Certainly agree with Ametam and to me the inability to see into others' minds is what makes reading the DJ of others very interesting, because the likelihood will be so small that I'll be imagining it the exact same way as the person originally recalls/experiences it. This is no different from reading a book I'd guess, especially because in storytelling the lack of specific detail is very useful for promoting an imaginative world in a reader's mind. This is true even in television and games, where the omission or obfuscation of detail can lead to very imaginative fan-based ideas and lore.
From my still limited experience with induced visualisation, it's just the same as the memory of any other place I've been to, both in the failings and successes of memory. A location from waking life is susceptible to the same variations and fluctuations in detail as a location original to my mind. The difference really is that there is no solid anchor as to what a place should look like if it's imagined, since the point of reference is internal and subject to these fluctuations.
Maybe something worth considering is that even in waking life we are also constantly ignoring specific information rather than taking it all in. While I'm typing this, my focus is concentrated on my screen regardless of what is within my peripheral vision, becoming briefly aware of some things only because I thought about this. Things happening outside the focus may be registered into a short-term memory for practical environmental awareness, but most of it will be discarded very quickly, presumably as there is no requirement to commit vague details to a (consciously accessible) long-term memory. I can only make assumptions as to how memory actually works, but I imagine it's safe to say that even in dreams or visualisation, the feedback loop of becoming aware and unaware of specific details around you functions much the same way, thereby discarding much information.
I have come to see the role of the ego (i.e. consciousness) as one of discriminatory nature. If there is a biological purpose to consciousness, I could make a guess that it exists in part to assess information that may be useful on a long-term basis, while the non-conscious processes deal with the "now" of living, such as I'm doing with typing. I'm not consciously thinking about typing or the exact words until I go and review my post, I'm just doing it. Yes, I learned to do it consciously at one point, thinking about every press and so on, but that extra thought is not required after a certain point, much the same with many practical skills in life.
I imagine that in terms of cognitive limitations, the reason for discarding more information than not could be that the information may be quicker to process while possibly still taking it in on a non-conscious level within the initial moment of perception of that information, which can then be pre-discriminated to whether it is relevant or not and then sorted for short-term or simply discarded fully. I don't know what the speed limitations are for bio-electrical signals, but I can't imagine they're much slower than typical electrical signals in a relatively slow signal amplifier or something of the sort (which might run at a couple of MHz). I would love to read about this topic, if only I knew where to look.
My assumptions and digression aside, who knows truthfully? Someone in a field dealing with this might, but I don't anyway. Our internal experiences are probably as real as anything else we experience, maybe limited only by our personal views. Whether these experiences can be crystallised into a solid memory or not doesn't have to affect how we experience them in a given moment. I had a very interesting dream this morning but remembered very little of it on waking. That doesn't mean that my initial experience was hazy, illusory or any less real than other dreams I've had.
Anyway, I think you should have fun with your own cognitive processes, regardless of how they actually take place.
|
|
Bookmarks