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
