3.7.07

The readings this week focused on an individual’s capacity to remember particular things. When I first began the readings (and particularly, in McGaugh), I wondered how memory had anything to do with emotions. Prior to this, I’ve never really made any concrete connection between the two; they’ve only seemed to be abstract concepts that have somehow indirectly related to each other. After reading chapter five, it made a little bit more sense, but I still feel as though we’re left with the question: How much should we remember? I found the issue of selectivity particularly important; memory is allegedly influenced by the impact of certain events, but what dictates the impact? Norepeniphrine, or an alternate stress hormone? We never really think about what our "brain" chooses to do (or automatically does) when any type of event happens (be it significant or insignificant). What we should and should not know, as far as memory is concerned, still seems to be out of our control; and that might be a good thing. I felt as though this reading brought up one of the key controversies in bioethics right now; that is, is it acceptable to use beta/stress blockers to "downsize" the effects of particular events, and who is capable of judging what events are worthy of this particular type of medication? Our innate biological functions seem to work as a result of some sort of evolutionary process (even though this may not be entirely proven, yet), and one has to wonder why, exactly, the brain chooses particular things to remember (whether it be September 11th, or what was for lunch last Thursday). I still feel like I’m left with no answers, and I still want a solution to the Amygdala-hippocampus debate (if there is one)!