Mississippi Court Jesters

Right, I think there are a lot of issues there, but probably the most interesting to me is the relationship between memories and personality. I think we can all agree that who we are is at least in part shaped by our past experiences. It seems possible that removing a memory could alter your personality in a significant way. So, to use the author's example, let's say that a husband and wife have their memories of each other removed - ostensibly to enjoy meeting each other once again. Since I expect that a spouse probably has a fairly substantial impact on development, is it possible that removing these memories would remove completely the connection between the two people, making them incompatible?

So, I don't think I would like to erase any of my memories, the good or the bad. I agree that erasing memories in that way would in effect infantize a person - hampering them from forming a mature, long-term relationship with the other. On the other hand, I can see how this could potentially benefit someone with a disorder such as PTSD - assuming removing the memory will actually remove the disorder.

Has everyone seen the movie "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"? It brings up some of these issues, but I don't want to ruin it for anyone that hasn't seen it...

I watched Eternal Sunshine a long time ago but at the time I wasn't paying attention, so I need to re-visit it.
I agree with you that it could improve PTSDs, but entrusting your mind to someone in that way seems like a rather risky operation.
If it does prove beneficial for severe cases like that, would the government or family members be able to make that decision, or only the afflicted party?
Did you see Graham's blip about the judge who ruled for police to use a taser in order to obtain a DNA sample? I could see liberal officials ordering brain tampering to erase criminal mentalities with the intention of improving public welfare...
No thanks.

Yeah, based on the article, I'd say that right now the technology would be like trying to pound a nail with a sledgehammer, but hypothetically, if the technology could be developed to erase specific memories, it seems like it could carry less risk than, say, electroshock therapy. So with PTSD or severe depression, extreme measures can be justified in order to prevent a worse outcome like suicide.

The law of unintended consequences makes this much more interesting, though. There is quite a history of families and courts forcing treatment on a patient under certain circumstances. Especially if there can be some potential benefit for public welfare, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see court-ordered erasures for criminals (or even potential criminals, which is even more disturbing). Which, of course, is where I draw the line. I'm perfectly all right with an individual requesting the service for themselves - I'm willing to let them weight the risks and benefits and make their own decision. I have a real problem, though, with others making that decision for them. It's a slippery slope, after all, and I'm not a huge fan of giving politicians any more power than is absolutely necessary. After all, what better way to keep someone quiet about torture or some other abuse than erasing their memory of it?

I did see Graham's blip about the tasers, which is a perfect example of something meant to increase public safety gone awry - using it as an instrument of control rather than defence.

Just for fun, though, let's have a nice hypothetical debate. Let's say that memory-erasure/personality-altering technology advanced to the point that the brain could be altered to prevent a murderer or rapist from committing the crime again. Now, this is absolutely a for-sure prevention, and the procedure is completely safe. Would it be ethically sound for a court to order this treatment for a felon convicted of these crimes in lieu of or along with jail time?

For the sake of argument, I'll say that it is justified - having committed a felony requires punitive action in defence of the public good. Since a person in this classification could be reasonably expected to serve a lifetime jail sentence it seems compassionate to "rehabilitate" this person rather than simply letting them rot in jail or executing capital punishment. Though perhaps somewhat unusual, the punishment is not cruel, but is actually an act of compassion, allowing the person a second chance at life without a risk to public welfare of a repeat offence.

Ohh goody :)

I'm not really too tempted to erase any of my memories. I guess there are a few things that I would like to forget, but nothing I would ever really want to permanently erase. My memories are way to important to me to ever just erase. I feel like erasing them would really be erasing my identity. It's hard for me to say who I am if I don't know who I was. Yeah, maybe if there was something totally horrific that was just haunting me that I couldn't forget. I probably be tempted to erase stuff like that but I don't know if it would really be a good idea. I absolutely wouldn't want the decision to erase my memories to be left up to anyone but myself.

At first, I was actually tempted by the idea of erasing my positive memories, but I don't think I would ever go actually go through with it. I take so much for granted these days, and sometimes it's hard for me to really appreciate some of the things that I used to love so much. There is so much beautiful stuff that just doesn't seem to "move" me anymore; so much that I seem to just overlook. Discovery is thrilling and it bothers me when I realize how much I take for granted, but I don't think it's right or necessarily for me to erase my memories to feel the same way I used to feel about those things. Like Mary Ellen Said, something that is really good aught to stand the test of time, and I think erasing memories to rediscover something is really just going after the feelings I got from my experiences. To me, my feelings aren't as important as my memories. The memories are what I love, the memories are what I always have, the memories are what make me who I am. It might be nice to relive something and feel it with the same intensity that I did the first time, but I think it's not worth losing my identity. Besides, I think I can still enjoy all the things and that I used to love, I just have to stop taking those things for granted. I can rediscover why I liked those things, why they meant so much to me, and then maybe they could mean more to me than they did before by noticing something that I couldn't see before

Now I really want to watch Spotless Mind, but only if I can erase my memory of watching it the first time.

Yeah, that brings up an interesting distinction between novelty and genuine enjoyment or love. Spotless Mind is a good example, because I doubt any of us genuinely enjoy the movie in any real sense other than for novelty's sake. Erasing the memory allows a repeat of that same novel experience, and that concept applies to a fairly large amount of our minutia. On the other hand, I'd say it definitely requires memory to move beyond just the sense of novelty. And, I would argue, it is those memory-dependent experiences and relationships that primarily shape our identity.