Rewriting Memories

Well, sort of. A neuroscientist experiments with "zapping" brains to obliterate or at least modify negative memories:

Neuroscientist Rewrites Fear

Does the memory itself vanish? Not exactly, it seems -- how can we really know what mice remember, though? -- but the fear associated with it appears to be reduced or eliminated. Negative memories (specifically, of fear-inducing phenomena) are overwritten by pleasurable ones. If applicable to human subjects, this technique might be useful to treat PTSD.

The research draws upon the fact that "memory is dynamic, not static. Every recall subtly alters the memory itself." It's now known that, contrary to earlier beliefs, memories aren't stored in the brain like recordings that can be played back with perfect accuracy over and over. Hypnotism can't unearth reliable recall of forgotten events. Rather, it's at risk of distorting memories or even creating false ones. As revealed by research into "repressed memories" by psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus, it's alarmingly easy to induce people to believe they remember events that never happened.

Elizabeth Loftus

Eventually, the capacity to "rewrite traumatic memory pathways" might become a viable clinical approach. But even if future research makes it possible to extrapolate these techniques from mice to human patients, we'd still be a long way from SF scenarios along the lines of TOTAL RECALL or the chilling TV series DOLLHOUSE. Implanting elaborately constructed alternative past experiences in people's minds may remain the stuff of imaginative fiction. We don't have to go that far, though, to run into ethical issues. "The notion of erasing or altering memories raises risks of misuse or identity manipulation. . . . When does a 'helping hand' in memory editing become undue influence? Who decides what deserves erasure or augmentation? How will society balance mental health advancement with autonomy and consent?"

Moreover, suppose human subjects do consent in advance to having their remembered pasts rewritten? If they regretted the decision later, would the process be reversible? The question also arises of how important past experiences, even traumatic ones, are to our core identities. If we really could have all our most unpleasant memories deleted, should we?

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

Organs on a Chip

Quinton Smith, an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at one of the colleges I attended, the University of California (Irvine), is working on organoids -- "organs-on-a-chip." Stem cells are grown in "three-dimensional gel molds" to mimic human organs in order to explore "how tissues interact." For example, he has reprogrammed stem cells into liver cells to study the connection between liver disease and diet; he grows miniature placentas to investigate preeclampsia. Lab-grown organoids have an ethical advantage over animal experimentation. They're also preferable to animals, which aren't precise counterparts of human subjects, in being composed of actual human cells.

The Organsmith

Here's a Wikipedia article explaining the process in greater depth and technical detail:

Organoids

Of course, I realize these scientists aren't creating independently living organisms, much less generating life from inanimate matter, but the concept still sounds intriguingly Frankensteinian.

Remember the lab-grown miniature brains being studied by neuroscientists?

Artificially Grown Mini-Brains

It's fun to imagine the mini-brains attaining sapience, then conspiring to radicalize the other organoids, overthrow the experimenters, break out of the lab, and rampage through the wider world like the Blob in the vintage movie.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love among the monsters at Carter's Crypt.

Plant Neurobiology?

In reference to my July 25 post on "plant intelligence," coincidentally the September/October 2024 issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER contains an article by Massimo Pigliucci titled "Are Plants Conscious?" In his view, a science labeled "plant neurobiology," based on the idea that plants could have intelligence or consciousness, constitutes a "category mistake." Neuroscience studies "brains and their associated nervous systems," physical features of animals but not plants. He concedes that plants in a sense process information. As for responding to "environmental cues," he points out that all living creatures do that. He objects to conflating those general terms with the specific types of behavior we call "cognition" and "intelligence" in animals. Moreover, the claim that plants feel pain is extremely unlikely because, as far as anyone knows, pain and awareness of any other physical sensation require a nervous system. He proposes, "Plants are fascinating in part precisely because they are so different from animals."

If plants feel pain, by the way, consider the ethical implications of eating them. I'm reminded of the satirical song "Carrot Juice Is Murder," by the Arrogant Worms. "I've heard the screams of the vegetables, watching their skins being peeled. . . ."

Carrot Juice Is Murder

The PBS network features a miniseries about the vegetable kingdom called GREEN PLANET, hosted by Sir David Attenborough:

Green Planet

Stop-motion photography produces sped-up films of plant growth to illustrate that these organisms are far from inert and passive. Attenborough's narration talks about phenomena such as seedlings and saplings competing with their neighbors for light and air, or fungus in the nests of leaf-cutter ants telling the ants what type of leaves it wants. That kind of language and the accompanying dynamic videos make it temptingly easy to view plants in anthropomorphic or at least theriomorphic terms.

Noticing how English ivy climbs our window screens seemingly overnight after heavy rains, regardless of how often it's trimmed back, I could easily imagine the vines have "conscious" intentions and preferences.

Margaret L. Carter

Please explore love amonng the monsters at Carter's Crypt.