I’m talking about visual memory what you see when you recall it, not about image recognition

What is 'visual memory', then?
Also, on what grounds are you going to claim that a computer can't have 'visual memory'?
And why is image recognition suddenly irrelevant here?

So far, this seems rather arbitrary.
Also, people usually do not keep a memory of an image of a poem if they are memorising it, as far as I can tell, so this pivot to 'visual memory' seems irrelevant to what you were saying previously.

I’m suggesting that it’s not linked lists, or images or sounds or bytes in some way, but rather closer to persistent hallucinations of self referential neural networks upon specified input

So, what's the difference?

which also mutate in place by themselves and by recall but yet not completely wildly

And? I can just as well point out the fact that hard drives and SSDs do suffer from memory corruption with time, and there is also the fact that a computer can be designed in a way that its memory gets changed every time it is accessed. Now what?

Memory is like a growing tree or an old house is not exactly most helpful metaphor, but probably closer to what it does than a linked list

Things that are literally called 'biological computers' are a thing. While not all of them feature ability to 'grow' memory, it should be pretty clear that computers have this capability.