X-Message-Number: 5652 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 16:55:38 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: more memories Dwight Jones has asked, > > 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? > and has indicated he doesn't think existing postings have sufficiently addressed these questions. So I'll make another try. I get the impression that he is asking about more than just whether memories have value, which he seems to concede. Clothing has value too, yet most of us would not take the trouble to preserve it for our reanimation, because it is replaceable; it is not "essential" to what we are. What is it, he asks, that makes memories "essential"? A number of answers come to mind. But I should start by noting that not all cryonicists consider memories essential_there are some who would appear to be satisfied with little more than a clone of themselves; however, I think most of us want our memories too (myself included). So now I'll consider why I think memories are "essential" I can think of three main reasons. (1) Simply a gut feeling. Memories are important; they enable us to relive the past, and enjoy again what we enjoyed once, or in the case of the less happy events, hopefully console ourselves with how the problems that existed then were finally overcome. This applies to *specific* memories--change them and you change the person (not like simply changing clothes!). To me my memories seem far more important and meaningful than some unknown sequence of genomic base pairs that I may possess in my cells. At best that gave rise to the hardware that has made it possible for me to exist, but it is not the essence of "me," which, I suspect, could also be expressed in quite different hardware (uploaded into a machine of the future, for instance). Apparently many people, however, do not feel that their memories are important at the level of "who-I-am." For those who don't the feeling may be impossible to communicate or comprehend, like the color red to one who is color-blind. (2) Memories are part of the historical record. This will have meaning to those who value the historical record. (Again, not everybody does, nor can understand why anybody would.) If the memories are lost, they cannot simply be "replaced" any more than our past history could simply be replaced with "new history" if it were lost. (Even if, by guesswork, we did manage to recreate the same information it would still lack the known connections with the past that the original had.) (3) A further ontological argument. Memories in some sense are necessary for a reasonable notion of survival of a "person" (i.e. observer). Immortality demands (again by a reasonable argument) an indefinitely *growing* set of memories. This is a rather intricate subject, and I won't try to give an adequate treatment here (more information available on request), just a few further thoughts, as follows. Basically, the idea of "survival" involves some preservation of significant information from the past, which we might loosely call "memories," even though the term is usually understood in a more restrictive sense. Thus, your DNA, to the extent it is "significant," is in this category, i.e. could be said to comprise some of your "memories." (In fact I don't think all of the genome is significant; much of it apparently is not used at all--but that's a side issue.) If we deny that "memories" are "essential" we could also raise the issue that "not all of the DNA is essential." In fact, cut out any part of it whatever, even every bit of it_the missing part could be recreated, filled in by random events, or whatever, just as we might recreate or substitute for the more usual memories. But again, we'd forfeit the historicity, i.e. violate (2). In short I see no sharp dividing line between significant DNA information and more usual memories--or their degree of being "essential." On the other hand, I claim in (3) that "immortality demands an indefinitely *growing* set of memories." This is because only thereby could you track the passage of time and *subjectively* experience an unlimited amount of it. Otherwise, i.e. with some ceiling on the size of your memory, you are just a finite state automaton, doomed to (at best) infinitely often revisit one or more of a finite number of mental states. Subjectively, this could not satisfy my expectations for "immortality." Zen may teach that "memories are not essential to what makes you YOU" but I respectfully disagree. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5652