Theory of sensory recall: causes and ramifications

A simple exercise – can you imagine a vase in front of you? Try? What color is it?

Turns out that most people can visualize objects – either somewhere in front of them, like augmented reality, or when their eyes are closed. Commonly known as “mind’s eye”, but everyone does it with a different intensity of details – some people can only “see” the outlines of the objects, some “see” it very faded, some – pretty good, others – in incredibly realistic details and some can even animate those visualizations. Furthermore some people not only visualize an object, but a whole scene alongside it.

Let’s continue with another practical example – how would you go about providing a description of a giraffe? Do you know the answer already or the question is a bit unclear? And no – I’m not asking for the description of the animal, but rather how you would obtain that information. Try? For most people the process is the following – first they visualize the object and then start visually searching it to pick which information to present as an answer. So they approach the problem as if they’re “seeing” the animal for the very first time now and know nothing about it and will just start to “look” at it in the search for the information they need. Here are some shortcomings of this approach:

• initial points may not prioritize the most crucial aspects.
• there is a risk of overlooking key information
• descriptions may inadvertently focus on details unrelated to the specified animal, but be based on the visualized scene surrounding it.
• additionally, it’s essential to acknowledge that the process of visualization requires a substantial volume of information. Given that our memories are prone to change, fade or be lost over time, there is a significant risk that the object or scene being visualized may deviate significantly from reality.

Communication

What’s the first thing that comes to mind, when asked to point to something similar to a vase? Try? For most people the process follows this path – they use the skill they’re most used to – either visual clues, sound or texture and link the objects based on such similarities instead of basing it on the actual meaning of the word – a vase serves the purpose of preserving the vitality of flowers by holding their stems in water. Typically of a tall design, it accommodates the height of the stems, minimizing the risk of tipping over. It must possess water resistance and a secure, well-fitted opening, preventing any imbalance or potential overturning caused by a disproportionate opening compared to the base. So usually people’s answers vary from some useful objects like bottles to some things that are totally different – for instance “woman” – with the similarity lying in the vases’ curved lines, which echo the aesthetics of a woman’s body.

Currently, interpersonal communication often breaks down when individuals interpret words and concepts differently, based on factors outside their intended meaning. We see this in our daily interactions: some people seem to understand each other effortlessly (“clicking” with someone instantly), likely because they share a similar way of assigning meaning. This shared approach could stem from a mutual preference for visual, auditory, or other sensory cues when interpreting words. The issue is that language, whether spoken, written, or gestural, is meant to convey specific information. When these meanings are shaped by individual biases, communication can falter. Increasingly, we misunderstand one another without realizing it. For example – imagine we’re communicating through a chat app that changes words based on each user’s interpretation—for instance, it changes “sheep” to “goat” for me and “goat” to “sheep” for the other person. Although we can see each other’s messages, respond, and even repeat them, there’s no indication that we may be understanding completely different things. This undermines the fundamental purpose of communication.

Sleeping, memories and remembering

Do you remember what you did on January 3^rd last year? Try? Most people use both approaches here: they logically reconstruct past events based on major markers, like New Year, and then work from that point, recalling events and using sensory cues (like sights, sounds, and smells) to mentally piece together a “memory movie” that leads them to the specific date.

How are memories formed and stored – information is being stored in our body from all kinds of inputs – sight, sound, touch, smell, taste and vibrations – that information is processed by different cells and cell parts throughout the body, but we’ll focus on the brain at the moment. In the brain the information is stored in multiple ways: through synaptic connections, distinct molecules, and proteins (and even more things like the molecular structure or volume). Amongst those we’ll again only focus on one of these methods of storing/processing information – the synaptic connections. They work by generating an electrical charge in the neuron, which is then transmitted through its axon and dendrites. For a neuron to “activate,” it requires a minimum amount of charge from signals sent via its dendrites. Thus, the more active neighboring neurons are in sending impulses, the more readily a neuron can activate if they’re connected. That leads to the following conclusion (and observation) – the more active neurons you have, the easier it is to reach another piece of information stored by the other neurons. In other words, if you can recall visual, auditory, and olfactory details, this abundance of stimuli makes it easier to reach the information you’re seeking.

Memory and remembering are distinct processes. “Remembering” is our ability to retrieve information, but it’s influenced by current stimuli rather than directly accessing stored information (like neurons or other memory units). In theory, the more stimuli associated with a piece of information, the easier it is to recall. However, more stimuli can also trigger unrelated information, so while representing memories visually or through other senses can often improve recall, it doesn’t necessarily ensure accuracy.

A major consequence:

recalling sensory information enables more direct access to related memories. For instance, if you’ve repeatedly seen certain information presented on TV, with only a few instances showing different details/conclusions on the same topic, you’re more likely to recall the frequently repeated information. Each repetition is used as an enormous amount of stimuli to the memory through sensory cues, making it easier to retrieve that specific information. For instance, as I don’t visualize or recall any other sensory data, the information I receive is only available to me by its logical connections as without those I can’t recall that memory. Sensory recall allows abuses – frequent presentation of a particular information makes it easier to recall and thus more “valid”, as all other alternatives are harder to recall.

How it relates to sleeping

Almost all living organism sleep (even ones without brain cells or according to some studies even single cell organism), so the purpose of this process is not singular, but we’ll focus on some of its effects in the brain. When an organism receives sensory information that is processed by nerves it’s done mostly via creating synaptic connections. In order for a connection to be established the dendtiric extension of the neuron has to have a prepared “dendritic spine”. From there when a signal is send to transform it to a synaptic connection the process is fast (the process of “sending the start signal” is measured in milliseconds). The time needed to form the actual synaptic connection after that is of no particular importance in this case, but it’s important that the time needed for a new dendritic spine to form is from several minutes to a few hours (dendritic spine plasticity research). Meaning that expending the readied spines is a very quick process based on the amount of stimuli the organism has received, but replenishing them takes a long time.

What happens during sleep – we’re with closed eyes, thus limiting the visual stimuli, in a dark, quiet environment, with almost no movements and limited other new sensory information like smells, touches and tastes. This means that the organism has a lot less information to process and thus being able to create an extra amount of spines that can be used later. What happens if during sleep we dream – visual, auditory or olfactory data is created by activation of neurons, and a huge amount of them, and thus processing that information requires again expending those dendritic spines. Meaning the more you dream, the more vivid and more/different sensory information those dream consist of, less and less spines are left to allow the organism to process the incoming information when being awake. Few examples – probably most of us have experienced being asleep for over 10-12 hours and then awakening more tired than before – the reasons – if you’ve had a lot of dreams during your sleep you end up with less spines which leads to impaired cognitive functionality. Another example with me – I usually am able to have a full and complete rest with about 2-3 hours of sleep. If I have dreams (have only had visual ones without any sounds, olfactory or tactile sensations) I’ll need 6-8 or more hours of sleep and even after than I won’t be fully rested. Causes for dreaming are several and most likely the main one is that the brain is being overstimulated at all times when people are constantly recalling visual or other sensory information. When the organism is falling asleep there are several hormones being secreted that reduce the ability of the neurons and the astrocytes to activate, but if the brain is already overstimulated – it fails. Also, an external factor that assist with the activation of the brain cells are vibrations from crystals. I’ve tested with amethyst, but it works from several meters away as well as crystal sources like LCD TV’s, but only been able to test with old LG TV’s and all cause me to start dreaming during sleep (not right away, but in about 2-3 days of exposure).

Personal Experience

From my observations, I’ve identified two distinct types of dreams:

• Sensory-Inclusive Dreams: These involve some or all of the senses, such as visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and taste sensations.
• Non-Sensory Dreams: These contain no sensory components = only abstract stories or concepts without any material or sensory detail.

Personally, I have only ever experienced visual components in my dreams; I’ve never perceived auditory, olfactory, or other sensory elements, at least as far as I can recall. When my dreams are sensory-inclusive (specifically visual), the outcome aligns with the experiences reported by most people:

• I sleep for 7+ hours.
• I wake up feeling unrested. (though the opposite “rested” state I’ve found to be almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn’t experienced it)
• My energy levels fluctuate throughout the day, leaving me less alert and wakeful.

However, when my dreams fall into the non-sensory category, I do not experience these negative effects. After just 2–4 hours of sleep, I wake up fully rested and energetic. My energy remains consistent throughout the day (barring other external factors), and even after 20 hours of wakefulness, I feel just as energized as I did earlier in the day.

Imagination

Six years ago, when I discovered that others could visualize and even replicate tactile sensations mentally, the common reaction to my inability to visualize or “hear” sounds in my mind was, “So, you have no imagination?” Let’s try a simple exercise: can you imagine an apple? Now, make it more realistic, with tiny dots in various colors and light reflecting off its surface. Notice that this requires more focus and get’s somewhat “energy-intensive”. Now, imagine a cup? Can you generate ten variations of that cup? And for each of those, ten more variations? And then ten more for each of those? And then ten for each of those? Most people would likely stop after the first round, as the task quickly becomes exhausting – especially if they are visualizing each variation.

What does this tell us? People’s imagination often relies on visualizing objects, which restricts it to familiar, viewable forms like 2D or 3D structures. Most people use known structural elements, such as colors, shapes, and materials, and the process can be limiting, as it becomes energy-taxing with complexity and duration.

Imagination is the ability to come up with a different scenario than the current information justifies. It does not rely on visualizing it, but that it’s different from the logical conclusions in the particular aspect. Thus, it’s sometimes used to diminish someone’s logical conclusions implying they are not logical by saying something like “you have a vivid imagination”.

Visualization, along with replicating other sensory data, is often what drains mental energy. Thinking, at the core of imagination, links known concepts to produce a suitable response. Visualizing that response is an extra step that frequently limits our ability to reach the most truthful conclusions based on the information we have – like when asked about the giraffe. Many may mistakenly approach this by acting as if they’re encountering a giraffe for the first time, and know nothing about it, and just start visually gathering information now. But this process is actually complete before the visualization has even began and those results are often dismissed.

Another example I can give is this: when you speak very quickly, do you hear or see what you’re about to say beforehand? This is what it’s like to skip the step of sensory recall. The “thinking” is the process before the visualization, and not the actual processing of the sensory information you created yourself.

Origin and mass adoption

Firstly, the ability to recall sensory information is a skill – anyone with a working complex nervous system can do it as it’s just replicating the response to an input, but it’s not the default state of the brain – if you start visualizing and create other sensory information instead of noticing your environment, evolutionary, you will be in a less-ready state to react to a danger. Thus, it’s logical to assume that the recall of sensory information was not a prevailing skill used often.

Assuming the evolutionary origin of life, early human ancestors likely lived in small, hierarchical groups. Adults provided food and protection, while children, elders, and the sick depended on them, with their needs often taking lower priority. For dependent individuals, reliance on others for survival—food, safety, and avoiding danger—would logically heighten levels of fear and anxiety. If such a person envisioned a threat, whether in a dream, through psychoactive substances, or by vivid imagination (such as an animal attack, flood, or earthquake) and shared it with the group, their warnings might not be taken seriously, especially if such visions were frequent for that particular individual. If one of these predicted disasters came true, future warnings would likely be taken more seriously, elevating the individual’s status within the group. This newfound authority could lead to better satisfaction of their own needs and desires by others. Some individuals may notice the influence gained from such predictions and begin to exploit it. Since they can’t control whether a disaster occurs, they might need to shift blame elsewhere when one happens. The source of blame couldn’t be a fellow group member, as no one controls the forces of nature, nor an animal or object, as these could be captured, killed or destroyed. Instead, the blame would fall on an unseen, powerful entity that can’t be confronted—a force beyond human or animal reach, able to control animals and natural events. Sound familiar? This is the concept of a “god”—a powerful, untouchable being beyond human control, accessible only through the shaman’s unique communication. But how readily would others accept the existence of such a being—one they cannot see, touch, or hear? Even today, with knowledge of microscopic life, of quantum effects and fields that propagate the space-time, belief without evidence is challenging. But what if one could visualize something in the sky or hear a mysterious voice in their mind, or see visions in their dreams? Such experiences would make belief much easier, providing a tangible sense of connection to this unseen entity.

Throughout our history, for the past few thousand years at least, the church has often persecuted, punished, or most often executed individuals for actions or beliefs that conflicted with its doctrines. People were targeted for various reasons: practicing so-called “witchcraft,” challenging theological teachings (like Galileo’s support of heliocentrism), promoting scientific discoveries that contradicted scripture, or adopting religious practices deemed heretical. Anyone seen as a threat to the church’s authority or teachings risked severe consequences, including imprisonment, torture, and execution. The people most likely to question such beliefs would be those most likely to logically evaluate the provided information. Over thousands of years, this created a form of natural selection where individuals with these visualization skills (where direct information retrieval and not logical evaluation is used) were more likely to survive and pass on their traits. Today, other factors contribute to the prevalence of these abilities, such as our stimulus-rich environment, which activates neural pathways and triggers sensory recall more easily. Additionally, societal demands for memorization, starting with early education, further reinforce these skills.