We’ve discussed augmented reality a little bit before, but this week’s New York Times Magazine featured an article that got me thinking about a similar concept: human augmentation, which I suppose can be loosely defined as improving human performance through the addition of synthetic or otherwise “unhuman” components.
Of course there are lots of spokes in this wheel: we could easily talk about steroids, for example, and how chemical enhancements are changing athletics. However, Gary Marcus, a psychology professor at NYU, focuses in “Total Recall” on research being done into human memory: how it works, how it compares to computer memory, and how the latter can inform and perhaps improve the former.
As Marcus explains, computer storage is orderly and logical: information is stored in specific locations, and there is an accompanying index or “map” that allows quick and accurate retrieval. When you command your computer to find information, it consults the map, finds the information, and displays it. Nice and simple. On the other hand, information in the human brain — as far as we know — isn’t mapped to discrete locations. Our memories ebb and flow, often disappear, and sometimes change. When we “search” for information in our brains, it can be a slower and much less accurate or consistent affair as compared to computers. Marcus calls this a “kluge”, the term engineers use for systems that are “clumsy and inelegant but a lot better than nothing.”
With this discrepancy in storage methods in mind, Marcus wonders if one day it will be possible to embed a memory mapping and tracking system in our brains. He predicts the creation of “a system modeled on Google, which combines cue-driven promptings similar to human memory with the location-addressability of computers.” Suggesting that “there’s no reason in principle why a future generation of neural prostheticists couldn’t pick up where nature left off”, he maintains that such a procedure would not turn humans into machines because it would only augment, and not alter, existing abilities. The quality or quantity of our memories would not change, only our ability to find them again.
The idea of computer-assisted memory management is interesting, but it gives me pause for concern. Yes, the purpose of such an implant would be to simply increase our ability to find memories, and by itself that does not seem so bad. But aren’t there things we don’t want to be able to remember so easily? Memories that cause sadness or anger, for example? Isn’t the state of “denial” — where we delete, or at least refuse to acknowledge, a memory that causes too much pain — our brain’s self-defense mechanism? Would it be dangerous to combat that system? With a computer-assisted memory, could we delete memories from the map at will? Would there be a way to assign value to memories, so that certain memories are easier to “find” than others because we deem them to be more important or more accurate? Could the chip be hacked? Is any of this ethical?
I also worry about the long term effects of such an implant. Would we come to rely on these implanted chips for memory mapping so much that, say, damage to the implant would leave us unable to naturally interface with our memories as we have done for thousands of years? If we evolved away from our natural system for memory recollection in favor of an automated one, could we instantly switch back in case of emergencies? I’m sure many of you have lost or broken your cell phone and experienced the panic of not being able to recall a single friend or family member’s phone number, because we’ve come to rely on our electronic address books so heavily. Though the analogy is not perfect because neural implants would not physically store our memories, the danger is comparable.
It seems to me that the imperfectness of the human information storage system is not a bad thing; indeed, it’s kinda beautiful. Computers, as tools, only respond to our input. If you’re watching a DVD on your laptop and a character mentions the word “Paris,” your computer doesn’t automatically search your hard drive and randomly display pictures or scrolling entries from your journal. Computers are, when boiled down, just big filing cabinets that are extremely easy to navigate when called upon.
But, if you’ll excuse the redundancy, our brains have a mind of their own. We sometimes “remember” things against our direct volition based on external cues (visual, audible, tactile, etc.), because of a mood we’re in (if we’re sad we may automatically be treated to similar memories of sadness), or for other “random” reasons as dictated by our mysterious brain. And all of this against our “will.” Sometimes we wish we could control it, but sometimes it can make our day.
The technology will probably not be advanced enough for our generation to even have the option to partake — only our children will be faced with the moral dilemma of whether to become assimilated with the Borg (pictured above) or not. Nevertheless, you know how we roll here at Tropophilia: what do you think?
Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user mharrsch
So this may be a moot point (God I hope so) if an Alzheimer’s cure exists before this technology is readily available…but I wonder if augmented memory would bring any relief to those suffering from memory loss. This is far beyond my expertise (and I haven’t read the NYTimes Mag piece, so it could be out of the question. But I think it’s interesting to consider not just what impact this could have on “healthy” brains, but what it could do for those who (at a later stage in life or having suffered a horrible accident/disease) really NEED augmented memory. Prosthetics that nearly eclipse human legs in performance came about not because of “healthy” people wanting to improve their natural speed, but because of the need to help injured or otherwise impaired individuals. This type of technological innovation looks very different when viewed through the lens of improving quality of life for people who are sick or injured than it does when we think about always remembering the milk or recalling 9th grade bio class with more precision.
Definitely a good point. I, too, know next to nothing about the details of Alzheimer’s. Do the memories actually disappear, or do those with the disease simply have trouble locating them? Can anyone comment? Bruce, I’m looking at you.
Marcus, in his article, is careful to point out that the implant he speaks of would serve only as a map, not as a protection against loss of memory or as an “external hard drive,” so to speak. It would be to the brain what Google Desktop is to your computer: a means of creating a rapidly searchable index of its contents.
If such a device can help people who otherwise cannot recall their memories, then I’m all for it! But as an enhancement to a normal, healthy brain, I’m not so sure such an implant would be in our best interest as humans.
This also brings up another controversial angle: let’s say the implant could assist Alzheimer’s and other patients with memory-related ailments, but an the implant could only map memories as they are recorded in real time? So, an implant becomes a prophylactic, and everyone gets one “just in case.” Do the benefits of preventing potentially debilitating memory problems down the road outweigh the potential costs of changing the way we use our minds today?
This is all extremely interesting - both the implications for normal humans as well as combating human disease.
For a long time, researchers thought that Alzheimer’s Disease was caused by a buildup of amyloid beta plaques in the brain - essentially the brain making too much of one protein and clogging itself up. Recent research has called into question this hypothesis, since the plaques may be a corollary symptom of the disease, rather than the root cause. Either way, an Alzheimer’s patient inhabits damaged (or dead) brain cells that no longer function both in retaining memories and recalling them. I’m no doctor (or Alzheimer’s researcher for that matter - throw me a malaria question sometime!), so I don’t know for sure, but I’m skeptical that computer augmented memory could actually help someone with this disease. If a patient don’t have any more neurons in an area, then it would be hard to augment those neurons with a computer. For more information on Alzheimer’s, see http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alzheimers-disease/DS00161.
However, I believe that a cure for Alzheimer’s will come before we all implant computer chips in our brains.
From Huxley’s “Brave New World”:
What worries me most about our world is the “long silence” in contemplating what alterations are possible to the human being via applied technology - “comfort,” in this instance. Just because human disease is regrettable, sometimes awful and horrible, does not mean that it is “bad.” And similarly, the mere fact that we have the capability of installing such a brain chip implant, does not mean that we should. Awful as the symptoms of the disease are, I’d stick with the perils of Alzheimer’s over the implant - it’s the right to preserve the integrity of the (natural) decline of the body.
(NB: I’m not against medicine, nor am I pro-syphilis!)