[req] Perfect Recall

7 Responses · September 11, 2008

I have a big prob­lem with keep­ing track of the media I con­sume. With all the albums I down­load and lis­ten to, and all the shit I read online, I’m oppressed by this feel­ing that it’s all just run­ning through me with­out being digested or processed. It’s over-stimulation, I end up with all this shit in my head that I don’t know what to do with. I could of course just limit my intake, but I’m addicted to media and I don’t feel like chang­ing any time soon. Plus there’s got to be a way I can apply all this stuff.

I sup­pose tra­di­tion­ally that’s what the blog for­mat is meant for, to just kind of shit out every­thing you con­sume in the form of links and video embeds. But really that’s more like just “tak­ing notes” at a lec­ture with a cas­sette recorder, see what I mean? That’s just tran­scrip­tion. I need some­thing to do with it all. This prob­lem is addressed to some extent by my metic­u­lous music library cura­tion with foo­bar, and my des­per­ate calls recently for some­body to improve on the way we man­age our music.

I think a pre­vail­ing prob­lem is that of lin­ear­ity; I can write a post on here, then another post, then another, and they appear chrono­log­i­cally in a line. Tag­ging and cat­e­go­riz­ing helps to make the con­tent on here a lit­tle less lin­ear, but it’s still not sat­is­fy­ing enough. I mean what I want is to be able to have some very loose, scrapbook-y inter­face where I can just kind of swim through col­lages of things: albums, jour­nal entries. Snap­shots of var­i­ous aspects of cer­tain time-periods. Paper is free-form enough to serve a pur­pose like this, but note­books aren’t search­able or eas­ily rearrange­able, and aren’t as ubiq­ui­tous as the web.

I actu­ally am work­ing on a new cat­e­gory in here that will present entries a lit­tle dif­fer­ently, to accom­mo­date the kind of note-taking that I’m talk­ing about, but even that’s too man­ual. Why can’t I, for instance, while lis­ten­ing to a D+ album in foo­bar, click some­thing that will allow me to leave a note on it? The note will be linked to the album, to the song, to the artist, and to today’s date. Later that note will turn up in searches, and when­ever I focus on this song/album/artist again. There are a cou­ple solu­tions for this but all of them are inelegant.

It’s almost as though this whole par­a­digm of nodes needs to be re-thought. Nodes don’t ade­quately mimic the way we think, our brains aren’t that com­part­men­tal­ized. When we are con­sciously focused on one thing, our atten­tion is also inad­ver­tently directed towards related things. For instance, when you think of an apple, you’re not likely think­ing only of the qual­i­ties of an apple; a small if unde­tectable part of you is think­ing about Snow White, think­ing about Gen­e­sis, think­ing about pears. And when does some­thing like an apple evolve from a con­flu­ence of impres­sions — their taste, their color, their shape — into some­thing as “node”-like as “an apple”? Is an apple cat­e­go­rized as “fruit” (which is itself a sub­cat­e­gory of “food”), and tagged as “crunchy,” “juicy,” “sweet,” etc.? Not exactly. And not to men­tion “an apple”’s faint asso­ci­a­tions with every expe­ri­ence you’ve had with one. Should those expe­ri­ences be tagged “involved:apple”?

Sim­ply put I guess it’s just a prob­lem of mem­ory. When I lis­ten to an album for the first time, for instance, I never want to for­get when I lis­tened to it and what I thought of it. Yet I think it hap­pens more often than not that when I lis­ten to some­thing, I for­get sooner than later what I thought of it, or even that I lis­tened to it at all.

A real-world exam­ple: I down­loaded the new Evan­gel­i­cals record some months ago. I lis­tened to it once, and from what I can remem­ber, I liked it a fair amount. But I never touched it again. I for­got they existed.

When they opened for Frog Eyes months later, I barely rec­og­nized the name. I seri­ously believed that I had only heard their name, but didn’t have a clue what they sounded like. It wasn’t until I was at the bar order­ing a drink over­hear­ing them play “Another Day” that it clicked. Since then I’ve lis­tened to the album half a dozen or more times and found that I really enjoy it.

So, that’s a prob­lem. What’s the solution?

I sup­pose I could have rated some of their songs when I first heard them. Look­ing at them now in my foo­bar, I see that “Another Day” is tagged with 4/5 stars. But when did I do that? I don’t know! I shouldn’t have to worry about these things.

What about a world in which, on some day a cou­ple weeks after I first heard that record, I opened my media player and it pre­sented me with that album, as if to ask me, “Hey, you lis­tened to this album for the first time a few weeks ago, right after you down­loaded it. You didn’t rate it; what did you think of it? Want to lis­ten to it now to remind your­self?” It’s not that far-fetched an idea. But, again: media play­ers are largely just spreadsheets.

What about all those movies I see thanks to Net­flix? What hap­pens to them years after I watch them? It’s as though I didn’t watch some of them at all. I remem­ber see­ing Alphav­ille some­time in 2005, for instance, but other than some vague imagery I’ve retained, I have no idea what that movie was like. Should I have writ­ten myself a short review of it after I watched it? Where would I have put it? What is the proper recep­ta­cle for that?

Some­how I’ve been trained to think that I should be not only capa­ble of, but in fact actively think­ing about every­thing I’ve expe­ri­enced all the time. That’s sick, isn’t it? Is that a prod­uct of the inter­net? Over-stimulation? Is per­fect recall too much to ask?

Hey, I’m really inter­ested in your ideas about this kind of stuff. I com­pletely agree with you, and I don’t really have a good solu­tion to this either. I think maybe you could try using Twit­ter for this. Just post “This Evan­gel­i­cals album is great!” or what­ever after you hear it, and then it’ll be there. I’m not really happy with this solu­tion though because the infor­ma­tion isn’t that easy to retrieve later, but it’s a start, I think. (I don’t actu­ally use Twit­ter myself, though.)

This is some­thing I’m def­i­nitely going to keep think­ing about. It’s very inter­est­ing. I’m also inter­ested in devel­op­ing the sort of music player you’ve talked about pre­vi­ously. If you were to describe in detail all the fea­tures of your dream music player, I might actu­ally do it. :)

By the way, have you used the new Genius side­bar in iTunes 8? What do you think of it? (I haven’t, yet, but it looks like it may be interesting.)

bryskt · September 11, 2008

I describe in some detail what I’m look­ing for in a music player in these two posts. I think the swiftest avenue for get­ting these fea­tures into a media player is via Songbird’s SDK, but I lack the skillz.

I haven’t tried iTunes’ Genius fea­ture yet, but its method­ol­ogy is hor­ri­bly dis­ap­point­ing. That it war­rants men­tion at an Apple Event is sad. This func­tion­al­ity is prim­i­tive, and should have existed years ago.

What does excite me is the recent announce­ment by Microsoft that they’re work­ing on some­thing called MixView, which gen­er­ates a cloud-like view of your library, clus­ter­ing artists and albums by sim­i­lar­ity. It makes me con­fi­dent that in a cou­ple years some real strides might be made in desk­top music brows­ing, though progress still appears to be run­ning at a snail’s pace.

If you really are inter­ested in brain­storm­ing a Song­bird exten­sion with me, feel free to email me. Or if you have a team of devel­op­ers and some wealthy investors I’d be happy to talk with them.

Jay · September 12, 2008

About that last part: The more we think about some­thing, the eas­ier it is to remem­ber. So scan­ning blogs on the inter­net doesn’t stick too well in the mem­ory. And your mind gets lazy–I’ve noticed after spend­ing time on the inter­net it’s harder to stay focused on a book.

Also, I don’t know if this is on PCs but on my Mac­Book when you select an icon and press command+i (get info) the first thing in the info box is “spot­light com­ments,” which I use to type in descrip­tions of images I may want to find later. And so when I am look­ing for a pic­ture of food for a blog entry I just go to spot­light in the top right and type in food, and there are all my files related to food. The spot­light results (which come up in a drop-down, with the option of see­ing ‘more info’ in a win­dow) are cat­e­go­rized by ‘top hit’ (the most accu­rate result) and then appli­ca­tions, doc­u­ments, music, pic­tures, etc. Some­times in real life if am look­ing for some­thing, I find myself think­ing about ‘spot­light­ing’ or ‘command+f’ (find) and it’s frus­trat­ing not hav­ing real-life indexed as well as my lap­top. This sounds like the frus­tra­tion you expe­ri­ence as well.

I heard a seg­ment on NPR a cou­ple months ago about med­i­cine one day achiev­ing a device or some­thing that could allow humans to have per­fect recall, a sort of spot­light search or ‘find’ func­tion for one’s own mind. The speaker was ask­ing callers if they would want that, were it pos­si­ble. It seems like it would be very handy, of course, but it is a lot of infor­ma­tion. Search­ing would be good, I think, but hav­ing per­fect recall “on” all the time would just be over­whelm­ing. Your mind has fil­ters for a reason.

The pos­si­bil­ity is there–I once read (in ‘The Man Who Mis­took His Wife for a Hat’) about a woman who had a stroke which caused her to see and hear scenes from her child­hood as vividly as if she were actu­ally there. But at the same time, she was aware that she was in the doctor’s office talk­ing to the doc­tor. It just goes to show that every lit­tle thing we expe­ri­ence is locked away in the uncon­scious mind, and it’s just a mat­ter of access­ing what you want. The brain merely chooses what infor­ma­tion is most rel­e­vant as a way to lighten the cog­ni­tive load.

katie t. · September 14, 2008

Holy crap…I’m gonna have to rearrange some things on this blog if peo­ple are gonna keep leav­ing com­ments like that.

I use Google Desk­top, which is like Spot­light in some ways I think. It not only indexes your hard drive but also tracks your web his­tory, so any­thing I’ve read on the inter­net is search­able from my desk­top. (Actu­ally it doesn’t index brows­ing in Opera, which I’ve been using for months now.)

I’m also reminded by your com­ment of a Borges story called “Funes, the Mem­o­ri­ous” about a guy who is tor­mented by the exac­ti­tude and exhaus­tive­ness of his memories:

We, in a glance, per­ceive three wine glasses on the table; Funes saw all the shoots, clus­ters, and grapes of the vine. He remem­bered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could com­pare them in his rec­ol­lec­tion with the mar­bled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the bat­tle of the Que­bra­cho. He told me: I have more mem­o­ries in myself alone than all men have had since the world was a world. And again: My dreams are like your vig­ils. And again, toward dawn: My mem­ory, sir, is like a garbage disposal.

And, in fact, some­body has blogged about this story as an alle­gory for dig­i­tal infor­ma­tion over­load before.

I’m sure it would actu­ally be dis­tress­ful to be think­ing about every­thing all the time as I described, but nev­er­the­less I some­times feel like I do want that. When I was mov­ing after grad­u­at­ing col­lege, my car was bro­ken into and robbed in an alley while I slept and I lost my lap­top (with no back­ups), dozens of files and note­books, and almost a hun­dred CDs. At first I felt an over­whelm­ing loss, but later (after insur­ance replaced it all, heh) I felt strangely relieved to be rid of a lot of the infor­ma­tion I had been keep­ing. One of these days it might do me good to com­pletely purge my Google Reader sub­scrip­tions, email inbox, del.icio.us book­marks — even my hard drive. I just don’t have the dis­ci­pline to sort the cru­cial from the disposable.

I have 554 starred arti­cles in Google Reader, 131 book­marks tagged “read­later” in del.icio.us, and 106 blog drafts on kbps. I guess more impor­tant than “remem­ber­ing every­thing” is just doing some­thing with every piece of infor­ma­tion I con­sider to be sig­nif­i­cant, prefer­ably through syn­the­sis rather than mere recita­tion or tran­scrip­tion, like I said. But even this is prob­a­bly hop­ing for too much.

Jay · September 15, 2008

No fan­tas­tic alle­gor­i­cal metaphor­i­cal response here, just wanted to tell you I really enjoyed the post.

Sumner · September 15, 2008

Spot­light searches web his­tory and IM con­ver­sa­tions if you choose to save them.

‘Doing some­thing’ is impor­tant. If I had per­fect recall I’d waste hours away each day just spend­ing time with my mem­o­ries. It could become an addic­tion, no dif­fer­ent from today’s use of drugs to turn fil­ters on/off in our brains to get dif­fer­ent results from them.

katie t. · September 16, 2008

tdj, this makes me want to return to the suf. These are the kind of con­cerns that I can’t con­vince any­body to dis­cuss with me. I often find myself more con­cerned with the orga­ni­za­tion or for­mat of infor­ma­tion than the con­tent of the infor­ma­tion. That said, I don’t have any­thing to con­tribute to this.

jef(f) · November 23, 2008

Leave a Comment or Subscribe