Douglas Bruce finds himself one day riding the subway in New York without knowing where he is going. In fact, he doesn’t know where he is, he doesn’t recognize any of the buildings. Panic sets in once he realizes he doesn’t know where he took the train, or even his own name. Doug suffers total amnesia, a rare condition in which one forgets everything about one’s life. Well, this is not exactly true: He knows how to talk, and when in the hospital someone asks him to sign, he remembers his signature. This strange and fascinating condition is explored in this documentary that uses footage shot by Doug himself and directed by his (former) friend Rupert Murray.

I found the documentary quite interesting, but I also found it wanting in several respects. Part of it may be due to the simple fact that we still know very little about how memory works, so surprisingly little time is devoted to hard data, to what may be happening—as for why it is happening, nobody knows. Some hypotheses are mentioned, and as the story progresses we get some clues. But part of the problem with the story I think is due to what I perceive as a shortcoming of the director: There are questions that do not get asked, some that beg to be asked, and why they are not seems to be because everybody is so fascinated by what is happening that they assume that filming it is enough. Part of it I think is due to the friendship between Doug and Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray seems to go out of his way to make Doug feel comfortable, while obviously the subject matter may make him uncomfortable. So, at the end of the day, I find the final product a bit awkward. There are a few extras in the DVD that leave me feeling the same (at least there is consistency); I missed (being in Vienna) the controversy on the veracity of the story, so the short section addressing it didn’t mean much to me. There is a long section explaining how a sequence was shot. I found it very curious that the director put so much thought into the visual look of the final product instead of trying to add a bit more substance to it.

I like explorations of memory, and mental problems intrigue me to no end. So this was a good movie overall. It complements well other documentaries in similar subjects, like anterograde amnesia, the disease that Memento popularized. I had the fortune of watching in 2004 an excellent documentary by Koreeda Hirokazu about one such case in Japan, Without memory.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 25th, 2007 at 11:06 pm and is filed under Documentaries. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

As suggested by Gerald, the notion was first introduced for groups. Given a directed system of groups, their direct limit was defined as a quotient of their direct product (which was referred to as their "weak product"). The general notion is a clear generalization, although the original reference only deals with groups. As mentioned by Cameron Zwa […]

A database of number fields, by Jürgen Klüners and Gunter Malle. (Note this is not the same as the one mentioned in this answer.) The site also provides links to similar databases.

As the other answer indicates, the yes answer to your question is known as the De Bruijn-Erdős theorem. This holds regardless of the size of the graph. The De Bruijn–Erdős theorem is a particular instance of what in combinatorics we call a compactness argument or Rado's selection principle, and its truth can be seen as a consequence of the topological c […]

Every $P_c$ has the size of the reals. For instance, suppose $\sum_n a_n=c$ and start by writing $\mathbb N=A\cup B$ where $\sum_{n\in A}a_n$ converges absolutely (to $a$, say). This is possible because $a_n\to 0$: Let $m_0

Consider a subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb R$ of size $\aleph_1$ and ordered in type $\omega_1$. (This uses the axiom of choice.) Let $\mathcal F$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the initial segments of $\Omega$ under the well-ordering (so all sets in $\mathcal F$ are countable or co-countable), with the measure that assigns $0$ to the countable sets and $1 […]

Sure. A large class of examples comes from the partition calculus. A simple result of the kind I have in mind is the following: Any infinite graph contains either a copy of the complete graph on countably many vertices or of the independent graph on countably many vertices. However, if we want to find an uncountable complete or independent graph, it is not e […]

I think that, from a modern point of view, there is a misunderstanding in the position that you suggest in your question. Really, "set theory" should be understood as an umbrella term that covers a whole hierarchy of ZFC-related theories. Perhaps one of the most significant advances in foundations is the identification of the consistency strength h […]

I'll only discuss the first question. As pointed out by Asaf, the argument is not correct, but something interesting can be said anyway. There are a couple of issues. A key problem is with the idea of an "explicitly constructed" set. Indeed, for instance, there are explicitly constructed sets of reals that are uncountable and of size continuum […]

The question seems to be: Assume that there is a Vitali set $V$. Is there an explicit bijection between $V$ and $\mathbb R$? The answer is yes, by an application of the Cantor-Schröder-Bernstein theorem: there is an explicit injection from $\mathbb R$ into $\mathbb R/\mathbb Q$ (provably in ZF, this requires some thought, or see the answers to this question) […]

If a set $X$ is well-founded (essentially, if it contains no infinite $\in$-descending chains), then indeed $\emptyset$ belongs to its transitive closure, that is, either $X=\emptyset$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup X$ or $\emptyset\in\bigcup\bigcup X$ or... However, this does not mean that there is some $n$ such that the result of iterating the union operation $n$ […]