X-Message-Number: 5640
Date:  Fri, 19 Jan 96 19:02:50 
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Memories

Dwight Jones (#5612, 17 Jan), responding to Peter Merel, 
responding to Dwight Jones:
>
>> 
>>>what is the ESSENTIAL difference between successful 
>>>cryonic rebuilding and regeneration from DNA seed? 
>>>What is it about today's memories that we MUST 
>>>[preserve] them to deem ourselves successful in this 
>>>venture?
>> 
>> Software and hardware, Dwight. Without software, 
>>what good is a computer?  Doesn't software exist in your 
>>philosophy? Do you imagine that software is somehow 
>>implied by hardware? Or do you believe that all 
>>programs are equivalent to one another? We spend our 
>>lives writing our own internal software - it determines 
>>how we behave, who we love, the people and qualities 
>>and dimensions of our worlds. Perhaps your philosophy 
>>devalues this software, but for most of us here that's the 
>>whole point; the hardware can be replaced by some other 
>>machine with sufficient power to express our software, 
>>and we won't fuss - many of us even look forward to it!
>
>I'm not denying that such memories would be nice to 
>have. But as the  years (and lifetimes) go by, we learn to 
>let go of childhood,  adolescence, and so on, just as we go 
>to sleep each night confident of  prospects in the coming 
>day. Could we not look at lifetimes, gracefully  
>surrendering each as we surrender the day?
>

To me, memories are not simply "nice to have" but are an 
important part of the person I am today. To try to restore 
me from DNA alone would strip away this information, 
replacing me with a much earlier version of myself, 
essentially just my zygote, which would have to start all 
over again. Part of the "me" that I am today, no doubt, but 
hardly all, and hardly all that I hope to save through 
cryonics. 

As I see it, "letting go of childhood," "surrendering the 
day," etc. are not processes of forgetting, whose end result 
is erasure of all information whereas the "letting go of 
lifetimes" appears to be just precisely this, or very nearly. 
After my "letting go" I still remember, and I still *value* 
this remembering. Not that I would want to return to a 
much earlier lifestyle--but even so, the memories are 
important.

As a case in point, when I was about 3 my parents bought 
me a tricycle. It was soon apparent that I would have 
trouble operating it because my legs were too short to 
properly engage the pedals. So they obtained wooden 
blocks which, when attached to the pedals, made them easy 
to reach, and I soon became a proficient tricyclist. Now, 
this is not an experience I'd like to repeat, i.e. shrink back 
to 3-year-old size and go through it all again. However, I 
do enjoy thinking about it occasionally, and its larger 
connections with where I was living, who was involved, 
etc. Ditto for other things I remember, and that includes 
even bad experiences, which I think can have value even if 
not always remembered with the same fondness we reserve 
for happier moments. I would not want these memories 
erased--indeed, I foresee no time in the future when I 
would want the information destroyed, any more than one 
would contemplate, say, destroying all records of events 
before the 1st century C.E.

But if "surrendering lifetimes" is the way to go, why not 
obliterate historical documents as well? Especially for what 
happened over 1,000 years ago! Isn't  it outmoded? Why 
not "gracefully" give up this material that has surely 
"served its purpose already" and recycle all the records so 
they can form new records, buildings and bodies? On the 
other hand, if we would be reluctant to follow this course 
of obliterating our history, I'll offer this thought: personal 
memories are part of the historical record too. If the 
indefinite preservation of historical records can be justified, 
as I think most people would agree today it can, then it 
seems hard to argue that personal experiences are just 
something to "let go of" after a period of time. Instead their 
indefinite preservation must be considered too.

Does this mean we should be frantically devoted to 
preserving all past information whatever? I don't see that it 
does, and indeed, it is clear we should draw the line 
somewhere, as indeed we do. We don't record every 
snowflake or dust mote, nor do I think we should try. So 
where to draw the line? For me, the information that is 
personally important should be preserved--it's that simple, 
and this includes my own past experiences, along with 
much other information, though certainly not everything, 
which is impossible. But surely personal history, on the 
level of individual memories (and not just what can be 
communicated and recorded with devices of today) is 
important. It has some significance even apart from its 
value to the individual--its preservation could be justified 
from the historical standpoint alone--and mine in 
particular, to me at least, has vital importance to me as a 
functioning person.

Overall, in fact, I view life largely as a process of creating 
an assemblage of valued memories. This has two important 
aspects: (1) having new experiences which will, in due 
course, take their place in the memory archives, and (2) 
reviewing the archives from time to time, to in some 
measure relive or recount the older experiences. I hope to 
be able to do this indefinitely, building an increasing 
archival record much as civilization has been doing, as a 
whole, since the invention of writing. And I hope others 
will join me in this, so we all build our individual archives 
as we live and interact.

Each of us, properly, is a civilization in miniature. In time 
all of us ought to, and hopefully will, individually surpass 
all of our present civilization, in many and fascinating 
ways. In this developmental process, even the humblest 
early memories should have lasting value, much as the 
most primitive ancient history continues to hold our 
interest today. At present, the best shot at preserving the 
memories of a person at death is by freezing the brain, i.e. 
cryonics.

To achieve our rightful destiny we must become more than 
human--many times over. But we have the technological 
potential to do this, as I think good arguments attest. A 
good starting point would be to develop a mature 
nanotechnology and eliminate our mortality, but we aren't 
to this stage yet. Cryonics is the best approach that acually 
*is* available, as far as I can see, for the seeker of a more-
than-human future.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5640