Can too much experience cause blindness of truth?

[Holiday20310401]

From what I have gathered in the threads, memory is not 100% reliable because it does not convey the truth, moreso one's own perception, and even then the perception may have been damaged. Some memory relies on other memory so if a memory is forgotten then others could alter making them less dependable.

As more memory is gained but there is still the same amount of time in one's life to organize and recall memories less memories can be accessed for the truth, or certainty.

So a memory lets say has a value of 0.9. And another has a value of 0.9. And the truth = 1.0. But when two memories are multiplied we get 0.81. So does too much experience mean irrational behaviour because truth can not longer be correlated to actions or cognition with as much actual truth efficiency?

This requires that all neurons are linked by another neuron at least. Is that the case. What would happen if a link divided, breaking apart networks, making them less intertwined? I'm talking about the synapses I guess.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

So a memory lets say has a value of 0.9. And another has a value of 0.9. And the truth = 1.0. But when two memories are multiplied we get 0.81.

... I'm not sure that math adds up ... if I have a memory of an experience that exemplifies some truth and the memory has "strength" (for lack of a better word) 0.9, and I have a memory of another experience that exemplifies the same truth (i.e., reinforces the first memory) and has strength 0.9, then shouldn't my certainty of that truth be > 0.9?

At any rate, I think you're on to something - I'm just not sure how to express the equation!

[Holiday20310401]

That's a good point. It would seem prudent to say that the memories act as strength when and only when they are combined. So is the interdependence of relative memories a multiplied factor or are they added, or perhaps both in some way.

If I was more informed on how memory works I would probably be able to come up with an answer but for now I'll think about it.

[GoshisDead]

There is a reason why there are maxims like "we need a fresh set of eyes on this problem" and, "lets look at it from another angle".

Reasons:

1. Habit: If we are in the habit of doing things one way, we assume its the best way.
2. Egocentrism: we by default assume that the way we do things i better.
3. Inference: We often do things inefficiently or believe things that may not be true, because in the past actions upon those beliefs and inneficient methods have always ended up where we thought we should be. In reality, however, someone else comes up and says, "do it this way" and we often resist, although it is a better/truer, if you will, way.
4. Evolution: in certain realms of experience the evolution of technology, culture, political theory etc... makes wisdom/experience obsolete. Much like Kuhnian paradigm shift in academia. Often truth is relative to its environment.

So yes in many senses truth can be and often is obscured by experience.

[boagie]

Truth depends upon experience, so, to limit experience so as not to strain the faculty of memory, is to limit truth, wisdom and to further weaken the faculty of memory. It is rather a circular progression, subtract from any place around the circle and it weakens every particular.

[validity]

Hello Holiday20310401,

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

From what I have gathered in the threads, memory is not 100% reliable because it does not convey the truth, moreso one's own perception, and even then the perception may have been damaged. Some memory relies on other memory so if a memory is forgotten then others could alter making them less dependable.

As more memory is gained but there is still the same amount of time in one's life to organize and recall memories less memories can be accessed for the truth, or certainty.

So a memory lets say has a value of 0.9. And another has a value of 0.9. And the truth = 1.0. But when two memories are multiplied we get 0.81. So does too much experience mean irrational behaviour because truth can not longer be correlated to actions or cognition with as much actual truth efficiency?

This requires that all neurons are linked by another neuron at least. Is that the case. What would happen if a link divided, breaking apart networks, making them less intertwined? I'm talking about the synapses I guess.

I think a problem arises when a value of 0.9 is allocated to a memory. If the statement memory is not 100% reliable, is true, then how can you assign a value to a memory without having to use a memory of the truth?

I would say that each attempt to reach a truth do not use memory. Deduce it each time.

[jgweed]

Hitherto, this discussion seems to consider memory as one kind of memory, when it might easily be that one can have all sorts of memories that are different.
Consider these examples:
E1. As a youngster, I was made to memorise the Gettysburg address. I attempt to recite it, and realise I have forgotton a part of it. I look it up, and say, well now I remember it rightly enough.
E2. When younger, I had an affair that lasted six months. I have flashes of happy memories, fleeting mental impressions of a particularly enjoyable date, and of course the painful memory of a fateful argument after which the affair ended. I can sometimes recall the beloved's smile, sometimes I cannot.
E3. I am talking to a friend and we are recalling a vacation we took together at the beach. Each of us recounts some of our memories. He mentions a house we admired when walking one afternoon, and this brings to mind a face I saw looking out of one of its windows that I had forgotten. .9 plus .9 seem to add up to 1 on the point system.

We seem to want to say that memory must be totally true, and assume we can know that it is or isn't or "less so." If we cannot say what 1.0 is, how can we determine the memoristic calculus that determines if memory X is 8.76 or 9.32 or something in between?

And is memory always unique to the individual in the sense that it is MY memory, or can memory also be, at least by analogy, public or social memory? In a way, isn't this the kind of memory employed by the sciences, or historiography?

Lastly, cannot experience trigger both thought as well as memory, and are there not many instances where the latter is intensional?

[William]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

From what I have gathered in the threads, memory is not 100% reliable because it does not convey the truth, moreso one's own perception, and even then the perception may have been damaged. Some memory relies on other memory so if a memory is forgotten then others could alter making them less dependable.

As more memory is gained but there is still the same amount of time in one's life to organize and recall memories less memories can be accessed for the truth, or certainty.

So a memory lets say has a value of 0.9. And another has a value of 0.9. And the truth = 1.0. But when two memories are multiplied we get 0.81. So does too much experience mean irrational behaviour because truth can not longer be correlated to actions or cognition with as much actual truth efficiency?

This requires that all neurons are linked by another neuron at least. Is that the case. What would happen if a link divided, breaking apart networks, making them less intertwined? I'm talking about the synapses I guess.

Hello Holiday,
Please, if I can offer my own thoughts as to what I understand you are asking. I may be all wet as to your intent, if so, please let me know.

The mind has much information. The knowledge we need to survive and the knowledge we need to live. Differentiating which is which cannot be done as a conscious effort. It gets intermingled making assess to the knowledge that is our personal truth impossible. The only way we will ever be able to is what is called the "God Consciousness". The mind will automatically issue that what you have learned you "need" to know as it relates to others you come into contact with. Unfortunately, they to have the same problem. To much "survival information". This survival is protected by the ego. It is what gives us security and allows us to wend our way in this reality we have created.

That God consciousness is on a par with that instinct that guides the animal, except we cannot access it through the "ego". The ego is a safety valve and contains too much "noise" for this divine thought get through. For that to happen fear must go. That is why "religion" has such power, for the peace of mind those of faith receive from the inner strength that faith allows them, thereby reducing their fear. Of course our "Instinct" is much more complicated in that we have the ability to reason and make choices and from the wisdom of those choices we determine what is the path we must take by the errors we have made. Our ego prevents that. We don't make mistakes, do we? Ha.

The animal has no choice. The animal is at peace unless it’s life is threatened. That is why there has never been peace in the world, the human life is threatened by the laws of a few who think they "rule" this world. As I have said this Earth is not for sale. Charging a price to live here is where that fear comes from. It is the nature of all those ill’s that have forever plagued mankind. Life is an entitlement for all, not a privilege of the few how have the money to be free.

One must not equate man’s destiny with that of the animal for we have no clue as to our purpose is. Only through this divine link will our mind be able to "think for itself" and allow us to grasp onto that knowledge that will come to us without effort as we begin to divinely communicate with each other. Much like the animal kingdom, but having a notion of what that will produce is what Heaven is all about. Allow man the peace of mind he so richly deserves, then and only then will the mind begin to solve all our problems. In record time. Of course you have to realize we have all the time we will ever need.

I know I didn’t exactly answer your question, but I hope I allowed you to understand the reasoning you were going through that prompted the question. Okay, it may be time to reel me back in again. I can get out there. Ha. If I get too far gone, please don’t hesitate to let me know where I lost you. This thought has no corroboration. It is what I feel is that consciousness that allows me to make these determinations. It has taken 30 years to put the pieces together. IMHO.

William

[BrightNoon]

I would say that, as memories accumulate and reinforce one another, the world view that they form becomes more rigid. Now, I beleive that there is no objetive reality beyond sensation (one that can be in any way known). Therefore, a rigid system is not less valid, though it could well correspond less to 'empirial reality', like it could correspond less to any other sort of vision of reality, simply because it would be less accomidating and flexible; it would be one thing and not another; that thing might or might not be 'empirical reality.'