Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The growing science of memory manipulation

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 156 posts

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#11

Post by pimmen »

One of the regulations must be that hacking someone’s brain, as in deleting or inserting memories into someone without consent, is a crime akin to rape and torture. You are violating someone’s sense of self and identity in ways the person can’t reverse (the offender merely has to insert a memory of the person consenting, or delete the experience entirely) and you reduce the person’s agency by treating them like an object to achieve your goals.

We can’t wait for this technology to be abused, we need regulations and International treaties way ahead of time.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#12

Post by pintxo »

sysbin wrote: post #7

The next most interesting direction the researchers could go would be if deletion is possible. I’m assuming the question of deletion being even possible would be amazing to find certainty. I’m speculating for an existing memory to be deleted, it has to be rewritten and thus typical deletion is impossible without rewriting. Once all this is perfected, the future technology of brain interface for humans will have even…

Not sure I am looking forward to experience a blue screen like, in my brain.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#13

Post by bsder »

slim wrote: post #9

The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…

I could swear this happened with the errant USB-C configuration that the latest Raspberry Pi 4 screwed up.

At least 4 other projects I know of configured their USB-C the same exact incorrect way. Three of them absolutely swear that a Google search gave an online application note that told them to do this, but they can't find it anymore--it presumably got yanked as soon as the RPi error came to light and then dropped off the Google rankings. POOF Gone.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#14

Post by apatters »

Interesting article but I was hoping for more discussion of the ethical implications mentioned in the title.

As a society we frequently start with with consent as a cornerstone of whether something is ethical or not (if it's done to you against your will, it's bad). Then we decide whether there are certain lines you shouldn't cross because the result would be harmful for you or society. For instance, you can drink as much alcohol as you want but at a certain point you can't get into a car afterwards, because you might kill or maim someone else. And you can take out a loan, but there's usually a cap on how much interest the lender can charge because above a certain level you'd ruin yourself financially.

So we'll probably say you can alter your memories, but are there lines which shouldn't be crossed?

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#15

Post by sysbin »

pintxo wrote: post #12
sysbin wrote: post #7

The next most interesting direction the researchers could go would be if deletion is possible. I’m assuming the question of deletion being even possible would be amazing to find certainty. I’m speculating for an existing memory to be deleted, it has to be rewritten and thus typical deletion is impossible without rewriting. Once all this is perfected, the future technology of brain interface for humans will have even…

Not sure I am looking forward to experience a blue screen like, in my brain.

I assume humans already experience a blue screen when suffering schizophrenia and or hallucinating.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#16

Post by sysbin »

apatters wrote: post #14

Interesting article but I was hoping for more discussion of the ethical implications mentioned in the title. As a society we frequently start with with consent as a cornerstone of whether something is ethical or not (if it's done to you against your will, it's bad). Then we decide whether there are certain lines you shouldn't cross because the result would be harmful for you or society. For instance, you can drink as…

Those lines will be crossed by just visiting a country that has different interpretations of what's acceptable to do.

I could also see the severely mentally ill or mentally handicapped, having no personal say in what happens to them and similar to today when it comes to medication being used.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#17

Post by whytaka »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #5

This seems less like an artificial memory and more like a real memory of an artificial experience.

Indeed. It seems to me that the more impressive bit is that the instilled neural pattern actually really correlated with the experience of the odor.

But the association with the foot shock was real to the second mouse as well.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#19

Post by simonh »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #5

This seems less like an artificial memory and more like a real memory of an artificial experience.

That was my thought as well, but the article was confusing. It was talking about memories when what it was describing seemed more like experiences, but I’m not familiar enough with the technical aspects to be sure.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#20

Post by simonh »

npstr wrote: post #6
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #4

Just because an animal can't tell the difference between the real and artificial memory does not mean a human couldn't do the same. Using animals in research is generally inaccurate.

A human is just an animal.

An animal with analytical and self-reflective mental faculties other animals do not seem to possess, or be able to articulate.

For example, I know that some of my memories are not original. They are memories of me previously remembering something, which I was able to remember clearly at the time, but can’t recall as clearly now. But my memory of the experience of remembering it and the circumstances in which I did so are quite clear. So I know some of my memories are reconstructions.

It seems unlikely there are many nonhuman animals capable of making that sort of distinction.

Post reply on HN