The Why Factor Episode: Forgetting
One thing I thought was very interesting was the idea that we need to forget enough information about something in order to store the important information. The example was given that if we see an apple, we don’t want to memorize that specific apple, we need to generalize it as an apple so we can remember that we saw an apple.
That’s a really interesting idea to think about, and yet, there has to be something more to it than that. You can note certain things, like maybe that specific apple had a brown spot and you didn’t want to eat it. Maybe you generalize it to any apple with a spot on it. But if you picked up another apple and saw a bruise on it too, would you know it’s a different apple? Well, yes, because you noticed the spot, you would associate the location of it also.
Let’s boil it down to the most basic thing we can. If I showed a subject a picture of an apple:
And then after a few days, I show them this picture:
And then I ask, did I show you this picture? Well, I didn’t.
The fact is, different people will note different things. Also, certain things can trigger memories in people. I have no clue what the worksheets may or may not have looked like in Middle School math, but maybe if I was given the same exact packet, I’d recognize it. If I asked a person, what did I show you a picture of, they could tell you it was an apple, but likely wouldn’t be able to draw it. If I showed them the original picture, they’d recall seeing that exact picture. But if I showed them a slightly different picture (with apparent differences), they wouldn’t remember the original picture, but they’d notice that it’s a different picture. This will hold true while the memory is still relatively new, and likely won’t work if I wait an entire year, but I think it illustrates my point well. Even though things get generalized so we can turn them into simpler memories, we still retain specificity to what can and cannot be changed in a memory, often expressed by, “Oh yeahhhh! Now I remember.”
All memories fade along a gradient. If you don’t ever revisit the memory, it will degrade.
One interesting concept I’ve heard about is that you can’t remember that original moment more than once. You instead remember remembering that original moment, over and over.
A knowledge claim stated in the program was that forgetting doesn’t exist, it just describes the natural end of the life of proteins that make up memories. I think that this statement is kind of contradictory. Just because forgetting is backed by natural means and describes the absence of something that was once there, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. It’s like saying nothing is cold, only less hot. That of course, is contradictory. Cold is a sensation as well as a concept of things that aren’t hot enough. That doesn’t mean that Cold doesn’t exist. To go further, it’s like saying left doesn’t exist, because it’s only function is to be relative to right.
What they meant to say was that there is no enzyme or something that breaks down old memories, therefore forgetting is just the natural death of the protein. It’s misleading to label that as “There is no such thing as forgetting!” Especially considering that there very well might be an enzyme that breaks down memories that we just don’t know about yet.
Knowledge Question 1:
Is it ethical to allow technology to exist that can erase memories?
For starters, science is only ideas. It comes with no instructions or limitations on how it can or should be applied. E = MC^2 is just a law. It’s a statement about a mathematical truth in our physical realm, as we quantify it by science and numbers. We can use that truth to make weapons of mass destruction capable of destroying the entire planet and all life on it forever. No pressure, but is it ethical to allow those weapons to exist? Well, during the Cold War, the United States needed to have those weapons in order to be on level playing field with the Soviet Union who otherwise would be the only ones with the power to efficiently destroy five square miles at a time. We needed that technology to keep the other guy’s technology in check.
One thing we can look at from that situation is that there was a race to discover the Atomic bomb. The US had the Manhattan project because the US had to develop the Atomic bomb before the Nazis. It was necessary.
No doubt that the potential harm a technology that can make people forget is very scary. The question was posed in the podcast:
If you could take a pill to make you forget a hard time, would you?
That’s a very interesting question, ma’am, but I think a better question is:
If there was a gas that could brainwash people do you think there are corrupt enough people in this world to use it?
Of course that’s an exaggeration of really what we have here, but that’s what will naturally develop from this technology, to an extent. If you think I’m being a pessimist, let’s go back to the Atomic bomb for a minute.
The Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki had a yield of 0.015 and 0.02 megatons, respectively. The Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union in 1961, had a yield of 50 megatons.
Look at computers. Technology in its infancy always matures if we let it.
There isn’t a big enough need for this technology. I’m sorry for people who have post-traumatic stress disorder, but there are other treatments that researchers are developing besides erasing memories. This technology will lead to things that are too destructive for it to be ethical to get the ball rolling on this one. There are places in science where it would be better for us humans to never go. There are things we should never understand.
Knowledge Question 2: Does the meaning of faded memories change?
A lot of adults reflect back on being a teenager and say that they thought their parents are very stupid, and noted as they matured that their parents started seeming smarter. They say it’s probably because they were getting smarter, and their parents were consistent. Maybe.
When they were in the moment, they were younger and it was likely harder for them to see past themselves. But memories are not constant. They change. They get modified, and scrambled in some cases. Memories can change. Also, people see what they want to see. If a person believes something, their mind will line up a series of things that back their belief and ignore inconsistencies.
Now the adults are more like their parents, and see their parents as smarter now. Everyone makes the most sense to themselves. It’s like dreaming. You never question the crazy things that happen but you question it when your toothbrush is the wrong color (and you definitely should be questioning that). I still have yet to decide whether adults are the smartest. My current judgement is that they aren’t any smarter than anyone else. Here’s an article explaining why children can easily see their parents as stupid and not be incorrect. As the child gets older, they will see a decrease in the things mentioned in the article, and the parents will get smarter. They are inconsistent.