget" about it. How can you "forget" something that's right in front of your eyes? Because your mind no longer perceives the dust speck, until you consciously wonder what happened to that dust speck, and the filtering ceases.

About dreams presenting "clear" faces: I believe that our dreams are capable of showing us the memories we've forgotten (remembering, of course, that the memories themselves are filtered of certain details). I can recall many dreams of many old faces that, now, I can't summon in my mind's eye. All I get is a vague outline of a face, if I'm lucky. In my dreams, though, these were as "clear" as when I had perceived them for the first time.

To keep things simple, let's concentrate on the idea of bringing up memories as they were originally perceived (not necessarily perfect recall, but perfect perceived recall) long after the conscious mind of a normal human has forgotten them.

Sorry if what I'm saying makes no sense. I'm prone to stream of consciousness writing, which my writing teacher really hates. =)

_________________
??/10,000

Don't know! Haven't been counting. Will count eventually...

I don't believe the human mind stores enough information for perfect, or near perfect + perception filtering, recall. I also don't believe that if you can't remember a face consciously, that it appears in your dream perfectly. I believe the perfection of the dream face is solely due to perception delusion.

Given this approach, your question seems to be 'how can we delude ourselves into thinking we have remembered something perfectly if we actually don't remember them very well at all'. I don't know the answer, except maybe to think hard about them just before going to sleep .

Off-topic, or not?

I’ve always been interested in dreams. I will say this much, one of the techniques I’ve had success with is keeping a journal of the dreams you have. By recording the details of the dream in writing first thing in the morning, I have much more frequent and much more vivid memories of my dreams. You might try it.



The technique I mentioned above is also known as level 4.

I used to believe that dreams were perceptually incoherent by analogy to their conceptual incoherence... the sequence of events seems to be plausible at the time, but when you think carefully about the details you realize none of it is conceivable, let alone plausible.

But fairly recently I had a dream in which I kept hearing a certain piece of music. At first I was listening to a performance, then I was walking down the street humming it to myself (quite accurately!), and then I was on a plane and still hearing it. At that point I began to think that I was either dreaming or going insane, but as I looked around at the cabin of the plane, every detail of the plane was perfect - my fellow passengers, the seat, the in-flight magazine, the sensation of landing, the jetway. Because everything was so concrete and filled-out, I assumed it couldn't be a dream, and I had finally cracked. Then on the jetway I tried to... with as much dignity as possible ... ask a fellow passenger where we had just landed. I couldn't move my mouth, so it came out very slurred, and then I woke up. (I had headphones on, of course.)

The phenomenology of dreams is fascinating and very poorly understood. What is understood is that we have little idea whether to trust our reports about them.

In the first part of this century, people in the US typically reported that their dreams were in black and white. A plausible explanation is that they were influenced by watching black and white movies (though it's the sort of explanation that leaves many questions unanswered). It seems unlikely that their dreams were B&W and started being in color in the subsequent decades. What's more likely is that our beliefs about how consciousness works affect what we say about our dreams.

Eric Schwitzgebel has written a lot about this. Here's one paper, though I can't remember how clearly it's written, or even what exact conclusions he draws: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/Sc ... eamB&W.htm

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You beat me to the punch, though I was going to link to "Describing Inner Experience" (http://www.amazon.com/Describing-Inner- ... 0262083663) and "The Unreliability of Naive Introspection." (http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/Sc ... Naive1.pdf)

Coincidentally, Oliver Sacks has a new book out called The Mind's Eye. Like most of his books, it goes into in detailed case studies. In this book, the stories are related to vision and visual perception. He discusses in detail his own battle with eye cancer and the implications on his perception. There's a chapter call "Persistence of Vision" in which he discusses a newfound ability to hold detailed images in mind. He also discusses cases where a patient going blind developed even stronger internal imagery than he had when he was sighted.

In relation to dreaming, he mentions that there are certain times were he's been able to have some greater visual imagery than when in his normal conscious state. One is during the hypnogogic state near sleeping and another was in the past when he was experimenting with "large doses of amphetamines."

There is not so much in the book on photographic memory as we normally think about it, but there is a lot of good material on the range of visualization. But if anything, the descriptions he provides would seem to support the case that the brain's representation of images is very much unlike a photograph.

IMHO, it's one of his best books ever, and the case study of his own situation is particularly touching.