The
Radio Lab Podcast on Memory and Forgetting has done some damage to my view of what is going on my head.
The main points of this article I’ll just summarize:
1) There is no “master memory” that you draw on when you recall something.
2) Memories are re-imprinted in your brain every time you recall them.
3) Memories become less accurate the more you access them.
4) Memories can be implanted, dulled, or even erased with certain techniques and medications.
Item 4 (which has been proven via experimentation) is pretty creepy – since it pretty much tells you that brainwashing is feasible. Maybe to a lesser extent than the you’d see in
The Manchurian Candidate or
The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but to a disturbing degree nonetheless.
Here’s how they know this. Scientists would play a tone to a rat and then give them an electrical shock. They’d do this repeatedly until the rat would cringe just from hearing the tone. Conditioned response. Pavlov. This surprises no one.
What
was surprising was what happened when they used a particular drug on a different rat while they got the same treatment. A medicated rat that heard the tone and was subsequently zapped
never associated the two events. The rat would hear the tone, but would not cringe. The drug prevented the association.
They then took this further and took a rat that had made the connection between the tone and the shock and gave them the drug before playing the tone and zapping them. Over time, the rats would lose the connection between the tone and the shock. The drug would erase the prior memory of tone = shock, and the rat would no longer react to the tone.
Yeah.
They’ve tried this drug on people with traumatic memories to help diminish their intensity – it worked.
So, your memories are up for grabs. But that’s not the only weird bit for me.
The premise of item 1 just bugs me. There is no accurate memory that you draw on to experience past events. Every time you relive a memory you are re-creating it. This allows you to modify it every time you access it – introducing errors each time.
They make the point that a memory you never access is the most reliable one you will ever have.
But it makes no sense to say we recreate the memory each time because there must be some information in our brains that maintains the connection between the actual event and our recollection of it.
For example:
Yesterday I meet a man with an orange shirt.
Today I remember the experience as meeting a man with an orange suit.
Years from now, I remember meeting a man with an orange hat.
All of this can follow from a process where I create a new memory and muddle the details over time.
But how can these recollections be in any way similar if there isn't some stored data that supplies the source material for the new memory I'm creating?
I mean, how else can I correctly maintain the memory of meeting a man and not a woman?
If I am truly creating a new memory each time - what's to stop me from remembering meeting a woman who hits me in the face with a rubber chicken?
Surely some kind of master record must be supplying the framework of what I am remembering - even if I can't access it directly. Even if I distort this data over time, mustn't I retain some kind of starting point?
It may just be a garbling of what they were presenting. It occurred to me while writing this that the memory you experience is drawn from the prior iteration of it, but overwrites it as it does so. Like putting another coat of paint on a painting. It may be similar, but it will always be different – and you can’t ever go back.
Which would explain how the good old days get better and better, but still just messes with your head.
If you have the time, check out the podcast. It'll bend your head.