The Neuroethics Blog Series on Black Mirror: The Entire History of You
Somnath Das recently graduated from Emory University where he majored in Neuroscience and Chemistry. He will be attending medical school at Thomas Jefferson University starting in the Fall of 2017. The son of two Indian immigrants, he developed an interest in healthcare after observing how his extended family sought help from India’s healthcare system to seek relief from chronic illnesses. Somnath’s interest in medicine currently focuses on understanding the social construction of health and healthcare delivery. Studying Neuroethics has allowed him to combine his love for neuroscience, his interest in medicine, and his wish to help others into a multidisciplinary, rewarding practice of scholarship which to this day enriches how he views both developing neurotechnologies and the world around him. ![]() |
| Image courtesy of Flickr user |
As the population ages, diseases of memory impairment such as Alzheimer’s disease have become of increasing concern across the globe. In fact, for adults over 55, Alzheimer’s is the number one feared disease (more than cancer). According to the Alzheimer’s association, deaths due to heart disease have declined by 14%, whereas deaths arising from Alzheimer’s disease-related causes have risen by 89%. Memory enhancement has also been explored by researchers as a way of enhancing – or dampening – functionally normal memory. Various techniques aimed at enhancing memory have explored the possibility of modulating memory’s various components, ranging from enhancing molecular processes to altering systemic neurotransmission (Stern & Alberini 2013; Suthana et al. 2012).
![]() |
| Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. |
“The Entire History of You” begins with Liam, who uses his grain to re-watch a recent interview
repeatedly, thinking he did not perform up to expectations. He uses the grain’s functionality to zoom in on the interviewer’s body language, scrutinizing their responses and subtly hinting how the device encourages paranoid tendencies. At a dinner party, he notices his wife, Ffion, talking to a man, Jonas, that he doesn’t recognize, thus arousing Liam’s suspicions. When the couple returns home, Ffion admits to Liam that she had a relationship with Jonas and that she had lied about the time they spent together. This causes a fight between the couple, and even though they apologize and make-up, Liam’s suspicions continue to linger. He eventually goes downstairs and, under the influence of alcohol, uses his grain to re-watch his wife’s conversations with Jonas at the dinner party. In a fit of rage, Liam drives to Jonas’ house, threatening to cut out Jonas’ grain if he doesn’t delete the memories of his prior relationship with Ffion. The next morning, Liam replays the incident, zooming in on the list of memories Jonas deleted. He noticed that there was footage of Jonas and Ffion having sex that was taken 18 months ago, around the time their daughter, Jodie, was conceived. After confronting Ffion about the footage, it suddenly becomes unclear as to who was the father of Jodie. The episode ends with Liam walking around his house, replaying his memories with Jodie. He then goes to the bathroom and removes the grain using a razor blade.
![]() |
| Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. |
Everybody is implanted with the grain from birth, so the technology is not considered a form of enhancement (in fact, removing the grain may be so). One of the guests revealed that she had her grain forcibly removed, and that she prefers to remain grain-free. With the grain, the user can record memories in ultra high-definition (evidenced by the fact that Liam was able to zoom in on previous memories), replay them an unlimited number times, and even project their memories to be seen by others. The user can also selectively dampen their memories by deleting either segments or entire memories. What the show leaves unclear, likely on purpose, is how this device interacts with or changes the brain. For example, would Jonas be able to remember his time with Ffion, or at least their emotional connection, despite deleting all of their episodic memories on the grain? And, do these devices enhance or ultimately worsen the brain’s capacity for memory because of decreased reliance
– or decreased dependence – on our own biology?
![]() |
| Logo of the transhumanist movement. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. |
Kernel’s project is largely based off of the research of USC biomedical engineer and neuroscientist Theodore Berger. Berger’s early research focused on Pavlovian conditioning in rabbits; he discovered that as the rabbits were learning to associate a tone with a puff of air – and subsequently blink when the tone was played – one region of their brains displayed a consistent and reliable pattern of electrical activity, indicating learning. His research currently focuses on recording neural substrates of memory and mathematically modeling them for use in memory prosthetic devices – a goal that is part of his Transhumanist aim to eventually create human cyborgs free of disability. He has published data that demonstrates a neuroprosthetic device’s ability to improve non-human primate hippocampal CA1-CA3 firing – a critical circuit in memory formation in the hippocampus (Hampson et al. 2013).
![]() |
| Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. |
Privacy is also a significant concern. The technology in Black Mirror integrates smoothly and seamlessly with the user’s perception of the world, able to record and replay memories in real-time. The user can replay memories either “in their minds,” or project them on a television screen. The science behind creating a wearable recording technology that is similar to Black Mirror’s is within reach; yet, early versions of wearable recording technology are facing widespread consumer backlash. Google Glass, a pair of “smart glasses” that could take photos on command, faced remarkable negative criticism due to privacy concerns about the data collected by Google. A 2016 study by Takabi, Bhalotiya, and Alohaly found that the many third-party developers for current BCIs used in a wide variety of contexts such as gaming possess virtually unrestricted access to raw EEG data from users. These developers additionally possess a fairly strong locus of control over the stimuli shown to the users, leaving the question of how the users’ data will be used in context. The authors point out that while raw EEG data does have strong implications for clinical research, this data can also be used or sold to other third-parties and used for malicious intents. Additionally, the authors note that the ability of computational to trace brain signals back to users is growing, and therefore even if data is made anonymous, these protections may not be enough. Therefore, as BCIs are used for increasingly personal and therapeutic contexts (such as improving memory), computer scientists, neuroscientists, policymakers, and clinicians must work together to develop stronger protections for both user and patient neural data.
![]() |
| Image courtesy of Armed with Science. |
Finally, as BCIs become more available as a treatment option, there will need to be a clear consensus communicated to physicians as to what specific aspects of memory these devices could enhance, and how these aspects of memory are modulated with respect to human memory’s various psychological and anatomical components. As with technologies still in clinical trials involving stimulation of the brain, potential conflation of therapeutic and experimental intents will need to be addressed in the clinic prior to consent and implantation. Bioethicist James Giordano worries that these devices could blur the links between emotion and memory, further threatening the identity of vulnerable patients in a diseased or disabled state. Black Mirror hints that even if these devices were to enhance declarative memory, they could worsen paranoid tendencies and traumatic associations with various memories. In their qualitative study of neurosurgical patients, Lipsman, Zener, & Bernstein (2013) observed that while patients undergoing invasive neurosurgery consider threats to identity as being outweighed by life-threatening conditions, they have considerable doubts about cosmetic and enhancement neurosurgery. Is dementia considered “life-threatening” enough for patients to accept potentially risky BCIs? And how about these devices within enhancement contexts?
Want to cite this post?
Das, S. (2017). The Neuroethics Blog Series on Black Mirror: The Entire History of You. The Neuroethics Blog. Retrieved on
, from http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2017/08/the-neuroethics-blog-series-on-black_3.html






Comments
Post a Comment