marita_c | Defining an adult

Defining an adult - question

This is for something that I’m writing:

Let’s say that a man (21+ y.o.) has ‘amnesia’: His language capabilities are intact, he can still win a game of Trivia, can operate a computer and play the piano – BUT his episodic memory is gone for good. He doesn’t know who he is, has absolutely no recollection of any previous experiences, events or people. 100% clean slate.

Many people say that it’s the experience the shapes the person – what you’ve been through throughout your life has made you into what you are.

According to this, once that man suffers said amnesia, he’s reduced, in many ways, to an infant. Would you consider that person to be an adult? Would you allow him to vote, drink alcohol, have sex?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hmmm, whoever could you be speaking of? New story idea? *bounces* Don't let the squick stop the assporn, pls?

I would think that some suspension of disbelief is required, without memory, how could you speak, or walk, these are all learned skills. If he can't remember learning it, it's gone.

I'm afraid there's no assporn...

Of course some suspension of disbelief is required, in addition to some hardcore neuroscience, but not necessarily for the reason you're describing. I don't remember learning to walk and speak, yet I can do both. There are many things that I know, but can't recall the exact moment when I learned them.

Gah, I knew that your science would thwart me... I know that with accident & stroke victims, they do need to relearn certain skills with substantial memory loss. Would memory loss equal brain damage? It seems to me that walking, talking, are long and complex learning processes that are cumulative learning experiences. So if one or two days are removed as an toddler, no likely effect but some formulative years...?

Would these be instinctive skills? How could one play Trivia without memories of learning the facts in school, etc? Not an infant then. How about emotional maturity then? Are learning and memory separate then?

see, I was going to spare you boring explanations, but now you're just asking for it, so here we go...

learning and memory are inseparable - whether you're learning to ride a bicycle, memorizing facts from a book or developing social skills - when you look at it in terms of neurons and synapses the processes are similar; All these "memories" or "skills" are encoded by modulating (changing the "strength" of) the connections between brain cells.

Your current ability to ride bicycle, which is well consolidated by now, is encoded separately from your (childhood?) memories of learning to ride a bicycle, and therefore it's possible to destroy one without affecting the other.

The 'suspension of disbelief' part comes into play if you want to turn this into a total and global effect - meaning, the different types of memories are all interconnected, i.e. you don't store all your skills in one area of the brain, all your book knowledge in another, and all your childhood memories elsewhere. Therefore, it's unlikely to end up with a person who's lost NONE of his skills and knowledge, but ALL of his past events and experiences.

When it comes to brain damage things get even more complicated - memories are encoded as refinement of synaptic connections. When there's brain damage you have a PERMANENT loss of cells and synapses. The biological parallel of the normal post-damage (e.g. stroke) "recovery" process is actually the surviving cells "rewiring" to compensate for lost cells and connections, and therefore you can usually get only limited recovery.

However (and here I'm giving away part of my story) even if you could regenerate 100% of the lost tissue, meaning, regrow the same number of brain cells with the same number of connections, the INFORMATION that used to be stored in these connections is still lost for good. BUT - while in the damaged brain your capacity to re-learn is diminished because of the cell loss, in the regenerated brain you have a pool of "blank" cells, or a "clean slate" that can be used to re-learn.

I'll be quiet now. :|

If he can speak, walk, use a computer, etc., he's not at the level of an infant.

BUT. More importantly, he's still subject to the rule of law as an adult (if he committed a crime because he didn't know something was illegal,that isn't an excuse. You could argue as his defense lawyer based on diminished capacity, but apparently he doesn't have that, right? He can be told, "don't steal" and he won't? His mind does work?)

So yes, he should be able to vote and have adult rights. If you were his caretaker, I think it would be likely that you'd want to discourage alcohol use or sexual involvement until he re-learned things, though.

If you were his caretaker, I think it would be likely that you'd want to discourage alcohol use or sexual involvement until he re-learned things, though.

The caretaker's POV is very important to this, and I agree with your opinion. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison than an infant would be to someone who grew up in a bubble of sorts, lacking the "normal" experiences. While I expect someone like that to be very messed up, he'll still qualify as an adult.

Wow! That's a very thought provoking question. I would have to say, though that after thinking about it; if this person has retained enough of their memory to be functional, that I believe they should be treated as and fully responsible as an adult. It appears to me that they still would have adult functioning in decision making, they would just not have their decisions colored by previous experiences.

Thanks for the insight. I agree that this person should be treated as an adult. It will be very challenging to do his characterization - someone who is as knowledgeable as an adult, but is as experienced as a child. It leaves a lot of room for character development over time.

I agree, character development will be difficult, basing it primarily on new experiences.

I think it would be somewhat more like a person with amnesia triggered by a traumatic event. They still retain many personality traits, but can't remember a thing about anything beyond a fixed point in time.

They may be making more instinct based decisions without really knowing fully WHY they feel as they do about a situation.

It would be interesting to see if their "instincts" conflicted with what would seem to be a reasonable choice; and how they reconcile the conflict. Does that seem clear? It came out weird, can't think of another way to say it.

We're completely on the same page. On the one hand a lot of his "personality" had been erased, so he'll be a little dull, nearly robotic. On the other hand, any experience will be a new experience, so that adds child-like wonder and curiosity. Then we have decision-making and reactions, which are usually based on experience, but in this case will have no context, so in a way my guy will learn things about himself by his reactions to new situations.

I'm going to have a lot of fun with this... :P

I can't wait to see the result! It really sounds like it will be quite the challenge though!

There were a couple of recent cases about people with severe amnesia and they weren't robotic or dull. They were without the memories that had formed their personality but they still *had* that personality.

It's clear that personality is based on more than just memories. You might look up Oliver Sacks and see if he did a book on amnesia, he's a great medical writer.

well, there are a few things here...

habits are 'remembered' in a different part of the brain than 'memories' so in many ways, a person with the form of amnesia you're talking about (retrograde amnesia, I think?) would still be the person he was before - many of our personality bits are as much habits as 'memories'. Liked and disliked foods, for example, physical quirks etc.

What would happen is that the person is quite likely to quicly become 'different' as he goes through new expereinces, mostly because our reaction to expereince is heavily based on memory - and he'd be rebuilding those reactions in a totally different enviroment.

And to answer your last para: he's not reduces to an infant, he's just not the same person he was. If he's able to congnate, and have informed consent, then there's no reason not to treat him like an adult.

It will be similar to retrograde amnesia, I guess. I'm trying not to label it, because it's a. unique and b. artificial (i.e., this situation was "created" or "engineered" by a neuroscientist).

I'm familiar with Oliver Sacks, actually presented one of his papers once. The guy is brilliant. I'm trying to familiarize myself with some basic terms now, so I'm reading Stirling's "Introducing neuropsychology". It's one level above "Psychology for Dummies", but it serves its purpose. (I knew I should have stuck to fan-fiction, where Wikipedia is about as far as background research goes... lol).

Anyway, I'm trying to imagine myself in the character's shoes, and keep getting more and more new insights, like the uncertainty of not knowing who you are, vs. the complete freedom of becoming whoever you choose to be. I also think that those persisting personality traits you've mentioned may be a wonderful tool to hint at the character's past life.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Defining an adult - question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject