Craig Bouchard is Calling Out Matyas Kuti on Magic

[Dene]

I heard that there was no such thing as a photographic memory.

Saying that is just as bad as saying you "heard" the opposite.

Einstein is the only person I've heard of that thought in images instead of words, but that was because of his mutated brain.

Please provide evidence for at least one of these two claims.

Hmmm, yes you are right, when I say I "heard", it was in a discussion with a teacher at school, I believe, who could be considered as a somewhat reliable source. It wasn't a definitive "there is no such thing", it just seems extremely unlikely. "While many people demonstrate extraordinary memory abilities, it is unlikely that true eidetic memory, if it exists at all, is found in adults". That's a quote from Wikipedia, just to bring some more doubt into the matter .

As for einstein, here is a link to Wikipedia on his brain. Under the heading "Study finding part of Einstein's brain missing and another part 15% larger", it says "Einstein himself claimed that he thought through images rather than verbally". Now it's up to you whether you take Wikipedia to be a reliable source or not ^^

 

[Stefan]

and photographic memory does exist, my old History teachers son (in law) not sure which...Had one.

Please provide some details about what his "photographic memory" was like.

And have you read this thread?
http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?p=11744#post11744

 

[Stefan]

As for einstein, here is a link to Wikipedia on his brain. Under the heading "Study finding part of Einstein's brain missing and another part 15% larger", it says "Einstein himself claimed that he thought through images rather than verbally". Now it's up to you whether you take Wikipedia to be a reliable source or not ^^

Ok, that's at least something. I had looked at Wikipedia's "Albert Einstein" article and hadn't seen anything about this. There's no mentioning of a brain "mutation", though. And it's not mentioned how unusual his alleged abnormal brain is, and no comparison with other people with similar brains is provided. Also, no context is given for the "thinking in images" statement. I also often think in images, for example whenever I think about kicking some liar's butt. Without proper context, Einstein could've meant that in a quite different way. Observers often misunderstand things and then the mistake gets exaggerated over time and over further communication.

And here's another part of Wikipedia's description of the study: "It should be noted that this study was based on photographs of Einstein's brain made in 1955 by Dr. Harvey, and not direct examination of the brain, as implied by the caption of one of the photographs, inaccurately identifying it as a photograph from 1995". Mistakes, mistakes...

Oh and don't get me wrong, I strongly disbelieve "photographic memory".

 

[CraigBouchard]

Hey, I'm not claiming to have a photographic memory...but...

I think a lot in images as well, I don't say I have a photographic memory, but more so a visual memory, or visual brain. Many people have asked me if I have photographic memory.

As for my history teacher...She told us in class that they could be sitting in the living room, and they could ask him to quote a textbook, on a specific page, word for word. He'd either close his eyes, or look up at the sky or something, and then read it word for word. I never experienced it myself, she just told us about it.

 

[Stefan]

she just told us about it.

And that's the large part of the problem. If I tell you about the pink fairy I met last night, do you believe it?

 

[Erik]

No, my first reaction might be that it's true because you smoken pot but since that's not a realistic option I might think it was the tooth fairy. However that is also impossible because I assume you already got your adult-teeth, so my final conclusion would be that either you didn't meet the fairy at all OR, fairies exist!

merry christmas

 

[pjk]

and photographic memory does exist, my old History teachers son (in law) not sure which...Had one.

Please provide some details about what his "photographic memory" was like.

And have you read this thread?
http://www.speedsolving.com/showthread.php?p=11744#post11744

I still stand by my arguments in that post and that a photographic memory does exist.

 

[Dene]

she just told us about it.

And that's the large part of the problem. If I tell you about the pink fairy I met last night, do you believe it?

Lol, well this is what we Logicians know as a Strawman fallacy. You have taken something that is plausible, and compared it to something absurd, not particularly fair?

On Einstein's brain: It clearly states that he had smaller Wernicke's and Broca's areas, and also he was missing a part in his frontal lobes, while the parts of the frontal lobes to do with vision and such were enlarged. This is what I mean by "mutated", as in, different from normal, by some random chance. You're right, it is an ambiguous claim, but there is no denying that there was something strange going on.
It was always reported he had problems with speech throughout his life, which is explained by the smaller Wernicke's and Broca's areas. So it is plausible that he struggled with speech in his own head, and found it easier to fully visualise everything.

EDIT: Btw, I love what you wrote in that older thread. It's so true, I always look away when just randomly scrambling, and these people give me this amazed look and are like "are you doing it now or something". I'm always just like "NO! Of course not ".

 

[Lotsofsloths]

matias kuti, sorry

 

[Stefan]

Lol, well this is what we Logicians know as a Strawman fallacy. You have taken something that is plausible, and compared it to something absurd, not particularly fair?

I don't think photographic memory is plausible, as I don't see good evidence, only poor anecdotes and a lot of lame excuses. And why do you say my pink fairy is absurd? Admittedly, I think so, too. But there's more evidence of the tooth fairy than there is for photographic memory.

On Einstein's brain: It clearly states that he had smaller Wernicke's and Broca's areas

Does it? Wernicke doesn't even appear on the page, and Broca only here:

"Scientists are currently interested in the possibility that physical differences in brain structure could determine different abilities. One famous part of the operculum is Broca's area which plays an important role in speech production. To compensate, the inferior parietal lobe was 15 percent wider than normal."

That's general talk, not about Einstein. Except probably the third sentence (starting with "To compensate"), which btw doesn't fit in there at all.

And this short version (?) of the Lancet article about the study says: "The gross anatomy of Einstein's brain was within normal limits with the exception of his parietal lobes". Admittedly I don't know whether Wernicke's and Broca's count as part of the "gross anatomy".

So it is plausible that he struggled with speech in his own head, and found it easier to fully visualise everything.

Everything? How did he visualise writing his works or talking with people?

 

[Dene]

Lol, no I still think you're being unfair. We all know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, it's just an idea thought up be people to amuse their children, we all know for a fact that there is no such thing, just as there is no Santa Claus (I certainly hope there are no younger children reading this, it would be so mean to burst their bubble). The idea of a photographic memory is not a myth, but something that people have properly claimed, and with reason. Perhaps it doesn't exist in the form that it is meant to. however, as you said, we do all think in images, and we can remember pictures in our head reasonably well. And this can of course be trained, like anything else (we Humans are so very adaptive ).

On Einstein (again lol): You're right again, I read that about Einstein, it must have been somewhere else, probably in a book, and it would have been a while ago (unfortunately, I do NOT have such a good memory). Thus I cannot remember where it was.
I'm not exactly a neurologist myself, but 15% sounds like quite a large figure to me.
"Everything? How did he visualise writing his works or talking with people?" Ah, you are so mean, just like myself, nitpicking at every detail. This is something that puzzled me the first time I read about it as well, certainly it is possible that instead of thinking a word in his head, he sees it written on some sort of background instead. I don't see how this would be too implausible, if it was natural to him. Remembering of course, that he had problems with speech.

 

[Stefan]

however, as you said, we do all think in images, and we can remember pictures in our head reasonably well.

Yes, and that's called visual memory and imagination. Photograpic memory refers to something of drastically higher quality and quantity, like someone perfectly reciting a page of a phone book after a single glance. Please compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_memory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_memory

The latter page includes this: "Derren Brown, British television star, renowned for his abilities to appear to be psychic while insisting he has no psychic abilities, accomplishes some of his tricks using eidetic memory. [10]"

The reference leads here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFGG6zWByhM

However, this is Mr Brown simply tricking the audience. He's *not* using photographic memory there, he's a mentalist and it's a mentalism trick! What he does there is called a "book test". Says Wikipedia:

"In mentalism stage performers carry out book tests as part of their act. There is usually no examiner and a member of the audience takes the place of a participant. These tests are not carried out under scientific conditions and are often performed for the entertainment of the audience rather than to prove the psychic abilities of the performer."

Also have a look at James Randi describing one of his performances of it in this week's SWIFT (start reading at "Here’s an example from many years ago"). Randi and his SWIFT can btw provide an excellent introduction to reality.

Some uneducated fool watched the video, believed the mentalist (probably also believes the magician sawing a woman in two, just because he says so) and wrote the item in the Wikipedia article and now people see this as evidence for photographic memory while it's really not.

certainly it is possible that instead of thinking a word in his head, he sees it written on some sort of background instead.

Did you read that explanation somewhere or did you make it up yourself?

 

[Stefan]

As for my history teacher...She told us in class that they could be sitting in the living room, and they could ask him to quote a textbook, on a specific page, word for word. He'd either close his eyes, or look up at the sky or something, and then read it word for word.

Even if this were true, where's the "photographic" in this memory feat? People have learned many thousands of digits of pi, but they just use mnemonic techniques and practice, they don't have or claim to have photographic memory.

 

[cmhardw]

Lol, no I still think you're being unfair. We all know the tooth fairy doesn't exist, it's just an idea thought up be people to amuse their children.....The idea of a photographic memory is not a myth, but something that people have properly claimed, and with reason. Perhaps it doesn't exist in the form that it is meant to.

I have to agree with Stefan that I think the idea of a photographic memory is absurd. The definition of photographic memory as I was taught it is the ability to recall, with a near 100% accuracy, every stimulus ever presented to you in any form (audio, visual, touch, etc.)

I think the sheer amount of storage required in the brain just to file away all this information is absurdly large. Also there would need to be a complicated filing system necessary to be able to retrieve the memory of any single stimulus desired on demand, and within a time limit short enough to answer the question of the person testing you.

To me a photographic memory is just as plausible as the tooth fairy, so I don't consider Stefan's comparison to be unfair. Until someone provides evidence of a person who can recall close to 100% accurately every stimulus presented to them over a time period significantly longer than the short term memory storage of the "average" person I refuse to believe that a photographic memory exists.

Chris

 

[AvGalen]

We can continue this discussion forever, but I hope that I can make it easier by providing this "definition" of photographic memory:

"A memory that works just like a photocamera."
Meaning it can instantly create a picture of a (complex) situation with great detail that can used for recalling details even years later.

Now please give me an example of someone that has been proven is capable of doing this. (and an uncle of my dentists sister once heard... is not good enough)

I hope this will stop people from claiming photographic memory exists. Memory is something that can be trained really well and people can do amazing things with it, but there is a difference between memorizing 10 cubes in 10 minutes (trained memory) and memorizing them in 10 seconds (photographic memory)

 

[Dene]

Ah, that Mr. Brown does have an impressive memory! That is quite crazy. And please don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming that Einstein, or anyone has a photographic memory, I think I did say that I don't think that it exists. I think I just used him as an example of an extreme of thinking in imagery as opposed to words (or warped brain words)....

"Did you read that explanation somewhere or did you make it up yourself?"
It is an educated guess, I haven't read it anywhere, and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm merely putting forward an idea.

At Chris: It is not whether it is "just as plausible" as such. We know the tooth fairy is made up (perhaps apart from people who are seriously mentally ill), but photographic memory is not necessarily impossible, and certainly it may have existed or even currently exist. This is why disregarding it straight up is unfair, and why work would need to be done to refine any knowledge we currently have of it.

 

[Stefan]

"Did you read that explanation somewhere or did you make it up yourself?"
It is an educated guess, I haven't read it anywhere, and I don't claim to be an expert, I'm merely putting forward an idea.

Yes, but that's the problem. You're augmenting an already unproven story with guesses. Next person will take your augmentation and tell it as if it were safe knowledge. People's memory already is faulty, why add stuff that they *know* might be wrong? I'd like to see where Einstein said that he thought in images, and I'd like to see the context, particularly what exactly he thought about in images (everything, or just aspects like light and relativity stuff?).

We know the tooth fairy is made up, but photographic memory is not necessarily impossible

I should've used my older example again. Here it is: Yesterday I saw someone run 100 meters in 8 seconds. Believe me?

 

[AvGalen]

I should've used my older example again. Here it is: Yesterday I saw someone run 100 meters in 8 seconds. Believe me?

No, I don't. You said it was your older example (older then 1 day) and you say you saw it happen yesterday. The two arguments seem mutual exclusive to me

 

[CraigBouchard]

Arnaud, don't be so nitpicky It does make it a more fair argument though, as it is possible.

 

[Stefan]

Excellent observation, Arnaud, made me laugh. Problem is, I see that guy do it every day.