Can we "create" memories and erase them physically?

[RagingWarGod]

I was having a talk with someone who said:

you can still run experiments on your own brain showing directly that your consciousness is made from physical components. You can erase memories, feelings, create memories, feelings, all with physical interactions like chemicals, lasers, electricity.

But all I could find was stuff from 2013: https://science.time.com/2013/09/11/memories-can-now-be-created-and-erased-in-a-lab/

And from the article itself it doesn't sound like what he is implying. The first one about memory formation still requires an experience to form a memory about, and even then I'm not sure if you could test that the memory is there (subjective and all that).

The part about deleting memories I'm not sure is right because when I googled it the maintenance phase of memory formation is for working memory and it's to help us hold something short term, and they said they interrupted it? Unless I'm missing something that's flat out wrong. They said it didn't affect surrounding memories but again...how do we really know that? This is only done with mice though.

I guess I'm wondering how or if such a thing is true.

 

[rain shadow]

you can still run experiments on your own brain showing directly that your consciousness is made from physical components. You can erase memories, feelings, create memories, feelings, all with physical interactions like chemicals, lasers, electricity.

Looking for studies and proof that you can create and erase specific memories doesn't really speak to the main point your conversant was trying to make. It sounds like he was mostly just saying that your memories and other conscious activities are physical processes occurring in the brain. That isn't really controversial, and so justifying it with chemicals and lasers and electricity was kind of unnecessary.

On the general subject I prefer to separate memories and feelings etc from the basic idea of awareness. Humans, and probably a lot of other animals, can experience non-physical things (like feelings), non-currently present things (memories), abstract things (math) and I think what exactly it is you're experiencing isn't really a huge brain question, the difficulty is how we are aware of anything at all instead of merely being some massively parallel electrochemical cell soup that processes data but does so without awareness being required or emergent. And how are we aware of being aware, and how the awareness seems to form a single ongoing experience instead of each cell living it's own experiences separately, that is some serious meta stuff going on.

 

[WM314]

your consciousness is made from physical components

Narrowly speaking this is easy to demonstrate...

You can erase memories, feelings, create memories, feelings, all with physical interactions like chemicals, lasers, electricity

... and this is pretty nonspecific. ("feelings" is listed twice!)

Whether consciousness is memories and feelings is probably way out of scope and deeply philosophical, but I think most people would agree that personality is probably part of it, or closely related. The classic example for personality being at least partially physical is Phineas Gage, who took a steel rod through his brain and was not the same man afterwards.

On the consciousness/memory/feeling front, note that physical interventions like anesthesia (chemicals) can alter consciousness and prevent memory formation. Medicines (again, chemicals) like ketamine can create feelings (as can hallucinogenic drugs). While it doesn't directly create feelings, ECT (which uses electricity to stimulate a brief seizure) is an excellent treatment for things like depression and can reduce the associated feelings of sadness.

I'm not aware of anything similar using lasers directly. There is a whole field of optogenetics and neuroscience, but that is purely an engineered experimental system (lab animals are genetically engineered so that lasers can drive specific cells/circuits in the brain). That does not exist in humans for obvious reasons.

 

[RagingWarGod]

Narrowly speaking this is easy to demonstrate...



... and this is pretty nonspecific. ("feelings" is listed twice!)

Whether consciousness is memories and feelings is probably way out of scope and deeply philosophical, but I think most people would agree that personality is probably part of it, or closely related. The classic example for personality being at least partially physical is Phineas Gage, who took a steel rod through his brain and was not the same man afterwards.

On the consciousness/memory/feeling front, note that physical interventions like anesthesia (chemicals) can alter consciousness and prevent memory formation. Medicines (again, chemicals) like ketamine can create feelings (as can hallucinogenic drugs). While it doesn't directly create feelings, ECT (which uses electricity to stimulate a brief seizure) is an excellent treatment for things like depression and can reduce the associated feelings of sadness.

I'm not aware of anything similar using lasers directly. There is a whole field of optogenetics and neuroscience, but that is purely an engineered experimental system (lab animals are genetically engineered so that lasers can drive specific cells/circuits in the brain). That does not exist in humans for obvious reasons.

Well under complexity theory one would argue it's not physical so much that the pattern that allows it to emerge was disturbed. It's not reducing it to physical causes (to which we don't really have evidence for, just correlation).

There is also a view that anesthesia doesn't alter consciousness only the contents of it, but that would go back to the pattern with complexity theory. IF you're familiar with processes philosophy it's the same thing. I dunno about anesthesia preventing memory formation because I vividly remember the times I went under it. You also have cases of people who are aware during the operation but are effectively frozen (terrifying to say the least).

The problem with saying such things create feelings is that we can't really know if they do since they rely on personal testimony.

 

[RagingWarGod]

Looking for studies and proof that you can create and erase specific memories doesn't really speak to the main point your conversant was trying to make. It sounds like he was mostly just saying that your memories and other conscious activities are physical processes occurring in the brain. That isn't really controversial, and so justifying it with chemicals and lasers and electricity was kind of unnecessary.

On the general subject I prefer to separate memories and feelings etc from the basic idea of awareness. Humans, and probably a lot of other animals, can experience non-physical things (like feelings), non-currently present things (memories), abstract things (math) and I think what exactly it is you're experiencing isn't really a huge brain question, the difficulty is how we are aware of anything at all instead of merely being some massively parallel electrochemical cell soup that processes data but does so without awareness being required or emergent. And how are we aware of being aware, and how the awareness seems to form a single ongoing experience instead of each cell living it's own experiences separately, that is some serious meta stuff going on.

Personally I think reducing it all to just chemicals leads to seriously negative consequences for humanity.

 

[WM314]

On the anesthesia point -- it depends on the modality, as not all anesthesia uses the same stuff and (probably) has different impacts.

The problem with saying such things create feelings is that we can't really know if they do since they rely on personal testimony.

I'm not sure I understood this statement. I think you perhaps meant "we can't really know if [such things as ketamine/ECT do create feelings] since they [?? studies of the above?] rely on personal testimony"? Of course, we only can examine each other's feelings by asking.

If your point is that one has no idea if another person's experience of "sadness" is the same as one's own aside from the subjective description of it, I think that's intractably philosophical and less likely to be a productive discussion.

 

[RagingWarGod]

On the anesthesia point -- it depends on the modality, as not all anesthesia uses the same stuff and (probably) has different impacts.



I'm not sure I understood this statement. I think you perhaps meant "we can't really know if [such things as ketamine/ECT do create feelings] since they [?? studies of the above?] rely on personal testimony"? Of course, we only can examine each other's feelings by asking.

If your point is that one has no idea if another person's experience of "sadness" is the same as one's own aside from the subjective description of it, I think that's intractably philosophical and less likely to be a productive discussion.

That’s kinda what I mean, you can only know by asking. That’s the problem with studying subjective experience.

Even with new studies about consciousness it’s only correlational and never direct:

https://www.wired.com/story/scienti...n-region-that-regulates-conscious-perception/

Like just because an area of the brain lit up doesn’t tell me that such a place has a role in consciousness, if anything I’m putting the cart before the horse.

I’m not denying consciousness though unlike some researchers who call it an illusion or nonexistent

 

[rain shadow]

Personally I think reducing it all to just chemicals leads to seriously negative consequences for humanity.

I'm not saying for sure that it's electrochemistry or anything else for that matter, but ruling out hypotheses based on likely consequences is a known fallacy.

 

[RagingWarGod]

I'm not saying for sure that it's electrochemistry or anything else for that matter, but ruling out hypotheses based on likely consequences is a known fallacy.

I'm not ruling it out, more like the implications of such a scenario aren't good. Mostly because then you end up with folks saying there is no consciousness or subjective experience and that it's just an illusion.

But more than that it's also the basis for treating people like robots, which never ends well.

 

[Shavano]

Personally I think reducing it all to just chemicals leads to seriously negative consequences for humanity.

Since when are serious consequences reasons not to believe things we can prove?

 

[Shavano]

That’s kinda what I mean, you can only know by asking. That’s the problem with studying subjective experience.

Even with new studies about consciousness it’s only correlational and never direct:

https://www.wired.com/story/scienti...n-region-that-regulates-conscious-perception/

Like just because an area of the brain lit up doesn’t tell me that such a place has a role in consciousness, if anything I’m putting the cart before the horse.

I’m not denying consciousness though unlike some researchers who call it an illusion or nonexistent

Those who call it an illusion are overstating the case, but it is definitely shown that consciousness often happens after the action that is claimed to be because of it. It's like there's a "doing stuff" part of the brain and an "explaining stuff" part of the brain and the "explaining stuff" is slower, so what it does is makes up stories that seem consistent with the actions.

 

[RagingWarGod]

Since when are serious consequences reasons not to believe things we can prove?

Since always, emotions are what motivate us in life. It's similar to studies showing that proving free will doesn't exist to people is a net negative on quality of life.

Those who call it an illusion are overstating the case, but it is definitely shown that consciousness often happens after the action that is claimed to be because of it. It's like there's a "doing stuff" part of the brain and an "explaining stuff" part of the brain and the "explaining stuff" is slower, so what it does is makes up stories that seem consistent with the actions.

That's more like the content of consciousness not consciousness itself. Like there is a delay in processing information and that to make up for it our brain makes predictions about what might happen and then corrects them when sense data shows it's wrong. But even then, what does that mean for people then? Because I don't think you want to doubt whether or not a car is coming at you...

At least it's not Susan Blackmoore levels of calling consciousness an "illusion":

"There is nothing it is like to be me. I am not a persisting conscious entity. I do not consciously cause the actions of my body. Consciousness is not a stream of experiences. Seeing entails no vivid mental pictures or movie in the brain. There is no unity of consciousness either in a given moment or through time. Brain activity is neither conscious nor unconscious. There are no contents of consciousness. There is no now."

 

[zeotherm]

You also have cases of people who are aware during the operation but are effectively frozen (terrifying to say the least).

Anesthesia is not just one drug dude...

 

[RagingWarGod]

View attachment 108913
Anesthesia is not just one drug dude...

It actually does, in some freak incidents it "sorta" takes where you can't really move but you can see what's going on.

 

[zeotherm]

It actually does, in some freak incidents it "sorta" takes where you can't really move but you can see what's going on.

Yes, because it is often made up of multiple drugs, something to move you to a different plane of consciousness, and then separate from that a paralytic, plus other stuff I am sure (NOT an anesthesiologist). So one can work where the others cannot or do not, I also know people where they were awake, but couldn't move.

 

[Shavano]

Yes, because it is often made up of multiple drugs, something to move you to a different plane of consciousness, and then separate from that a paralytic, plus other stuff I am sure (NOT an anesthesiologist). So one can work where the others cannot or do not, I also know people where they were awake, but couldn't move.

Yeah, they want both. The paralytic so you don't move while they're working on the important internal stuff and the stuff to make you unconscious or at least not remember* the trauma of having somebody cutting you up. A surgeon's not going to know if you're paralyzed but conscious. You can tell them later and they'll have words with the anesthesiologist. But they're going to notice if you squirm under the knife.

edit: * if there's a difference

 

[ChrisG]

As for the creation of memories part, no, that isn't possible yet. We still don't understand the signalling format or encoding at the neurological level (i.e. the way in which neurons interact that produces mental experiences like memories) that would make it possible.

As for the erasure part, technically yes, we can do that, but not with any great subtlety. Memory loss can result from many kinds of brain injury, from a relatively simple impact to the skull all the way up to surgical excision of brain tissue (or brain tissue death from injuries). However, I assume you mean specifically erasing specific memories, and that's much, much harder to do. For one, you need to find out "where" the memory is stored (somewhere in the cortex, usually), and for two, memories tend to have distributed representations rather than highly localised.

 

[hpsgrad]

What specific question is being posed here that can be addressed in a more-or-less ‘scientific’ fashion?

Whether memories can be ‘deleted’ by some physical intervention with the brain? Whether a particular intervention can accomplish ‘deletion’? How some particular intervention might accomplish its claimed result?

The last time consciousness and brains came up here, the discussion very quickly moved outside the bounds of rigorous intersubjective/objective investigation and the thread got booted. A bit of care taken early on here could avoid the problems of that earlier thread.

 

[Billiam29]

I dunno about anesthesia preventing memory formation because I vividly remember the times I went under it.

I've gone under anesthesia multiple times in the past year. I have specific examples from the last the last two times where my memory formation was blocked. I've since watched a handful of YouTube videos from anesthesiologists who all mentioned it's very common and actually desired effect.

The thing a couple of the YT anesthesiologists mentioned is that you can be “conscious,” responsive, and aware of your environment, but still not be forming any memories until the anterograde amnesia from the anesthesia wears off. You might think that you've “woken up” from the anesthesia at a certain point, but it may very well be that's just when you started forming memories again. This was certainly the case for me.

Example 1 - Full General Anesthesia
I “woke up” from major abdominal surgery in my hospital room. I experienced absolutely nothing from the surgical recovery environment.

As the nurses were finishing getting me settled, my friend who was there asked if he could do anything. I looked at my tray and told him “Oh, you put my notebook and pen on the tray for me. That was very thoughtful.” He just grinned and said “You asked me to do that like five minutes ago.” Zero recollection of speaking to him or making that request.

Example 2 - Minor Outpatient Procedure, Propofol Only
I “woke up” in the recovery environment seated in the big hospital recliner chair. I'm pretty sure I was in the middle of speaking to the nurse. The more significant point is that I have zero recollection of getting into the chair.

 

[Shavano]

I've gone under anesthesia multiple times in the past year. I have specific examples from the last the last two times where my memory formation was blocked. I've since watched a handful of YouTube videos from anesthesiologists who all mentioned it's very common and actually desired effect.

The thing a couple of the YT anesthesiologists mentioned is that you can be “conscious,” responsive, and aware of your environment, but still not be forming any memories until the anterograde amnesia from the anesthesia wears off. You might think that you've “woken up” from the anesthesia at a certain point, but it may very well be that's just when you started forming memories again. This was certainly the case for me.

Example 1 - Full General Anesthesia
I “woke up” from major abdominal surgery in my hospital room. I experienced absolutely nothing from the surgical recovery environment.

As the nurses were finishing getting me settled, my friend who was there asked if he could do anything. I looked at my tray and told him “Oh, you put my notebook and pen on the tray for me. That was very thoughtful.” He just grinned and said “You asked me to do that like five minutes ago.” Zero recollection of speaking to him or making that request.

Example 2 - Minor Outpatient Procedure, Propofol Only
I “woke up” in the recovery environment seated in the big hospital recliner chair. I'm pretty sure I was in the middle of speaking to the nurse. The more significant point is that I have zero recollection of getting into the chair.

Blocking the formation of new memories is a different thing than deleting existing memories. Looking at it from a what must be possible perspective, we can reasonably infer that since we're able to forget things, and forgetting is a brain process (typically of slow degradation of not-frequently accessed memories) then that process could in principle be accelerated. And we see that it is so in patients with dementia, where they progressively forget more and more, in a medically abnormal manner. But it's happening there across the whole brain, or at least major subsystems of it. The OP was asking about whether it's possible to control the process so they subject forgets a specific thing.

We can't do that YET.

Unless as in the linked article, it's meth addiction? That sounds awfully useful all by itself, if it could be turned into a treatment. I don't know if I would have heard about it if it had been though. But meth addiction isn't memory in the way that episodic, semantic, or procedural memory, (recalling experiences, facts, and how to do stuff) which is mostly what we mean when we talk about memory.

That is a lot harder to track down, and treatments for people with PTSD or intrusive memories don't really try to wipe the bad memories, I think because they've found out that's both really hard and not the root of the problem. They instead seek to help the patient break the automatic link between triggers and the powerful emotions that have so much potential to cause harm. I don't even know if most patients with PTSD or intrusive bad memories would want the memories gone as much as they want them to not trouble them so much.

 

[dzid]

As for the creation of memories part, no, that isn't possible yet. We still don't understand the signalling format or encoding at the neurological level (i.e. the way in which neurons interact that produces mental experiences like memories) that would make it possible.

As for the erasure part, technically yes, we can do that, but not with any great subtlety. Memory loss can result from many kinds of brain injury, from a relatively simple impact to the skull all the way up to surgical excision of brain tissue (or brain tissue death from injuries). However, I assume you mean specifically erasing specific memories, and that's much, much harder to do. For one, you need to find out "where" the memory is stored (somewhere in the cortex, usually), and for two, memories tend to have distributed representations rather than highly localised.

This is further complicated by differences in how our brains handle event segmentation, the processing of the continuous stream of sensory input into discrete events that 'begin' and 'end.' There is some evidence that event segmentation is more fine-grained among those with more social experiential variation (as opposed to spatial experiential variation).

Then there's the issue of memories themselves being moving targets, with our recollection changing over time, sometimes omitting informations, other time augmenting memory, as seen in some witness recollections.