PSY 480: Mind Control and Memory
In the last unit, we considered attitudes toward neuro-cognitive enhancement (Farah et al., 2004; Greely, Sahakian, Gazzaniga, Campbell, & Farah, 2008; Manninen, 2006; Riis, Simmons, & Goodwin, 2008). Given their publication in scholarly journals, one could be forgiven for reflecting on these issues in a detached way. We then considered a personal side of neuroethics in the episode from Frontline on PBS, entitled “The medicated child”. It’s a quite gripping account of a neuroethical dilemma. By the way, the complete transcript is available to read and quote, as well.
Given what we know about the growing prevalence of psychopharmacological intervention for behavioral disorders, psychopathology, and even arguably run-of-the-mill normal stressors in the healthy (see last unit), it is reasonable to consider the somewhat now less science-fiction-sounding possibility of mind control.
To the extent that you are not in control, can you still be you?
(We’ll be looking at what neuroscience has discovered about ‘free will’ in the future.) Memory is another topic within psychology and philosophy that bears upon this issue of identity. If it is possible to manipulate memories and we consider our memories to be the narrative of our selves, is there a neuroethical concern about changing our personal identities when we intervene?
If we change our memories of who we were, do we change who we are and will be?
In this unit, you will continue reading Levy (2007; Chapters 4 and 5). In addition, please consider Osmundsen’s (1965) front page report about mind/brain control and its possible nefarious possibilities. In addition, Han et al. (2009) have recently demonstrated that erasing memories is no longer the purview of bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. Are there neuroethical concerns with this growing ability neuroscientists have to selectively erase memories? Is it possible that the benefits outweigh any neuroethical concerns? If you are interested, Greely and Illes (2007) is available upon request, as well as Kolber (2006); see below for these potentially paper-relevant articles. On that note, even though I think this kind of course and topic works best by letting everyone loose on the blog after carefully selecting your article ammunition, I always miss a more personal contact online. Thus, I’d love to start hearing more from everyone as to how your views are forming and changing about neuroethics, as well as what you might think would be a good paper topic. Contact me and let’s bounce some ideas around! (The blog can also be a good sounding board, by the way. As a team we can all make the papers better.)
Finally, next week’s assignment will be to watch either Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind or Dark City (or both). (They’re both quite good, and are available on iTunes or through Netflix, etc., but I wanted you to be able to prepare in advance your popcorn shopping and renting.) What are these movies about and what do these movies have to do with this unit’s neuroethical issues? We’ll be considering that, though I only want you to post on the readings for now!
Your comments and discussion are due next Monday (11/2/09).
Just so you’re aware, Friday is the last day to withdraw from a course at Drexel University if you choose.
References
Han, J.-H., Kushner, S. A., Yiu, A. P., Hsiang, H.-L., Buch, T., Waisman, A., Bontempi, B., Neve, R. L., Frankland, P. W., & Josselyn, S. A. (2009). Selective erasure of a fear memory. Science, 323, 1492-1496.
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century (Chapters 4, 5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Osmundsen, J. A. (1965, May 17). ‘Matador’ with a radio stops wired bull. New York Times, p. 1.
Optional
Greely, H. T., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 377-431.
Kolber, A. J. (2006). Therapeutic forgetting: The legal and ethical implications of memory dampening. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 1561-1626.
Future Required viewing
Golin, S., & Bregman, A. (Producers), & Gondry, M. (Director). (2004). Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Studios.
Mason, A. (Producer), & Proyas, A. (Producer, Director, Writer). (1998). Dark city [Motion picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.
There are various neuroethical concerns regarding the possibility of “mind control” and memory manipulation. It is a worrying prospect to view the possibility of an outside control causing a person to act against their will or work directly on their will causing them to behave in the way desired by the controller, while leaving them under the illusion that they are in charge (Levy 145). The ability to detect and deceive human beings has been an important ability in the realm of evolutionary history and manipulating this personal sense of control can have detrimental consequences. Autonomy and privacy are extremely important and should not be given up lightly by direct interference by others or by moral observation that comes from observation (Levy 155). The selective erase of memories can also have detrimental consequences due to the immense importance memory has on the construction on our identities. We, as individuals, develop our sense of self by our past experiences as we can recall them and how they shape our present behaviors, thoughts and desires. Memory is what links an individual’s past to their future self, and what makes them the person they are (Levy 159). Incorporating false memories might undermine the coherence of an individual’s belief system and thereby the rationality of the person (Levy 164). The erasure of memories, including some of the most painful, can undermine the possibility to learn and be guided by these experiences. They serve as important guides to an individual’s abilities and limitations and are instrumentally valuable indicators of self-knowledge. The erasure of memories “leaves an individual at the mercy of impulses at the moment” (Levy 174). Though there are various concerns with the possibility of mind manipulation, there can be benefits to this growing scientific field. Brain fingerprinting, aimed at detecting guilty knowledge, is a new concept in neurological lie detection. It can prove useful, with more research and engineering, to interview criminals and violent offenders (Levy 136). The current treatment of propranolol, which has been linked to a deficit in moral judgment, can drastically decrease the debilitating symptoms of PTSD sufferers (Levy 193). In the same vein of PTSD, researchers manipulating neurons in fear learning have been able to ablate neurons related to fear memory (Han 2009). Although there are some positive aspects of neuroscientific mind manipulation, I feel that the benefits do not outweigh any neuroethical concerns. The ease at which psychologists and other mental health professionals can implant false memories, and consequently have detrimental consequences for families in the court system is extremely alarming. Coaxed recovered memories, implanted memories and memory manipulation alarm my moral judgment on any further development of “mind control”, considering we are already quite successful without the use of any equipment. I feel that it is very easy for scientists to take hold of such powerful technology and use it for sadistic purposes, such as Dr. Delgado in his experiments in inducing severe anxiety in human patients and playing with moneys and cats like “little toys” (Osmundsen 1965). Although this would be highly unethical in today’s society, it would still occur in animal testing, which I cannot support. “Mind control” is a slippery slope, and I feel that it is best to leave Pandora’s Box shut.
Emily Kurlansik
Psy 480
Hi, Emily. That was a very thoughtful blog entry.
You note that you cannot support non-human animal experimentation, as it relates to various kinds of brain-machine interfaces. Given this stance, what do you think of the possibilities of neuroprostheses to alter normal and non-normal motor functioning? I grant that there is an ethical and now neuroethical dilemma in research, but there is generally a trade-off. Where would you draw line, or is your aversion to non-human animal research more absolute?
Consider the following papers on brain-machine interface and rehabilitation: 1, 2, 3.
After reviewing the reccommended articles, I think that there is a difference between altering human emotion and thought processes and mobility. I am completely supportive of brain machine interfaces for limb mobility in hopes of paralyzed subjects or amputees regaining control over their limbs. This type of “altering” doesn’t impact the substance of an individual. It will only enhance the outer physical mobility of an individual’s existence.
Regarding animal research, I do realize the important trade-off that comes with using animals in scientific research. Without using them as test subjects, many advances in science would not be possible because of now stringent ethical codes. I, as a dedicated animal lover, just have a problem with the inability of informed consent that results from using animals. Humans are completely aware and notified of what is occuring, and can control the situation. Animals however, are at the mercy of scientists, and cannot simply opt out of the research experiment.
Thanks for the reply. Given the concern over informed consent, at what age (or level of brain development?) do you regard a person as a legal person capable of making their own decision. The issue here is a parent making a decision for a child to take a neurotropic drug, as in our Frontline episode. The child did not consent. The parent is an adult and can consent, but can they consent for the child? Would you say that adults human beings can do whatever they want, but for non-human animals and children, as well as adult human beings with severe cognitive dementia, we must ethically leave them out of any trial or intervention because they can’t speak for themselves?
The concepts of mind control, memory erasure, or memory implantations are extremely frightening ones. Although many of humanities’ traits are determined by genetic factors there are still a great many ways that experiences shape who we are. By erasing memories, or even more dramatically, implanting false ones, it is called into question whether a person loses who they truly are. I feel that this is certainly the case, and given the amount of progress being made in this research it seems to have become an even more real possibility ,and therefore, an important neuroethical concern.
Science fiction authors have speculated for decades the implications of mind control and memory erasure. More currently research done by people like Han et al. (2009) and Brunet et al. (2008) have shown memory erasure to be less fiction and more reality. Brunet et al. (2008) showed it possible to dampen the effects of emotional memories after they have occurred, completely altering the perception the individual has of the memory. However, a similar practice has been in use for long before this. Antidepressants and similar drugs can impact the way an event is perceived, dampening the emotional impact of experiences. While this may not be the initial intended use for antidepressants it has become one of the more widespread implementations of the drugs. Dampening emotional memories while they are encoded is a similar practice to dampening them during the re-encoding process as is done by Brunet, resulting in a comparable loss of significance of the memory. This loss of significance inhibits the development of knowledge gained by these experiences having a powerful effect on an individual’s understanding and behavior, in essence changing who they are.
The idea of implanting memories is an even more effective means of altering who an individual is. While steps have been made towards the implantation of false memories with pharmaceuticals or neuro-stimulation techniques, the media has already effectively been implanting false memories in the population for years. Levy (2007) asserts that it is difficult to insert false memories due to a mental “holism”, where in if a false memory conflicts with a persons existing beliefs and rationality it will be more difficult to insert, although not impossible (p.164). However, given the apparent lack of rationality inherent in the general population that assertion seems to be slightly flawed in the assumptions it makes. For example, with no actual evidence to be found, many people within the American population held the false belief that the government was forming “death panels” due to the misleading phrases of several key figures. Whether this is done for political gain or blown out of proportion by the media for the purpose of driving up ratings is of little importance when this false belief forms a false memory in a large number of people in the American public. While it would be assumed, as it is by Levy, that such a memory would conflict greatly with people’s existing memories, beliefs, and rationality, this is clearly not the case, making the possibility of successful memory manipulation by more direct means even more plausible.
Overall it is quite a disconcerting concept to alter a persons memory in any way. However, there are several usage scenarios where it may be of great benefit. People suffering from post traumatic stress, for example, could have the ability to overcome emotionally scaring events that could plague them for the rest of their lives. I would still argue, however, that it would be a more healthy solution to dull the emotional aspects of a memory i.e. Brunet (2008), then to cause an amnesiac like reaction by completely destroying the memory i.e. Han (2009). This way at least some knowledge could still be obtained and utilized from the memory while allowing for a relief from the emotional distress it may cause. Either way, with the development of more advanced methods of altering memories, it is important to take into account the intrinsic moral and neuroethical implications that exist in memory manipulation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6264530.stm
Justin Carone
Psy 480
Hi, Justin.
You note that “many of humanities’ traits are determined by genetic factors” and I’m curious about which ones, as I am not a biological determinist and I want to see where you’re coming from.
This sentence stands out to me:
I’m curious as to the basis of any outrage of erasing or otherwise manipulating memories. I don’t think there is really much in the way of an objective record of one’s life and experiences on which to contrast a future world of memory manipulation. That is, if memory is less about the objective record of the past and more about knowledge brought to bear for present and future concerns, memory manipulation doesn’t seem as bad because there was nothing objective to manipulate in the first place, just one version of a story vs. another. Consider that your parents’ telling of your childhood misadventures is not ever really challenged, though you have no objective record that they’re not lying. At some level, it doesn’t matter. Their account is your identity, and the objectivity of their memory is just not an issue. If much of memory is like that, then no memory is really untainted, and so the neuroethical concern of memory erasure or manipulation doesn’t really have the same punch I feel.
While I would not consider myself a complete biological determinist, not yet anyway, I do believe that most of our traits are passed on through generations. Humanities physical characteristics are clearly passed on through our families genetic code, and since the brain is merely an internal piece of our physical being, it stands to reason that it too is affected by our genes. Furthermore, modern neuroscience is discovering more and more about how the brain carries out our cognitive and behavioral functions. Therefore, since genes affect our physical being and the brain is a part of that physical being and the brain controls our cognitive and behavioral functions, our genes affect our cognitive and behavioral functions. This is merely a string of logical progression, however, an increasing amount of evidence is arising to support it. Research has found genetic links between everything from commitment phobia to autism, and an entire new field has arisen from this, Behavioral Genetics. That, however, is a whole different topic, though fun to debate ti is not as pertinent here.
As for my “outrage” over the erasure or manipulation of memories I feel you give humanity too little credit in our ability to acquire relatively objective information from our memories (I admittedly give humanity very little credit too). Although it may be true that some people only look at their life events from their own perspectives there are also those who strive to see the same events from as many varying perspectives as possible. By doing so a more cohesive, and more objective, understanding of an event can be formed. By obtaining a true memory with increased objectivity an individual is able to form a more realistic understanding of their own behavior as well as the world around them. This understanding is crucial for making a wide range of decisions, all the way from picking what food to eat to deciding what politician to vote for. If a false memory were implanted, however, one may choose a food that they despise, forcing them later to vomit, or may choose a politician who could destroy their well being. I guess my point is that humanity can extract valid, objective information from their memories and by implanting false ones people become less able to make informed rational decisions.
I believe that too, but that can be accommodated by thinking of each generation as reconstructing a dynamic organism-environment system without believing that either biology or culture determined from the in- or outside anything. If you’re interested in this line of thought, send me an email.
that genes are needed for xyz does not make them a sufficient cause for anything of interest to psychology. we may very well have different assumptions that will lead us to stalemate, but that the brain is involved in anything or that there are genes related to psychological variables is not surprising or revelatory. as you’ll read in Levy’s account of neuroethics (on a topic I share with him research-wise), if we expand beyond the individual and the individual’s brain and genetic make-up, we may very have to reinterpret effective causation. The idea being that the system that is out psychological being and self is much than previously recognized.
just so you know, i wasn’t saying that you were ‘outraged’. just in general i think that people are upset about the prospect of memory manipulation but i see no reason for people to be upset given that the sanctity of memories is never really observed to begin with.
In chapter 4, Levy discusses the mind control and reading minds. While I am not arguing that there are un-reliabilities in technologies such as lie detector tests, I find the idea of mind reading for such purposes or any really, quite disturbing. As Levy points out, neural correlations have their own limitations as well by their dependence on “something neurologically distinctive about deliberate deception” (Levy, 135). The idea that the most promising results for mind reading require a built up “set of data on an individual subject” (Levy, 138) is ethically unsettling due to its intrusive nature. Levy makes an important point in reminding us that reliable mind reading “depends on our thought having stable neural correlates across time” (Levy, 141), and he describes very well how that might not always be the case. One page 145, Levy conveys the worries that these technologies would stir up among society. Beyond mind reading, comes mind control which can lead to manipulation of behavior and beliefs and as Levy states, “could be used to limit our autonomy to some degree” (Levy, 146). Ethically, that seems to be well beyond a fine line – but rather a crossing of lines altogether.
In previous discussions we looked at the role that advertisers play in seducing consumers by using effective and convincing tag lines. Levy, in chapter 4, page 153, uses Christmas shopping as a timely example to remind us how mind control to a degree, already exists in our commercialized society. Not only in advertising, but in the simple fact that buying and giving expensive, impractical gifts beyond our financial means has become a way of life – a tradition of contemporary society. If we as individuals can’t break away from commercialized holiday expectations, is it that far fetched to think that we could be susceptible to savvy, highly technological advancements in mind reading and control?
I do believe that to change our memories of who we were inevitably changes who we are and will be. Chapter 5 in Levy (2007) addresses the neuroethics of memory. He begins with the concept of personal identity and memory as first proposed by philosopher John Locke (Levy, 157). I agree with Levy’s belief that our identities are “constituted by our beliefs, plans, policies and values, and these things exist across time” (Levy, 158). He goes on to explain how who we will become is based on goals that are reflective of our past history and memories. The fear that comes with dementia, as he says so well, is a “gradual unraveling of the person themselves” (Levy, 159). How can we be our whole selves if we lose the link from our past that binds us to those we have come to know and love? When I spend time with my mother (who is at the beginning stages of dementia) I feel like I have already started to lose her. At times, she is frustrated while other times it just makes her sad. This is because she is still sharp enough to realize what she is losing. I think it is very telling that she is less concerned with what she forgets throughout the day – what she had for lunch, etc. but grasps onto memories of long ago – her childhood, her early twenties and thirties. I believe this is because those were the years when she was discovering who she was. More and more, her conversations begin with “I was” or “I used to” rather than asking about what is going on with her kids and grandkids. It is a struggle for her to think in the present, yet the past memories are a comfort – a familiar place that makes her feel a connection.
The very idea of inserting false memories – even pleasant ones, has never been appealing to me. What then, is the point of imagination? Levy states in chapter 5, “our memories are far less reliable than we typically think…creating composite memories…incorporating false information…” (Levy, 167). Whether false memories are deliberate or accidental (Levy, 170), they make us vulnerable enough without adding the possibilities of memory insertion, recall, alteration and erasure through neuro-technological advancements. I found this chapter (5) my favorite so far; in the way Levy addresses our humanity, autonomy, the possibility of harm, morals, relationships and self worth.
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Hi, Judy
This is quite an interesting statement of yours. If you frown, and I ask you if you are sad, would you freak out and run from the room accusing me of mind-reading? My guess is no, but here’s what I want to press: I can’t see your subjective experience of sadness. Your emotions and thoughts (by many philosophical and psychological accounts) are internal and private. Your behavior is generally considered a symptom or consequence of such internal psychological process. If I see you go to the refrigerator, then I can really only assume you had such an intention and desire and I would guess a thought like “I am hungry”. I only see your behavior. Thus, we read each other’s minds all the time because that inference from external behavior to internal mind (something called ‘theory of mind’) is necessary for such a social creature as ourselves.
What is the principled difference between regular mind-reading and the more exotic?
You note the notion of technologies “intrusive nature” but isn’t me watching you from across the room and knowing what you’re thinking even creepier?
Hello Dr. Ramey,
Thanks for your reply! I think that the type of mind reading you mentioned is different in that it is only one person’s perspective about another. You see me frown, so you perceive that I am sad – but you don’t really know for sure. I might appear to be frowning, but am actually just deep in thought. I guess what I’m trying to get across is the difference between perception and knowledge that can be used against you in a manipulative way. I find it very intrusive when someone stares even when I know they can’t tell what I’m thinking, so yeah, if I knew someone could actually read my mind I would feel vulnerable and defenseless. But, what would instill fear, would be wondering if and how you were going to use that knowledge if in fact, you were able to read my mind. So in regards to ethics, it’s not the research that we are reading about that disturbs me so much, it’s the many possible ways that researchers propose it could be used. I know this will sound like I have one foot on both sides of the issue, but I appreciate what neuro-research can bring to curing diseases, improving quality of life after strokes and other injuries. Yet, to think of it being used to insert false memories or memory erasure, is directly messing with one’s identity. As noted by an example in Levy, a false memory can’t “contribute to self-knowledge” (Levy, 173). Inference of external behavior to internal mind is part of what makes us social. To take mind-reading and manipulation to a whole other technological level, I fear, is removing any need for perception, inference, or socializing – we will become more and more de-personalized if ethics committees do not stand firm. Talking in circles…hope you get what I’m trying to say!
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
The concept of “selective erasure of a fear memory” (Han, 2009) would probably be appealing to some who experience PTSD or even simply want to forget a bad experience or relationship. Yet, considering how memories are linked together across time, to remove just one incident from our memory – I wonder how all other memories of actions and decisions that were based on that one memory, would then make sense? And, how it would affect those around us. I have a friend who suffered from PTSD for years following a car accident where someone was killed. If, hypothetically, she were to remove this memory, then so would her daughters and her husband because this happened to them as well and affected them as a family. Also, simply erasing the memory wouldn’t undo the worst part – the way that the incident changed her – meaning, removing the memory wouldn’t undo all the years of anxiety attacks and her decreased social lifestyle as she had known it. In other words, it wouldn’t change who she has become. I will use just the last line of a Delgado quote in the Osmundsen (1965) article.
“…intelligent human beings who will make intelligent use of the formidable forces at our disposal” (Osmundsen, p. 2). Intelligent use should include ethical use, and therefore any kind of memory alteration in my opinion, is not the smartest or most ethical use of science”.
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Mind control, the outside influence on our thoughts, beliefs, desires, and behaviors, has an impact on our individuality. The degree of this influence determines the extent to which we are free to be ourselves. The minor influences of advertisers, for example, have very little impact compared to the use of psychopharmeceuticals. The more control imposed on the individual, the less authentic that person will be.
Mind control can be done overtly with the individual fully aware and receptive to the control. This can be accomplished with the use of mood-altering drugs. These drugs influence mood and, in turn, have an effect on belief and behavior (Levy, 2007, p. 146). Individuals that seek help for mood disorders are accepting of this type of control.
Mind control can also be covert, the person is unaware of the control and is left with the illusion that the control is their own (Levy, 2007, p. 145). This is the type of mind control people fear. It is also the type of mind control that would have a negative impact on who we are. Having no choice or control in how we think and behave would prevent us from being ourselves. Our personalities would contain aspects of the controller’s personality in the form of the controls chosen.
Covert mind control could have some possible beneficial uses. Individuals that have violent or destructive tendencies may be helped with mind control. If they are unreceptive to the idea, covert forms would be necessary. While this does take the individual’s right to refuse treatment away, the welfare of society as a whole should be the main consideration. The possibility of protecting innocent men, women, and children from the destructive propensities of one person should be the top priority. The use of mind control for this purpose alone calls for further research. Unfortunately, for every beneficial use found, a negative use is typically found as well.
Christine Spencer
Psy 480
Hi, Christine. I want to press you for your own position.
When I watch a Burger King or Wendy’s hamburger commercial, I get really hungry for a burger (not so much with McDonald’s). If I wasn’t aware of this, my subsequent purchase of fast food would seem to be in my control. Do you think commercials ought to be regulated or banned because persuasion of this sort is too covert. That is, they just showed me food, they didn’t really suggest that I ought to buy it or else.
(As it pertains to other readings in the course-or will-what are your thoughts on free will? If human beings don’t have free will, then mind control is rather moot, because control was never to be had from within.)
I believe that people have free will. We are free to choose what we want. There are consequences to our actions, but it is up to each of us to decide if the action is worth the price. This is where I have distinctive views on mind control. For people that live their lives without causing harm (and by harm I mean any type of violence, robbery, or other criminal behaviors that cause others harm), the use of mind control would be unethical. Its use may serve a purpose in regards to individuals that habitually cause harm to others. Being able to control these deviant behaviors would benefit society as a whole, as well as the individual. In this respect, mind control would be beneficial.
As for commercials, we cannot ban them. I don’t think they have a mind control effect persay, but instead use suggestability as a means to get consumers to buy their goods.
Chrisitine Spencer
Psy 480
Memories are an important part of who we are as individuals. No two people share the same exact memories. This fact helps give us our individuality. They help shape how we think, feel, and behave. If we begin to selectiviely change memories, we ultimately begin to change the individual.
The concept of memory erasure is problematic. To be effective, all traces of the memory must be erased. This would not be possible. Each memory effects other aspects of an individual’s behavior, tying all memories together in some respect. To fully remove a memory, other memories would be effected. If all of the memory and its resulting ties to other memories are not changed, the result could lead to confusion for the individual. Another problem arises in the memories of others. While the individual may not remember a particular memory, others that had knowledge of it would still remember. It would be impossible to prevent the individual from being confronted with the altered memory at some point.
The idea of memory alterations, at first, seems to have some benefits. Among these is changing memories of particularly traumatic events in an individuals life. On the surface, this would seem to hold the benefit of relieving the trauma of the event, therefore, helping the individual heal mentally. Unfortunately, the problems mentioned earlier prevent the successful outcome of this use.
One example of the effects of memory changes is amnesia. The partial or total lose of memory can be devestating. The amnesia can be a result of tramau to the brain. Sufferers of this type of amnesia may never be able to recover their past, forcing them to start over. Unless their identity is discovered, the changes to their personalities may never be known.
Christine Spencer
Psy 480
Wow, there are some serious philosophical dilemmas this week and I will probably contradict myself (sorry!).
The article by Osmundsen was fascinating. I was really surprised to see that even in the 60’s behavior modification through electrical stimulation was possible. One problem with this however, is that most of the experiments were conducted on animals. Very few were conducted on humans, and those that were, were being treated for severe epilepsy. More research on humans would be necessary to discover the true success or failure of Delgado’s ideas, but there lies the ethical problem. The illustration of the bull experiment is proof that this type of manipulation is possible in the future, which is alarming. Even if you cognitively decide against something, you could be forced to participate in the unwanted behavior, against your will, through the means of mechanical manipulation. I feel that you cannot be yourself if your behavior is being directly manipulated by another person.
Levy(2007)addresses the issues of mind reading, mind control, and memory manipulation. We are very concerned about the technology of the future, as we should be, but it overshadows the fact that these things already exist in the form of external control. At this point in time, although we cannot directly control an individual’s behavior, we can influence them (Levy p 146). The use of psychopharmaceuticals influences mood, which can influence behavior. Also, religious and political leaders can be very influential and manipulate the thoughts of their followers. They cannot control them, but their change in thought pattern can modify their behavior.
Brain reading as a form of lie detection is a popular topic of neuroethical discussion. In certain contexts, such as law enforcement and the criminal justice system, it could be a great tool. However, it could also be very detrimental id it fell into the wrong hands. If everyday citizens had access to this technology, I fear that we would lose our ability to control our cognitive thoughts. Sometimes information is better left unsaid, or in this case, unread.
Memory alterations include deliberate deletion of memories, insertion of false memories, memory enhancement, and treatment and prevention of memory loss (Levy p 159). While deleting and adding memories is much more controversial, I do not have a problem with the treatment and prevention of memory loss. If a young mother prematurely develops dementia or Alzheimer’s disease and therefore cannot remember her young children, it is really unethical to intervene if the possibility exists? Wouldn’t her children benefit tremendously by having their mother as she once was?
I agree that our memory and past experiences are an important part of who we are. I will even go as far to say that it helps mold our personalities. However, this does not mean that I agree with some of Levy’s observations. At one point, Levy (2007) describes having dementia as the unraveling of oneself (p 159). I feel in this situation, the person with dementia still possesses their identity, even if it’s not quite the same personal identity they once had. They may not recollect all of their memories, but they may still have their long-term memory. If they still possess the memories that formed their personal identities so don’t they still have a personal identity?
Memory erasure is another area of ethical concern. If we erase the memory of one, will it affect another? I feel that this should be considered in certain situations, such as traumatic experiences. Some feel, however, that those experiences mold one’s personality and make them who they are. What about the person who develops a mental illness as a result of the traumatic experience? This comes down to a quality of life issue. Maybe the person would regain the ability to trust people and form meaningful relationships if they had no recollection of their traumatic experience. Personal growth seems to be an issue for those in opposition. I do not buy into the fact that someone who is a victim of a horrible experience, who then takes a downward spiral, can benefit from, and grow individually and spiritually, by reliving the trauma. I am not saying I am a supporter of such technology; I just have an issue with some of the reasons for its opposition. Sometimes personal growth through recollection just does not seem to be beneficial. I feel that if their traumatic memory was erased they would still be themselves and may even benefit from a better quality of life.
If it is possible to manipulate memories and we consider our memories to be the narrative of ourselves, is there a neuroethical concern about changing our personal identities when we intervene? I do agree that our personal identities would be altered when we intervene with memory and recall, but the key word is altered. Plus, is that really our concern? As long as the risks and benefits are carefully weighed, shouldn’t it be up to the individual?
If we change our memories of who we were, do we change who we are and will be? Let’s say there is a young boy who lives in a poor, inner city. He is repeatedly rejected by his father, neglected by his mother, and physically abused by his step-father. He grows up in this environment for many years and carries this cycle into his own family. Why would memory manipulation in this case be a bad thing? If he would be able to wipe out the memories of abuse and neglect, maybe he, and his children, would have a substantially different life and different, non-oppressive, outlook. Yes we will technically change who we are and who we will be, but is it always a bad thing?
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century (Chapters 4, 5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Joanne Pomeroy
PSY 480
Nothing wrong with contradictions! It just means your exploring every angle!
While reading your post (and possibly due to Julie’s gravatar pic) I was curious if anyone thinks training your dog is a bad thing. Sit. Stay. Fetch. No. No. Stay. Stay. Roll over. This behavioral modification is control. So is the fact that we all walk around in public with our clothes on. We have been shaped by convention (not to be too Skinnerian here) such that we don’t even notice. That is, I don’t consciously have to choose to keep my clothes on in public. My clothes-wearing behavior is what it is because my tantrums of having to wear socks were not rewarded as a child. There’s just no thought here. I just get dressed every day. Should we all scream out the window our anger at society for controlling us so much? Convention. Rules. Law. Order Humbug.
Is mind control really such a bad thing if it keeps the peace (and keeps people clothed)?
Is mind control really such a bad thing if it keeps the peace (and keeps people clothed)? – Great point!
You make a very interesting point about dog training being a form of behavioral modification. Technically, it is behavioral modification, but we do it so they don’t relieve themselves in the house, on your carpet, on your bed, etc. I guess we have a reason for it, we actually deem it a necessity, and that means we tend to use control methods whenever it is convenient for us. As for the clothing bit, I’m all for control in that area! These are all simpler forms of control that I had never even considered. Thanks for the insight.
Joanne Pomeroy
PSY 480
My short answers to the questions posed:
Neuroethical concerns for erasing memories? Yes
Do benefits outweigh concerns? Possibly.
This reminds me of what I learned about surveys a few years ago, you can get a survey to say anything you want it to, it is all in how the question is asked. “Should the U.S. Military be able to treat soldiers returning from war and suffering from crippling memories and post traumatic stress with a pill that will take the edge off of horrific memories?” I asked a nurse I work with, “Yes! Absolutely!! “She declared. Right….so then I asked her “Is it OK to give soldiers a pill that makes it easier for them to kill the enemy without regret or guilt?”, she took a step back, “No!” she said, “that would be wrong, and if such a pill existed how long before criminals could get a hold of it…that sounds like a bad movie!”. Of course we are talking about the same pill in both questions; it is all in the point of view. And we also get to one of the issues with any potential treatment, the regulation. Yes patients who have tried every conventional means available should have access to a treatment that might ease or perhaps even erase the memory inhibiting their lives; but how long before doctors who are not big on “by the book” prescription practices bend the rules a bit and prescribe it for that rich, celebrity patient who wants to forget about running that fan down in that night club parking lot? Memory erasing is a bit like atomic energy, could be used for a lot of good; but is equally useful for a lot of not so good. So as I was reading Levy’s chapter 5, I found myself talking back when he made the point that erasing memories would decrease moral decision making control. My answer to that is if the patient has tried everything this is not going to change their decision making. While the memory may not be as vivid and upsetting as it once was, the patient will know that there was the memory, that the memory interfered with his life and he will remember undergoing the treatment. Or did I miss the part where it said the treatment erased that too?
Of course even if one retains a memory, it may not be accurate. Levy introduces us to Elizabeth Loftus’ work on erroneous identifications by witnesses and it brought to mind what is going on in Texas. Locally the Dallas district attorney has been involved in helping several men convicted of all kinds of crimes since the 1970s get new hearings based on the fact that DNA evidence has proven them innocent. Project Innocence: http://www.dallasda.com/innocence_project_of_texas.html As drugs or new techniques become available the temptation for any group will be to use them, but not necessarily to follow ethical guide lines. The idea that false information can become truth and spread like a virus from one individual to the next brought to mind of this poor family in Sherman, Texas. (full story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112488253 or http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann ) Far too late, they realized that there had never been a case of arson and the State of Texas had condemned and killed an innocent man.
Julie Bostic
Psy 480
By the way, the neuroethical issues in the military (e.g., fear dampening, memory erasure, cognitive enhancement for things like attention or calming while sharpshooting) would be an excellent paper topic.
I should add that Loftus’ work is very influential and very interesting, but many errors after the so-called misinformation effect are rather small. For example, an increase in false recollections in a list of words may be statistically significant but minimally influential on one’s day to day shopping list.
Here is an article of interest perhaps.
“The most promising [if that's the right word] results in memory insertion today do not involve cutting-edge neu-roscientific techniques. They involve much lower-tech techniques of suggestion and prompting,” (Levy, 168).
“Memories do not exist in a vacuum” and are subjectively affected by retroactive and proactive interference,” (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995).
“Mis¬leading questions seem to fill gaps in subjects’ recall,” (Levy, 165).
“We are highly suggestible creatures, and suggestible in surprising ways Loftus discovered,” (Levy, 165).
Priming, framing, classical and operant conditioning are ancient techniques which provoke alterations of explicit and perhaps more easily, implicit memory. It seems upon reevaluation or appraisal of prior memory in context to new and potentially misleading information regarding such, with a high relative efficacy the ability of memory modulation or implantation (of “engrams”) is within the means of current faculty, however the degree of specificity in the enticement or manifestation of desired effects, cognitive and/or behavioral in relation to the modification of such memory, has historically been a somewhat difficult task that many entities of many agendas actively pursue (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995) (Rolph, Blog 1). Some if not many are immune to such basic tactics of memory modification, for better or worse.
This difficulty is highlighted by contemporary research in regard to the dynamic domain specificity of information in recall and/or the imagining of future events rather than simply the comparatively uniform process of memory encoding as it is currently understood (Levy, 143) (Han et al, 2009) (Werner, 2007). Memory changes upon que and it appears only remains relatively static in content when uncalled upon, but the action of intervention and its persistence of action despite treatment, especially in the mentioned topic of PTSD, where over consolidation of prior experience, is of the utmost concern to the advancement of methods. Neural networks correlated with memory recall are generally sparsely distributed, rendering memory traces difficult, and modification moreso as per the mind’s apparent chaos of self organized criticality (SOC) (Han et al, 2009) (Werner, 2007). “In general, the higher the level of abstraction of a thought, and the more it pertains to matters which were likely to be variable in/or entirely absent from the environment of evolutionary adaptation, the lower the probability that belief acquisition and retention will be handled by modular mechanisms, since these conditions will usually be satisfied by the kinds of beliefs we are likely to be concerned to keep private,” (Levy, 143). If memory augmentation is rolled out too quickly, I can see some great false positives perpetrated by a hack businessman in a lab coat with no license microwaving the neuronal correlates relating to say your 8th birthday party, graduation, relation with first significant other, or something else of pertinence to who you believe you are instead of that horrible accident. Sticky turmoil! “Each of us is perpetually at risk of what psychologists call confabulation: inventing more or less plausible stories that bear little relationship to reality to explain what we do and why. Without a public check on what happens to usp the risk that we shall slip into unchecked fan¬tasy is high,” (Levy, 175). The possibility of memory manipulation invites notions of abusing schemas to such an extent that one utterly obliterates identity. The probability that the abuse of such technologies will yield new and complex forms of mental illness is in my opinion a true and scary possibility. Depression as someone mentioned, and more than likely crosses all of our minds at some point in study, is a pandemic in a trend of extreme growth. I wonder about the offset of memory allowed for by the internet, the lost human identity traded personal digital databasing, moreover how digital communications technologies have through augmentation of semantic, episodic, implicit/explicit altered the psychosocial dynamics of identity. After reading Huxley’s Doors of Perception, I wondered about how the serfs envisioned their world prior to Guttenberg’s invention of the printing press. What we lose may not always be equivalent to what is obtained in the aftermath. Did we trade working memory for the complexity of structural abstraction? Did we do it again? Is that what happened?
“Induced memory distortions, deliberate or acci¬dental, already impose high costs: innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit, families torn apart by accusations of abuse, investigations going astray because witnesses incorporate false information into their recollections. We do not seem close to any new neuroscientific technology that might help us avoid these problems: the drugs currently in development that promise to enhance memory seem not to protect us against its suggestibility,” (Levy, 170). Alternately the ability to distort or destroy memory may give relief to those who suffer and those who suffer at the hands of those who suffer from the torment of unpalatable memory, increasing qualitatively such an individual’s outlook on life through the reduction of trauma, and overconsolidation, manifested as clinically worthy of a descriptor of illness or not (e.g. those who have perpetual episodic memory). Forgetting is an essential process. To surmount feelings and discard processes from working memory which otherwise occlude function can be absolutely necessary. Any odd mixture is bound to exist in whatever proportion. There will undoubtedly for the individual and relationships of that individual be positive and negative effects. The net outcome of such a technology’s usage (ideally) could be viewed as subjective, however ideals generally do not come to fruition in regard to the usage of such powerful technologies, which themselves are rarely if ever ideally engineered, deployed, and implemented.
As advancements of refinement in methodology of memory manipulation give way to technologies which endow those who wield them with the ability to design the intersections between memory, culpability, behavior, cognition, personality, communal connection, subjective taste and ultimately identity, there exists potential for great abuses on small and large scales which are not entirely divorced from those which have (likely) been in use since the advent of culture’s inception (e.g. in the dissemination of mis/disinformation for ingroup advantage over outgroup). What could be seen as that which fundamentally separates social cognitive means of intellect modification of an individual or group from those which chiefly are of neuropharmacological, neurogenetic, neurophysiological, and ultimately cognitive/behavioral/neurophysiological intervention, apart from the lack of conclusive testing in regard to potentially unwanted side effects, and effectiveness of treatment, is the potential of accessibility, profitability, efficacy, predictability, regulation and scale of such technologies in use. Use of high level tools (apparently magical to most, akin in that respect to many technologies used widely on a daily basis now) in the modification of those things which influence so much of what, at least I believe, many consider to be self, in haste of generating effects which at cost limit individualistic autonomy in favor of short run political or monetary gains by those with many resources, and fewer responsibilities will end in tragedy. Individuals who abuse such technologies despite intimation of common sense, professional opinion, or legality will surely happen without understanding first, and massive, unbiased education programs second, not unlike tactics toward in the amelioration of damage caused by illicit substances chould be, but ultimately, I hold it is the choice of the (educated) individual to make such a decision for themselves so long as noone else is directly harmed by it in a life altering manner. I feel the most negative outcomes to society as a whole lie in the compulsory utilization of such for an agenda which directly exacerbates the misfortune of another or one which marginalizes those without such utility such that they are stigmatized into acting in self interests which are not of their own explicit and legitimate intimations. “If methods of controlling minds neuro-technologically can be devised, our autonomy, our rightly prized ability to shape our lives according to values that we endorse, would be under threat… quite cynically (by coercive forces) to get us to perform actions that are not in our interests ” (Levy, 145-6, 154).
Invivo electromagnetic neuromanipulation is quite old in practice yes, in comparison to say the advent of completing the human genome and mind control has long been the coveted goal of governments (justified by the purported need to defend party x from the boogie man or party y). Most of us know of the notion of a “Manchurian Candidate” through film, literature, or history, the script driven automaton driven unbeknownst to his/herself operating as a sleeper agent to the endeavors and desires of a large or small morally bankrupt, power hungry, greedy or otherwise unscrupulous party of individuals. It is generally the theme I (subjectively) see portrayed by the mass media to consumers, albeit highly derivative and less directly invasive, at least at face value. There are many methods to ensure compliance of an individual or party per control, be it the ability to exacerbate or remedy stressors, but from within is by far the most insidious means of affirming, and implementing will upon another without one’s consent. Great strides are underway to modify the initial conceptions of identity through the convention of cultural grooming, products of group association, but the absolute control envisioned by authoritarian cartels, Eisenhower affectionately coined the “Military Industrial Complex” (whereby individuals are effectively and efficiently coerced into whatever behavior or level of mental conceptualization is deemed necessary for the continued reign of grossly overblown autonomy, of very few, in the highest seats of authority as resources to the ends of whatever draconian powerplay in the markets, houses of geopolitical mandate, intellectual property policy, hubs of technological advancement, stipulations and precedents of personal autonomy, etc. may have in mind to stifle the entropy of such a party’s control) utterly disgusts me.
On the other hand, in an ideal world filled with individuals of genuine and good intent, such technologies would be great teaching tools. Imagine a massive webcast in which a master painter actively controls every muscle of your and a thousand others’ brushstrokes in real time, athletes sharing tips on how to pitch or hit that perfect curve ball, a nobel math scholar (non English speaker) winding your logical ability through the complexities of a proof, through your own neurons. Imagine comprehensive understandings transcending the action of mirror neurons and the emulsion of a true hive mind/collective conscious. Imagine the ability to actively explore the limitations of your subconscious while awake, as an out of body/in body/in mind experience. Sharing memory is a far better app than remote control people could ever be. This is of course assuming in full that we have already mapped out the routing specifications of the human mind, and engineered safe, noninvasive interfaces/software to go with.
Peter Rolph
Psy 480
Han, J.-H., Kushner, S. A., Yiu, A. P., Hsiang, H.-L., Buch, T., Waisman, A., Bontempi, B., Neve, R. L., Frankland, P. W., & Josselyn, S. A. (2009). Selective erasure of a fear memory. Science, 323, 1492-1496.
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century (Chapters 4, 5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loftus, E. F.; Pickrell J. E. (1995). “The formation of false memories” (pdf). Psychiatric Annals 25: 720–725. http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/loftusmem1.pdf.
Werner, G .(2007).Brain dynamics across levels of organization. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 101(4-6), 273-279
I am making my way through the article by Ken Adachi, “Mind Control: The Ultimate Terror”. It’s hard to argue with his assertion that we are leaving ourselves vulnerable if we do not attempt to educate themselves on the future possibilities of mind control.
Adachi separates mind control into two categories: trauma-based and electronic-based (Adachi, 2008) and gives historical examples of both. The thought of a shattered psyche as thousands of alter personalities is sad yet fascinating. Having the “front personality” (Adachi, 2008) that can be unaware of the many alternates, would indeed leave a person vulnerable to victimization. I wasn’t aware of the Montauk Project or Operation Paperclip and found both extremely disturbing.
Adachi goes on to mention numerous notable gunmen (Columbine) and serial killers (Ted Bundy…) as “mind-controlled gunmen who have been ‘programmed’ to carry out their missions (Adachi, 2008) This is where I started to question the author. Is he trying to say that all of these individuals were part of the Montauk Project? I just thought I’d throw this out for discussion before I read further. Thanks!
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/
Mind Control: The Ultimate Terror
Ken Adachi | August 3, 2008
“Memory alteration and erasure could cause harm to the person him or herself, or to others” (Levy pg 171).
On the surface, the idea of removing the painful memories of a love gone wrong seems like a good idea. Yet the movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, illustrates how such erasure can be a bad idea. Painful memories, for the most part, eventually become less painful over time. Further we garner knowledge from them which allows us to avoid repeating past mistakes.
As for neuroethics, well the movie was filled with things that set off alarm bells for me:
1 neither character seeks counseling or is advised to include counseling as part of their decision making process.
2 The doctor offering the service has used the process for his own gain, by erasing the memory of Kristen Dunst’s character in order to free himself from the affair they were having.
3 The removal of the memories occurs in the client’s home. While in the client’s home the technicians are less than respectful of the client and their belongings.
4 One of the technicians uses the records and possessions of Kate Winslet’s Clementine for his own gain, in an effort to win her over.
5 The doctor doesn’t even understand the process or how it works. Are we even sure he is actually a doctor?
6 The entire thing leaves both of the main characters miserable, and back together; which will probably only end in disaster again.
Levy refers to our interconnection with other people as being the way we all corroborate our life stories. Levy does not give the history of this idea. While reading the obituary of Claude Levi-Strauss I noted the following, “Levi-Strauss contended…that kinship systems reflected underlying principals of the human mind. A basic principal…was an unconscious – and therefore fundamental – aversion incest ”
(“Claude levi-strauss-telegraph,” 2009). This brings two questions to mind. Does Levi-Strauss get the credit for this idea being written about by Levy? Is it fair to say that to be a top psychologist a person should have a keen interest in anthropology and sociology?
Julie Bostic
Psy 480
(2009, November 03). Claude levi-strauss-telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/6496558/Claude-Levi-Strauss.html
Julie,
I agree that this film had many disturbing aspects including as you mentioned, the lack of pre-counseling. Even those who know Clementine chalk it up to her ‘impulsive way’. There was lack of shock as if she had done nothing more than change her hair color again. And the way the phone was ringing in the office (when Joel went in for his appointment) it was as if it was as simple as going to the dentist. It’s disturbing to think of a time where such a procedure as memory erasure would be so common-place!
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Now I seem to be haunted by Lacuna. On my way into work this morning I heard an interview on NPR’s morning edition with Barbara Kingsolver. Her new book’s title? The Lacuna. It isn’t quite relevent to our discussion, yet here is this book telling a story of a man divided. What is it Freud said about coincidences?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120182303
That’s too funny! Freud would this ‘uncanny’ perhaps?!
Judy Eshelman
Psy480
I agree with your assessment of the movie. This company prided itself on taking advantage of the weak, vulnerable and broken-hearted. If it were actually feasable to manipulate memory, i’m sure that many people would regret it just like Joel and Clementine did. I’m a firm believer in “everything happens for a reason”, so if a relationship ends badly, there’s always a learning opportunity to grow from. It shouldn’t be an opportunity to have it permanently etched out of your brain!
Emily Kurlansik
Psy 480
Hey, Julie. How crazy is it that Stan and Mary were dancing on the bed half naked while Joel was having his memories erased! You mention that you think Joel and Clementine’s relationship would end in disaster again. Do you think, by listening to the tapes, they would learn from their mistakes and try to do things differently?
Joanne Pomeroy
PSY 480
Joanne, I was thinking along the same lines. At first, it was so uncomfortable with them each hearing the awful things they had said about each other. Yet, it was essentially true, and maybe that brutal honesty is what the relationship was lacking or at the very least, better communication. Sometimes we see the best in people and ignore the worst, which doesn’t really live room for an honest relationship. I was rooting for this fictional couple at the end!
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Mind Control at the Movies
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind was about a couple, Joel and Clementine, who, after a break-up, had their memories of each other erased. Through the use of imaging, Lacuna Inc. developed a procedure to erase specific memories, targeting areas in the brain where these memories were stored. Clementine had hers erased first and Joel followed suit. The rest of the movie follows Joel’s internal journey of having his memories erased, the realization that he made a mistake, and the attempt to retain the memories of Clementine that still remained.
In the beginning of the move, Joel says several things I found interesting. First, he says he doesn’t know why he is doing certain things. He says he is not an impulsive person yet finds himself doing impulsive things, like calling out of work and taking a train to Montauk. Second, I think of the scene where they are laying on the ice and Clementine asks Joel to pick out the constellations that he knows. At first, he says he doesn’t know any of the constellations but after being asked again and suggested by Clementine that he does know them, he was able to identify them.
In the movie, Mary had the memories of her affair with Howard erased but it appears she still has subconscious memories. Prior to learning the truth, Mary tells Howard that she has loved him for a very long time. This suggests that although those memories were erased technologically, her real feelings would never be forgotten. Even if they were permanently forgotten, her feelings would most likely resurface and create new ones. For instance, although Joel and Clementine could not remember their time together, they recognized the familiarity in each other and eventually found their way back to each other anyway.
Mary appeared very confused and betrayed after learning she had the memories of her affair with Howard erased and sends the previous customers their interview tapes so they, too, may try to regain what they lost. Although the concept of it all is to erase bad, painful, or unwanted memories, the realization and panic of knowing you lost a part of your life that you cannot get back may be a worse fate.
I thought this movie was a great correlate to the class. I initially stated that I believed it was a viable option to have one’s memory erased if they were a victim of a traumatic event. However, after watching the movie, I now understand how complicated it would be to do this effectively. It appears that even though specific memories may be erased, it’s almost impossible to erase every single memory associated with a specific event. If certain memories of an event, no longer attached to anything else, still wander about, what kind of damage and confusion could result?
Joanne Pomeroy
PSY 480
Joanne,
I enjoyed your summary. I found the scene with Mary to be one of the most effective, and you described her emotions so well. I agree that if you remove even one bad memory it breaks a link to other memories and events and would ultimately cause an equal amount of distress if not worse. I also agree with the theme of familiarity – that there would still be an instinctual feeling that lingers – despite erased memories. I couldn’t stand how Clem’s new “boyfriend” had used her discarded mementoes from Joel, to get her to fall for him and was pleased to see it did not work. The familiarity you mentioned with Joel and Clem and Mary and the doctor was evident in that scene as well. The more he tried to connect with her by using those memories the more confused and upset she became. Even though he was saying the words, she instinctively or subconsciously knew that something was false. Another example that our memories are part of our present connection to the people in our life! As you said, it would be a complicated unraveling of sorts!
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Judy, I feel exactly the same way about Patrick and how he stole and took advantage of Joel and Clementine’s memories. It continues to illustrate how vulnerable people were as the underwent the procedure.
Joanne Pomeroy
PSY 480
Dark City is a science fiction film that takes memory erasure and insertion to extremes. In this movie, a whole city is being ‘tuned’. When the clock strikes twelve, everyone falls asleep and ‘the strangers’ (alien –like beings who want to know of human souls and uniqueness) ‘tune’ by erasing memories, ‘mixing & matching them’ to other people – everyone is a subject of their experiment. They do this with the help of a scientist who they have made to erase all of his own memories but keep his scientific skills for their benefit. The film centers around one particular character and his wife. John Murdock is certain (although his memory too has been erased) he didn’t commit the murders for which he is charged, and so, is on the run. He does not remember his wife. However, the ‘strangers’ soon realize that John is not continuing to fall asleep like the others – he has adapted and has become resistant to the tuning of memory. In the end, he prevails over the strangers but comes to find out that even the life he did remember was not real. The scientist explains that “the only place that home exists is in your head” (Proyas, 1998). Although it was a science fiction film, the dialogue was very effective. I have included some scenes and quotes that I found to be applicable to our discussion.
Dr. Schreber (scientist) mentions betrayal by one’s own kind. He tells John that an experiment went wrong, in that John lost his memory. Yet, he tells John’s wife that John has had a psychotic breakdown and is searching for himself. I found this relevant in the possibility and reality that experiments do go wrong, and that there will always be some, who for the sake of furthering scientific research, might ignore ethics and reason. Near the end, Dr. Schreber again addresses ethics and professionalism by stating “I do not have the luxury of doing this the right way”, and tells John that the syringe he holds has “all the answers you’ve been looking for” (Proyas, 1998).
The aspect I found most interesting is what the strangers were looking for and how much they misunderstood humanity. Keeping in mind this was a sci FY film, it was still a great reminder that “we are more than the mere sum of our memories” (Proyas, 1998). The strangers thought they could discover the human soul by erasing, inserting, mixing and imprinting memories. For example, when they tried to track down John, one of ‘the stranger’s had John’s erased memories implanted into himself so that he could have John’s mind and thus be able to figure out what future moves John will make based on his past recollections. The alien creature does not consider that John’s decisions are instinctual and can be irrational and therefore he cannot predict what John will do just by knowing his memories. At the end, John tells the stranger that by focusing on just the mind, he has been searching in the wrong place for what makes us human.
This film portrayed how much we are ruled by instinct and our heart, along with our mind. We are more than subjects, and memories are unique to us – they are a part of our individuality and identity and to have memories erased or implanted is not productive because then (in my opinion) a new problem has been created. Even one bad memory is connected with many other memories and events, some of which are shared by others in our life. It’s like taking a link or two out of a bracelet and expecting it to still fit the same.
Proyas, A. (Producer). (1998). Dark City [Motion Picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.
Judy Eshelman
Psy 480
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a story closely tied in with the contents of our discussions. Lacuna, a corporation that has developed a technique for memory erasure, soon finds that with any new technology unforeseeable problems can arise. The story surrounds the main character Joel Barish and his relationship with Clementine Kruczynski. After experiencing difficulties and subsequently ending the relationship Clementine decides to utilize the services offered by the Lacuna corporation and erase her memories of Joel. After doing so Joel discovers what she has done and, unable to cope with the complete loss of her, decides to embark on the same path. However, upon entering into the procedure, a dream like state where memories are called up and erased while the patient sleeps, Joel realizes what a mistake erasing Clementine is. He then does everything within his power to hold onto his memories of Clementine as he battles his way through his dream-like memories.
The first thing that strikes me about the overall story is how quickly Joel recognizes during the procedure what a mistake he is making. Caught in an extremely heightened emotional state people tend to make decisions that are illogical or that they later regret. Memory erasure is an extreme mistake to make, one that is almost completely irreversible. The fact that Joel realizes so quickly the magnitude of his mistake makes me wonder the percentage of people who would regret such a decision given the clarifying benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately this hindsight would never be fully available as their memories would be gone.
Another issue that becomes apparent with memory erasure is the existence of lingering memories and emotions that could remain after the procedure has been completed. Unfortunately we do not possess a complete understanding of memory storage in real life, and apparently within the universe of the movie, this is also true. Whether it is because of a conscious effort of the individuals having their minds erased or simply an ineptitude of the technology, pieces of memories remained causing distress in the patients. Both Joel, who begins acting in unusual ways such as increased impulsivity, and Clementine who, upon hearing Joel’s exact words repeated to her becomes increasingly more agitated, exhibit this distress (minute 59).
Yet another problem created from memory erasure is more specific to the type of memories being erased. Eradicating memories based on relationships has the potential to lead to even more distressing occurrences. It would be logistically and morally impossible to erase every individual’s memory who was involved in, or even knew of a relationship or event that a single person had erased. If this inconsistency in the collective memory became apparent to the person who underwent the memory erasure procedure a great amount of distress would be experienced. This problem crops up several times throughout the movie and the resulting anguish it causes is immense. Mary, who had the memory of her relationship with her married boss erased was so affected she proceeded to inform all other patients of what the procedure they had undergone. Upon being met with the reality of her situation Mary is struck with the immorality of what she and her company had been doing and thought that disseminating the truth was the only means of redemption. This, of course caused pain to both Joel and Clementine, but at the same time allowed them to understand the full extent of what they had both experience. This understanding aided them in reconciling their problems, instead of avoiding them through memory erasure.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind makes it clear that with the advent of any technology problems can exist that are unpredictable. Memory erasure is no different, in fact, it is a far greater problem within a field as life-changing and permanent as memory erasure. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of such a procedure and do our best to predict any and all negative outcomes that could come from such a serious operation. Even then, memory erasure is sure to be flawed and can cause potentially serious harm to the individuals choosing to have it done, as is so poignantly expressed in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Justin Carone
Psy 480
The movie Dark City delves into the idea of memory erasure and alterations. The movie begins with John Murdock waking in a tub with no memory of who he is or where he is and why there is a murdered woman in his room. He begins his journey to find his memory only to uncover something more sinister. His search leads him to a doctor that finally explains that everyone in the city is part of a grand experiment run by the Strangers. They are trying to discover what makes humans individual in an attempt to save their own race. As a result of this experiment, no one has any memory of where they came from or any knowledge of their true memories. They only know the memories that they have been given by the doctor.
The movie demonstrates the dangers of trying to alter people’s memories. When memories are disturbed, confusion occurs. Individuals that suffer from amnesia are a good example. They try to rediscover their memories. In the film, as Murdock begins to realize that something isn’t right, he is approached by Detective Wollinski. Detective Wollinski tells him that no one’s memories are their own, that they are altering them, then he kills himself. This is a good example of how destructive altering memories can be. Eventually, the changes are discovered. That is when the problems occur. There is no way to completely erase or change a memory. They are not only intertwined in our minds, but others share the memories with us.
Another concern of memory manipulation is the questioning of memories that a person has. In one scene, Murdock asks his wife if they had known each other for years or if they had never met before the last night and that their memories were just ones that someone else wanted them to have. The idea of questioning the authenticity of every memory would be traumatic. How could anyone in that situation be sure that their memories are their own? What would that do to a mind? That would effect every aspect of a person’s being and life.
After watching this movie, I can honestly say that my stand against memory manipulation is strengthened. The idea of having my memory erased and false memories implanted is frightening. While there are memories I have that would be nice to forget, I would not want them taken from me. They are a part of who I am.
Christine Spencer
Psy 480
aye Christine, Malformed collective memory seems a scary to face, let alone combat when in opposition to one’s self or group. I wholeheartedly agree that the trauma you mention yielded by the perpetual search for authenticity of memory, identity, and self reference would be crushing…never having the amnesty of familiarity, good or bad sounds intolerable. I also agree that memories can have a pertinence to them in their affect despite arguments of permanence to the formation and evolution of our holistic selves (self to self vs. self to others vs. self to all vs all to others, etc) and to potentially be robbed even by one’s own volition of a primative which helps to composite what one’s sees, feels, knows, senses, etc despite connotation is very scary if only for that notion. Excessive glucocorticoids (e.g. resulting from excessive stress) can decimate hippocampal function and thus the learning of new behavior. While I readily see the negatives you present as it pertains to memory modulation, I believe that the techniques will exist regardless, and that they are (needed) tools which have the power to liberate or imprison. I don’t think cognitive behavior therapy should be sold short for its ability to extinct memory behavior associations. One can use a semantic memory to trump an episodic memory, right? Isn’t that clinicians attempt, liberate through the use of memory modulation, albeit many times indirect? I agree too that as treatments become more direct/effective/permanent and more invasive physically, psychosocially, spiritually, more robust safeguards must be in place prior to widespread deployment and usage.
Peter Rolph
Psy 480
When you write of the main chracter questioning his wife about their memories and identity, it made me think of the family friend sufferring from alzheimers. He has not yet reached the point of questioning his wife, however she is the only thing he believes in. He questions everything else. While the thought of intentionally manipulating or erasing memories with a procedure or drug is daunting, the idea of a disease doing this without cure and with little in the way to keep it in check is downright terrifying.
Meanwhile, is it just me or does this movie sound vaguely like Matrix?
Julie Bostic
PSY 480
That is the sad part. They made a trilogy out of one good movie, and even though the topic is an old one, it is razzable because it entered the mainstream and so many derivative works were based upon it, enlisting as many relativistically favorable as unfavorable elements on its way to the cannibal culture disposal. What I had meant to say explicitly though, isn’t it giving people the power, as Valerie brings up, to liberate themselves from the sometimes very real mental prisons that we house ourselves in, healthy or unhealthy in so many paradigms?
I think at the end of the movie,
what will he do with the power?
does he really have power, or was this imagined or programmed as well?
Isn’t it about giving people the means to remedy their lives and shape their own futures as levy seems to suggest in so many words?
I am sorry for the condition of your loved one. Nootropics continue to be tested, and nonviral vectors of genetic modification within the brain (e.g. organic modified silicon nanoplex gene delivery systems) are getting closer to phase II clinical trials everyday (one can hope) and no cancer so far that I have read. Hopefully such means of augmentation (e.g. enticing the growth of progenitor cells for whatever is needed) come to realization. I hear good things about aniracetam in the meantime, but would follow it up in research to date before thinking about taking it. There are so many treatments coming to light. One shouln’t stop looking if it is in them.
I has hoped to tiptoe past the potential pro choice discussion in the other movie. I guess I’d rather be talking about the matrix than the choice of pro life/pro choice that might go along with a discussion about stem cells in such utility. Although I haven’t seen it entirely, in years… did you see it?
Was the woman in spotless mind pregnant? I can’t help but think about how such a technology might invigorate the debates we have gone through with stem cells. Such a technology could help tragic couples forego terrible memories of failed pregnancies, or abuses in such a right, etc…
Peter Rolph
Psy 480
Dark City (1998)
Set in a nostalgically familiar but unnamed cityscape somehow divorced from reality of the past, a man struggles with (retroactive) amnesia following a failed medical experiment. Protagonist John Murdoch awakes to the phone call of a stranger in a seedy motel room alongside the mutilated body of a young woman, and the plot hits the ground running. The more he uncovers, the more he begins to question his realizations of not only his identity, but that of the entire city’s. Aided only by his purported doctor, astranged wife, and uncle, a fugitive from the law, he attempts to unravel his past while being chased by shadowy figures with unbelievable powers. As they reveal themselves to be architects of destiny, he must make a choice for not only his autonomy, but that of his fellow city dwellers. A gritty and somewhat anemic science fiction fantasy, Dark City is a dystopian portrayal of grim realities stemming from fervor embodied by blind means/ends justification and the misuse of advanced technologies for selective benefits, .
Amidst the hype of the cloned sheep, the Human Genome Project, and exponential increases in computing power, Dark City presented itself as a creative foil for many, at the time, current issues in the ability to not only manipulate but advantageously leverage the ability to design reality, psychologically and tangibly, for the purposes of those which remain out of sight, and if possible, for ourselves. Are manicured hands presented only those at work upon issues, problems, and solutions relating to such, or are they the only we are allowed to see? If the bonds we share are not within protection from forgery, what is their value?
At what point do we become slugs, carriers for the intentions of others, chess pieces of whatever denomination?
What embodies the impossible when the general populace is all accepting of pronouncements regarding such?
How do we define what is true in context to the knowledge of groups intolerant to such pronouncements?
What deems one form of social programming more unacceptable than another, and where are these lines drawn between accepted and discarded policy?
How does the advancement of technological endeavor alter the context by which we judge ourselves and each other?
Why does it seem the picture of dharma never complete, despite unenumeratablely vast stores of evidence?
Why are civil requsites hardly sufficient in context to the larget problems?
These are some questions that come to mind upon taking in this film.
There were many layers to this film for interpretation. I will attempt to cover at least one of the most prominent themes.
Proyas, A. (Producer). (1998). Dark City [Motion Picture]. United States: New Line Cinema.
Peter Rolph
Psych 480
The original motel clerk in the first scene was replaced in the third scene, a cog of those who would exercise overwhelming power over individuals for selfish intent disguised as an endeavor of survival through an exercise in superiority.
priming, indoctrination, espionage..
We are wired toward the restructuring of disparate pieces of information, even irrationalities, toward cohesive understandings which fit to our schemas of self, other, and all. What constitutes the self destruction of delusion varies widely as readily seen within religious contexts, from classic monotheistic religions to the Hailbop comet cult. If schemas were to become so pliable as to instantaneously be changed at a whim at such scales in synchrony, it would constitute a substantially powerful advantage in use or misuse.
If minds and bodies are dispensable as beliefs, in the power of the projectors or beholders of reality the nature of reliability and validity must be tarnished. Selective realization is thus a gift and a curse of identity. The choice of action of accommodation or persecution often relies upon averages commonalities, and sometimes worse from the misrepresentation of such and this is a curse. To hold dogmatic revelations as the entirety of universal happenstance is misleading, but powerfully intoxicating in its gift of authority, allowing entities to justify massive undertakings for whatever means under whatever motive. The ability to whimsically change realization has the power to selectively discredit, or empower the few, and/or control/liberate the masses at large. The emulsification of shared mental illness is a true possibility when juxtaposed to the ability to selectively design those motives, behaviors, values, attachments, feelings, and memories of small or large groups with the efficacy of direct mental intervention.
Dark city may also be rendered as a microcosm of societal dialogue, the purposing that identity serves to drive in society. Symbolically, the “visitors” can be viewed quite literally as the end result of mortality, and actions of past generations upon the present in morals, values, actions, and effects perceived or unperceived upon all who are groomed to live in the world. John and to a lesser degree the Dr. quite literally represent dissent in a system upon the action of such forces and the gifts that knowledge bestow, alongside its burden of responsible action to one’s self or others. Interpretations are never absolute, and truth can be made relative. That is powerful enough without technological intervention. When models of belief fall prey to obscruification, rarification, heuristics, and logistics, information can be lost or misinterpreted in compression/reduction and without unbiased depiction of past, it is far more difficult to keep the future unbiased (I believe).
Alternately Dark city may be seen as a representation of the struggle within a cognitively dislocated mind and the reinforcement of a delusion. Hallucinations are powerful as they can be as lucid and vivid if not more than that which could be considered externally as truth. The conflict between internal truth and external truth and all things it yields shape who, what, and why we are. John when considered in view as truly a mental patient is a far richer and more textured interpretation of the storyline allowing for the inclusion of more realistic scenarios such as shared mental illness, rather than a thin rendering of aliens and advanced nanotechnologies, but that is just personal opinion. More could have been done with the film, it was too compressed. It looks like a graphic novel.
Peter Rolph
Psy 480
“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” documents the journey of a man who will go to extreme lengths to mend a broken heart. After finding out that his ex girlfriend, Clementine, underwent a memory erasure procedure where all of the memories of each other and their relationship were permanently destroyed from her memory, Joel decided to undergo the same operation. During the procedure, Joel realizes that he doesn’t really want to lose all of his memories of Clementine, though however painful and upsetting they were to him, and attempts to “hide” them from being erased. Being able to manipulate an individual’s memory processes and storage can have detrimental effects on their knowledge of “self” and growth as an individual. It also has the possibility to be abused for selfish reasons, as seen by one of Lacuna’s employees who uses Joel’s mementoes of Clementine to forge his own relationship with her. There are a lot of moral implications with allowing strangers to disturb the most personal thoughts and memories a person endures. After viewing the movie, I still believe that mind control and manipulation does not have positive effects on the human mind and psyche. We, as individuals, develop our sense of self by our past experiences as we can recall them and how they shape our present behaviors, thoughts and desires. Memory is what links an individual’s past to their future self, and what makes them the person they are (Levy 159).
Emily Kurlansik
Psy 480
Helloooo Joanne:
Yes that was a bit bizarre with him sleeping and Stan & Mary romping there around him…reminded me a bit of a frat party from a long time ago in a land far, far away.
No, I don’t think the knowldge would change the outcome. They might adjust their behavior for a short time, but eventually they would revert to their true selves. They were not whole as individuals and were looking to one another to fulfill themselves. She was a novelty for him, and that does not provide a solid foundation for a relationship.
Julie Bostic
Psy 480
Dark City is an eerie movie which begins quite abruptly and leaves the viewer confused from the beginning, left to figure out what is going on along with the title character. As his knowledge of his situation increases, so does ours. As the story unravels, the point of the movie becomes clear: what is really at stake is free will, and this is ultimately what the protagonist, the title character, preserves.
The Strangers, the antagonists, are an alien race on the verge of extinction whose hubris seems to be overwhelming. Their power lies in their abilities to ‘tune’, or recreate the landscape as well as everyones reality. Their interest in humans, it seems, is to tamper with identities in order to see how each induvidual human reacts in certain scenarios. In order to do this they strip the citizens of this dark city of all memories, identites, and personalities in order to ‘implant’ them in the lives of other people. The title character, for example, is made to think that he is a serial killer. We come to find out that he is not, but the power of suggestion is strong enough to make him test himself.
The movie ends in a moral. We have the ability to create our own reality. It may not be the exact way that we had once imagined it, but the point is the same. Happiness can be created and manifested. Their seems to be a parallel to me in the way that pharmaceutical companies commercials are geared toward convincing us that we need their products to be happy, and that without antidepressants and the like we will be unable to reach this state. We are left thinking that we are inherently faulted and deficient, but in reality we are all able to create our own realities.
Valerie Corrigan
Psy 480