Memory Manipulation and Ethics

[tcr]

Recently scientists have identified the areas holding memories in the brain and have gone about implanting false memories, specifically in research on mice. In other experiments scientists found the area specifically forming a memory of a shock to the foot, and stimulated that area every time the mouse went to a specific area of their setup, thus forming a negative association to a behavior. Similar to experiments like the famous Little Albert experiment, fear was falsely introduced and the behavior was studied afterwards, and scientists found that the mice tended to avoid the areas that had been associated with the stimulation of the appropriate neuron. In the same experiment, the same neuron was tapped into to relay a positive message, that a certain shock to the foot can be associated with bonding with the opposite sex mouse, and the fear was replaced by feelings of pleasure. (source)

Tho direct manipulation of memories is far off in the future, as our understanding of how memories are formed and behaviors associated, and what can be done to manipulate them grows, it is probably not too far fetched to realize that we can translate our anthropomorphic manipulations to humans as well. The implications of this are the potential to help in a clinical setting. Instead of undergoing talk therapy one could have a "surgery" and facilitate the talk therapy, reaping all the benefits without the time needed to invest in it. Instead of dealing with things like PTSD, manipulation could occur so as the person affected does not process the emotions associated with their triggered attack, or potentially doesn't even remember their origin. Similarly treatment could be used to treat general anxiety disorders, which are often reflected as a function of behavior. Therapeutically memory manipulation could have serious impacts on the health of the general populace, and with as relative ease as getting surgery to fix arthritis. Some studies are even testing certain drugs that inhibit receptors in the brain, so just taking a pill to deal with certain phobias or trauma could be a realistic prospect.

Some consequences that might happen are the morality behind it. Is it truly ethical to erase, modify, or encode false memories in a patient, even with their consent? It's highly unlikely that our knowledge of the workings of the brain and the full function of memory is understood at the same level as manipulation of certain neurons are, so unintended consequences might happen. Deleting one memory or encoding a false memory could lead to situations like fugue or amnesia, not incorporating learned skills, or even new behaviors that arise from the manipulation. Naturally there is also the oversight approach, as if a readily available form of memory manipulation exists then it is likely to also be abused in some capacity, as every aspect of life is, and memory and autonomy is a much different and variable thing to change than say surgery.

What are your guys' thoughts on this? Is it ethical to manipulate memories? If not, why not? Are there any examples in which case it would be ethical, like treating PTSD?

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Imo no, our thought patterns, memory, and personality are the only things that make us "real", not just alive but "exist". To alter memory is to alter somebody's entire existence. For example is there a difference in murdering someone ore erasing their memory of existing? Both of these "entitites" (I.e. Humans with a specific set of experiences that define their reactions) have now been "killed" and will not exist again.

That doesn't mean that this technology will not still advance. It can't be stopped forever by human fear, somebody is going to crack it and when we do society is going to be in complete turmoil. In 30 years we may be able to create deepfake footage of somebody doing something and edit the memory of the crime directly into their heads and witnesses. The only thing holding back deepfakes from being widespread now is "morality" and blanket bans by websites, which can't hold the tide forever. In short the future is doomed

 

[tcr]

Does taking away one bad memory or trauma or stimulating a certain different response make our existence any less unique though? I think it's a stretch to say that one's existence is directly tied to one's eventual conception. By that notion do people who have dissociative amnesia not "exist?" They, after all, cannot form highly personal memories and often have no conception of "self." I say the answer is "no," as 'existence' is not only tied to your own concept of individualism and self but also ties into the effects that you might have on others. You may no longer exist as that specific unique aspect of yourself but that is not the same thing as saying that you no longer exist, you are no longer unique, or that you are no longer "yourself."

I think in your worries you should define what "real" is to you, as well as what it means to "exist" because it is possible that we are not operating on the same conceptions of these terms. Taking away one small aspect of a configuration of a snowflake does not make it less unique (it has the potential to make it identical however) it jsut makes it different, and I think the individualness of humanity is similar, if not the same to that situation.

Naturally this hypothetical assumes that consent is implied or given with memory manipulation. Unwelcomed intrusions and alterations, your example of deepfake footage in a person's memory, or some neurosurgeon operating in a manner that violates pre-established ethical guidelines would be unethical and fall outside the scope of the question. My questioning is specifically on the consenting treatment for disorders (weighing the ethics concerning easing suffering vs taking away some form of autonomy or individuality). I guess you could think of it like "At what point is suffering an essential component of a life"

 

[JALMONT]

The underlying question surrounding the OP seems to be more about a philosophical discussion of what constitutes the self which I'm not too sure there is a precise answer for (maybe the philosophical literature has a definite answer but i doubt it ?). I think it depends on the person and what the person thinks constitutes their self and whether altering their memory changes that. I guess that's not a very satisfying answer but I don't really see any other definitive answer. I agree that our knowledge of the brain/memory is lacking, but I think that unintended consequences from that lack of knowledge wouldn't be any less unethical then unintended consequences of a surgery gone wrong.

I think probably the question you are trying to get at here (as you presented in your most recent post) is better discussed from the angle of assisted suicide, which I feel is the ultimate end of the problem that manipulating memories supposedly solves (pain), just because it's an issue that's more relevant/accessible to people.

 

[Myzozoa]

@ the op

When we discussed what these questions about memory actually mean on discord, I think we discussed distinctions in types of memory and mechanics and you pointed out that the mechanics of memory ala setting baselines for neural inhibition already suggests that regardless of the technology there are therapeutic techniques for modifying neural networks. For example, consider the case of someone that due to a lifetime of severe trauma has extreme abnormalities in short-term and long-term memory processing, such a person can still establish routines, particularly rituals that act on working memory. In the chat you said this moderation on working memory can have 'episodic memory structure', so I was hoping you would elaborate on what episodic memory structure is and how it might be thought of?

Also if there is therapeutic techniques already in existence to deal with abnormally inhibited or excitable neural networks it adds another, not particularly interesting, layer to the thought experiment, because it goes at what I was saying before: if 'memory modification' really just means stimulating neural networks than this thought experiment has nothing to do with common sense understandings of memory and talk of 'implanted' or 'false memories' does not appear to refer to anything that's related to modifying how excited neurons are through some technological stimulation that doesn't attach experiential content.

as to the mechanics of working memory and it's interactions w episodic memory: I would point out that false memories are implanted through working memory's interactions on episodic memory, i.e, when I put my bag in the car and drive to the dog park on my day off, I accidentally get off at the exit for my work. A modification of this case is where people falsely 'remember' doing tasks that are part of their routine even when they haven't done them (clocking out at work anyone?). In these cases working memory could perhaps be said to implant a false episodic memory, if I understand these terms right.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Taking away one small aspect of a configuration of a snowflake does not make it less unique (it has the potential to make it identical however)

Does taking away one bad memory or trauma or stimulating a certain different response make our existence any less unique though?

it does "end" that previous "self" and changes it into a new, unique one. People with dissociative amnesia? Yeah, the person that they were before is "dead", they aren't coming back. You aren't you any more, you're a different you.

 

[tcr]

@ myzo

When we discussed what these questions about memory actually mean on discord, I think we discussed distinctions in types of memory and mechanics and you pointed out that the mechanics of memory ala setting baselines for neural inhibition already suggests that regardless of the technology there are therapeutic techniques for modifying neural networks. For example, consider the case of someone that due to a lifetime of severe trauma has extreme abnormalities in short-term and long-term memory processing, such a person can still establish routines, particularly rituals that act on working memory. In the chat you said this moderation on working memory can have 'episodic memory structure', so I was hoping you would elaborate on what episodic memory structure is and how it might be thought of?

Episodic memory can be thought of as a form of long term "autobiographical memory," which usually consists of snapshots throughout a person's life. Their first kiss, their 5th birthday party, the experience of their first job or deployment, and so on. Working memory in contrast is the short term memory. I was taught to think of it kinda like a workbench of ideas, in that when you're working on one project you have your immediate "tools" on hand to deal with the project, and in lieu of this comparison working memory incorporates the immediate ideas and items that you might need to complete a task. For example if you're building a house in your working memory you may have memories of the layout of the plan, or how you should go about laying foundation, how to align the house so it doesn't flow water towards the foundation, etc, all the tools you need to complete your task but not something you necessarily think about on a daily, weekly, or even yearly basis.

Now the way these memories are encoded in the brain are different. For working memory it's kinda what the scientists were checking; simple prodding of a singular neuron to associate the excitement of the neuron with whatever activity / feeling is being done. For episodic memory the encoding process is more like altering the transmission path between neurons, often through long term potentiation. Studies have shown that the incessant spiking of one neuron will lead to structural changes in the episodic memory "bank." Functionally this means that one stimulus onto a specific neuron in turn creates a reinforced pathway for the episodic memory to be encoded a certain way. Or, that it can be changed and directed to encode specific phenomena if one can control the inhibition of working memory neurons. (source 1 source 2 search for 'Encoding')

it does "end" that previous "self" and changes it into a new, unique one. People with dissociative amnesia? Yeah, the person that they were before is "dead", they aren't coming back. You aren't you any more, you're a different you.

Is there necessarily anything morally wrong with that though? People change throughout their life all the time, some might argue that change is the only constant in life (heraclitus anyone). To your extent what would you classify as "death of the self," why would death of the self or even an altered structure of one's self be immoral (ignoring the obvious power distance between a neurosurgeon and a patient), and is there anything that would break this thought? To my understanding of your view you view a change of memories, and thus learned experiences, as an unethical means since it produces a product that isn't "you." To what end do subconscious memories violate this view, such as rape victims that unconsciously choose to subdue their traumatic memories, or PTSD victims, and so on? Is memory our only constant reminder of our accomplishments?

I love jalmont's parallel to assisted suicide, i thought memory manipulation quote unquote might be cooler to try to thought experiment with but if it helps ppl to tackle this thread then by all means discuss it in terms of euthanasia; to this purpose you could also even talk about like, anger management, or therapy, or really anything that tries to subdue the "you" innateness that gato seems to be referring to (correct me if im misunderstanding, please)

 

[internet]

While this is realistically a whole ways off, realistically it also just represents a paradigm shift in the way memories are thought of, not a "doom of society" as gato fears.

One's way of life is in a perpetual state of being doomed, because society always changes, much in the same way a person's mindstate is always dying, as a person will always experience new things and forget old ones. This does not mean society is always about to meet its final downfall, and does not mean a person should mourn the death of their yesterself every day.

 

[Alan]

Does taking away one bad memory or trauma or stimulating a certain different response make our existence any less unique though? I think it's a stretch to say that one's existence is directly tied to one's eventual conception. By that notion do people who have dissociative amnesia not "exist?" They, after all, cannot form highly personal memories and often have no conception of "self." I say the answer is "no," as 'existence' is not only tied to your own concept of individualism and self but also ties into the effects that you might have on others. You may no longer exist as that specific unique aspect of yourself but that is not the same thing as saying that you no longer exist, you are no longer unique, or that you are no longer "yourself."

I think in your worries you should define what "real" is to you, as well as what it means to "exist" because it is possible that we are not operating on the same conceptions of these terms. Taking away one small aspect of a configuration of a snowflake does not make it less unique (it has the potential to make it identical however) it jsut makes it different, and I think the individualness of humanity is similar, if not the same to that situation.

Naturally this hypothetical assumes that consent is implied or given with memory manipulation. Unwelcomed intrusions and alterations, your example of deepfake footage in a person's memory, or some neurosurgeon operating in a manner that violates pre-established ethical guidelines would be unethical and fall outside the scope of the question. My questioning is specifically on the consenting treatment for disorders (weighing the ethics concerning easing suffering vs taking away some form of autonomy or individuality). I guess you could think of it like "At what point is suffering an essential component of a life"

I like this post and want to reply to it.

Does taking away one bad memory or trauma or stimulating a certain different response make our existence any less unique though?

Yes. If you think of memory as a book which holds the annals of our live's experiences thus far, changing a memory would change the impact that memory had on you in terms of how it affects your behavior. Example: Say you were attacked by a dog as a child and are now henceforth scared of dogs. That is a behavior and pattern that while not wholly unique, is unique in that it is part of you and a unique component that makes you up. Every behavior you make has a reaction from it's surroundings which in some way shape or form has got you to where you are at this moment in time. Ergo, altering any past of that would change the future of today and it would not be the same. This is kind of a Ship of Thesus take on it, but if you replace all memories of a person, is it still the same person?

I guess you could think of it like "At what point is suffering an essential component of a life"

Well if you're a Bhuddist it's the first noble truth. If you follow Nietzche, it is what makes life life. It depends on your philosophic viewpoint. If you want to go through life feeling only pleasure and be in a constant state of euphoria, you would say pain or suffering is the antithesis to life. If you view life based on the sum of it's experiences, good or bad, you would say suffering is a part of life and is neither good or bad, just is. If you are a nihilist or a pessimist and think life is only pain and suffering because we spend our time and energy trying to detract from the pain that is existence, you would say pain is all there is to life and everything else is a distraction.

Based off your views (assuming you aren't just playing devil's advocate for the purpose of discussion), I would gather you are in the camp of wanting to reduce suffering.

This is a cool discussion, but I definitely see it going down the Black Mirror/Inception route faster than I see it going down the Dr.s-Without-Borders treatment free-for-all extravaganza. That's just how we do with new technology:

Can we weaponise it?
If yes: cool
If no: are you sure?

Smartphones, the internet, voice and facial recognition.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Medically removing traumas that cause mental disorders, such as PTSD, sounds like a brilliant idea to me.
Therapy/ counselling for people with traumas do not always work, and most of the time, don't really work very well.
Medication do not really cure anything, as they only suppress the symptoms.