How can I get a selective memory loss?

I don’t see the possibility of a painless selective memory loss anytime soon but still love the idea of it. I came across the idea in the movie “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”. In the movie, the doctor first creates a map of memories in the brain related to the event the subject wants to forget and then somehow deletes these memories.

Meanwhile, science is still trying to figure out the cell or the molecule (chemical) responsible for the memory. But as Lyall Watson said, "If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't “. Common knowledge is that memory is stored in neurons and the synapses they form in the brain. But it’s not clear how exactly. Although electrical stimulation of a certain neurons triggers a memory like that of a smell or a sound or a scene from the past but destroying those particular cells does not lead to the loss of that memory.

Nevertheless, scientists were successful at deleting certain traumatic memories in rats’ brains using a drug which causes amnesia. Interestingly, the drug obliterated only traumatic memories. Though it is not clear how it happens, it could have some really good uses. It can be a wonderful gift for certain people like victims of childhood trauma etc.. People can start over without their past lingering over their heads.

I believe hypnosis could help in selective memory deletion but it’s just a guess. I've heard "Time Line" Therapy has a method for 'blocking-out' memories. But mainstream research in hypnosis is lacking.

Like many far-fetched ideas, this one seems like fiction.But as Isaac Asimov put it, “Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable”. I just might get the procedure done in a few years.

Numbers etc.

Our world owes a lot to numbers. Since ages, human civilizations have been obsessed with these symbols. In our world, anything that can be measured in numbers is given a serious thought. 

Physics- the science to which we owe our understanding of the physical world-relies as much on numbers as it does on practical observations. Only and if only a physical theory can be mathematically proved is it given validity. We judge people with the help of numbers. So if you get 90% in your test, you’re good enough and if you get less, you’re not. We’ve even been able to quantify time and it has made our life a race. Though only the moment of now (the right now) is real, all we think about is what would happen 2 weeks later or what happened 5 years ago.

Animals too have a sense of maths. A mother cheetah (or lioness etc.) will get anxious if only two out of her three cubs are with her and go looking for the third one. In fact, a very interesting mathematical “behavior” in the animal world is talked about in the book “The Math Instinct” by Keith Devlin. A dog trying to fetch at maximum speed a ball thrown over a lake diagonally to the water line seems able to figure out how far to run along the shore before plunging into the water, a problem that a human would need calculus to solve.¹

Numbers are reliable (though often their source might not be). They give us the illusion of an order and control. We can predict a lot of things with 70% accuracy or 99% accuracy etc. with their help. Meteorological departments can measure humidity levels, air pressure etc. and have us decide if it’s a good time for an outing on the beach. Computer, rockets and cars, the hallmarks of modern times, wouldn’t be possible without mathematics.

 Numbers have gone far and taken us far. But not far enough, yet. So although we appreciate, love and respect our mothers, we cannot account for their contribution in the national income. We still don’t account for the environmental damage caused by industrial units when arriving at the profit made by them. Maybe one day in future when biology understands more about human emotions and the related physiological processes, we will be able to quantify our love and fear in terms of, say, oxytoxin levels in blood. If I say I’m looking forward to that day, I’d be lying.

I’ve nothing against numbers though. It’s not the numbers; it’s what we do with them. And what we do with what we do with them.

1  (http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-grail-bird-the-math-instinct-and-tiger-bone-and-rhino-horn)