About the SA Blog Network



Critical views of science in the news
Cross-Check Home

Can Brain Implants Solve the Valentine’s Day Dilemma?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

February is the most anxious month. Every year at this time, I agonize over the Valentine’s Day Dilemma. What should I do to show my girlfriend, “Emily,” how much I love her? Should I get her a funny card, or a romantic one? Turkish delight or chocolates? Dinner at a fancy restaurant, and if so, which one? If I get her lingerie, should it be slutty or tasteful?

Emily has quirky–that is, unpredictable—tastes. The best present I ever got her, the one she most appreciated, was a vegetable scrubber with hemp bristles. After hers got old and died, she couldn’t find a replacement, and I noticed one in a cookware shop in my hometown. Emily was ecstatic! Over a vegetable scrubber!

Unfortunately, my gifts usually disappoint her. So last weekend I was wracking my brain for ideas when a technological solution, albeit long-term, popped into my head: Brain implants could help solve the Valentine’s Day Dilemma once and for all!

The Valentine’s Day Dilemma is related to the much larger problem of subjectivity, or solipsism. Both Emily and I—and all sentient creatures—are locked in our own private worlds. We constantly send each other signals–visual, auditory, olfactory and so on–but neither of us can ever really be sure what the other is thinking. There’s lots of guesswork involved in our signal interpretation, which inevitably leads to squabbles and disappointment–the dismal downside of romance.

These problems could be overcome if Emily and I were both equipped with souped-up Stimoceivers. Neuroscientist Jose Delgado (whom I profiled for Scientific American in October 2005) coined that term a half century ago to describe devices that he inserted into the brains of bulls, monkeys and humans. His Stimoceivers could detect signals from the brain and feed them back into it via electrical stimulation.

Delgado’s devices were crude. The ones I envision would be broadband, AI-enhanced, miniaturized–and based on flashy new optogenetic technology! Call them Optoceivers. They would make Delgado’s device—and all our current methods of romantic communication–look as primitive as smoke signals.

Optoceivers could have all sorts of apps for specific tasks. For example, I’d like a gift-giving app that queries Emily’s brain about what she really wants for Valentine’s Day. Replicas of Mesopotamian owl figurines? Glow-in-the-dark Tarot cards? Dinner at that Soho restaurant that serves only soy-based food? The app would go on the Internet to purchase the right gift or reserve a table at the perfect restaurant. “Easy peasy lemon squeezey!” (as Emily likes to say).

The app could also design a customized card–sappy/funny/naughty, whatever would delight Emily. She will pre-arrange the settings on her implanted Optoceiver so that it responds to my queries without alerting her conscious self, which can then be pleasantly surprised.

Other apps could ensure that our Valentine’s Day dinner goes smoothly. One app could express my romantic feelings for Emily more eloquently than I can. Call it the “Cyrano de Bergerac App.” Another app could filter out negative thoughts I might have about Emily. Not that I ever have negative thoughts, but just in case. The app could also block transmission of thoughts that aren’t really negative but that she might take the wrong way.

If Emily is talking about something that fails to hold my interest, my Optoceiver would commandeer my language and motor centers. I’ll nod, maintain eye contact and emit appropriate verbal responses while the bulk of my brain is composing another blog post about military funding of neuroscience.

The Optoceivers would have total data-recording and storage capability, to resolve any disputes that might arise if Emily and I have different recollections of past events: “I keep telling you I hate white chocolate, and you keep giving it to me!” “I distinctively remember you saying you love white chocolate!” We can check our shared Optoceiver database and see who’s right!

In fact, such petty disagreements would never arise, because we would have apps that anticipate and resolve potential conflicts before they reach the level of our awareness. It would be like having teams of super-smart couples counselors working 24/7 on our relationship without any conscious effort from us.

Our optogenetically enhanced love will be perfect, harmonious, unblemished by human frailty. Every day will be like Valentine’s Day, except much, much better.

Self-plagiarism Alert: I posted a different version of this column last year.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

John Horgan About the Author: Every week, hockey-playing science writer John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's, 2012). Follow on Twitter @Horganism.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Von Stupidtz 9:44 am 02/10/2014

    Of course she is going to be ecstatic, you gave her a gift made out of weed.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rshoff2 12:33 pm 02/10/2014

    “neither of us can ever really be sure what the other is thinking.”

    The problem with this premise is that you assume that your own brain (your ‘self’) knows it’s own mind. You assume that your brains is a singular cohesive entity that can be in agreement with itself on it’s subjective desires, satisfaction, and pleasure.

    So, your brain alone is no more capable of addressing this issue than your brain linked with Emily’s via all of those communication vehicles and cues you mentioned.

    I think that instead of feeling pressured, you should enjoy having this problem to worry about. It means you love someone. In addition, rest assured, that Emily will be pleased to feel let down simply because someone loves her enough to attempt, and fail, to solve this unsolvable dilemma. In other words, there is almost nothing you can do wrong here, because you love her.

    Link to this
  3. 3. rshoff2 12:51 pm 02/10/2014

    Hey, does Emily know about Veronica !?

    Link to this
  4. 4. StutterinSam 1:13 pm 02/10/2014

    I fear that something like this would at once both set a new standard, and also very quickly make gift-giving a requirement, and a boring ritual we would eventually forget the meaning behind but just know it was required.

    Surprise comes from uncertainty. When uncertainty goes away, so too does surprise; if you knew with reasonable certainty that you were going to get exactly what you wanted every single time, the best you could hope for was mild anticipation… but very little excitement, because of course you were going to get what you wanted most; you always do.

    Gift giving, in other words, would transform from an art that meant the other person knew you in some way few others do, to something you could phone it in on simply by pulling the answer directly from the recipient’s noggin… and probably would devolve to a pure resources contest (e.g., you REALLY want a new luxury sedan for Christmas… now, if your present mate can’t buy it for you, how about that hottie from the next office building over, who also downloaded your wish list and knows you want it – and if so, will you accept the gift?).

    Link to this
  5. 5. rshoff2 3:13 pm 02/10/2014

    @StutterinSam – Don’t accept gifts from ‘hotties’ reading your wish list. It never ends well…

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article