Imagine a world where you had the
option to modify, erase, and/or strengthen your memory according to your needs.
This is a neuroethics discussion that is currently under way as science
continues to pursue more knowledge about memory and the different ways we may
be able to fashion it to achieve our specific needs. This discussion has proven
to be quite controversial as many scientists argue for and against the issue. Joseph
Vukov speaks of this discussion and refers to an article “The Normativity of
Memory Modification” by S. Matthew Liao and Anders Sandberg to emphasize his
points. In this article, Vukov specifies on the multiple reasons why memory
modification is a bad idea.
There
proves to be multiple developmental issues when it comes to developing memory
modifying technologies (MMTs). One issue is the technical limitation. Memories
are not discrete objects that are separate from each other. In actuality,
memories overlap and are interconnected. This creates the issue of whether it
is possible to read and retrieve memories that are specific to your needs when
they affect memories that you do not want affected. It is not possible to
delete or edit these memories without affecting other memories, and this
creates a chain affect. Along with this, precision and unwanted side effects of
MMT will be prevalent until thus addressed, but even then that will take more
time and research in order to eradicate. Another limitation MMT procures is the
fact that our imperfect memories help us with situations in our life as it
pertains in the here and now. With the perfect memory recollection that MMT
presents, we may try to examine all our past memories first and foremost, and
lose ourselves in the process and become overwhelmed and limit our own
creativity when focusing on issues at hand. Finally a last limitation Vukov focuses
on is the concern of attention control that would be difficult to control when
extreme autobiographical memory is constantly intruding one’s thoughts.
Another
article that touches base on the dilemmas that arise with memory modifying
technologies lies in Steven Rose’s article “Brave New Brain”. Rose articulates
that we are now living in the “decade of the mind” as new discoveries are
coming thick and fast. “Today’s brave new world will have a multitude of
designer psychotropics, available either by consumer choice or by state prescription”
(Rose). Although these neurotechnologies that are emerging are just a thought
now, they are becoming more and more steadily refined. Rose argues “as citizens
we cannot afford to wait passively for the new technologies to envelop us. The
future of the brain is upon us, and the time to think about its implications is
now” (Rose).
Going off
of the many caveats presented by Vukov, Rose and many others, it is safe to say
that these seemingly amazing technologies may have a deeper affect on us than
originally thought. Do these technological advances really have our best
interest at heart, or are they the very things that may destroy us in the long
run?
References:
Steven Rose’s “Brave New Brain”- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/may/08/lastword.neuroscience
Joseph Vukov article refrenced “The Normativity of Memory
Modification”- https://luc.app.box.com/v/neuroscienceseminar/1/5979999361/103666284321/1
No comments:
Post a Comment