# Fidelity–Plasticity Paradox **Domain:** Continuity Engineering / Learning Systems / Identity **Doc Type:** Concept Node **Classification:** Continuity Architecture **Maturity:** Developed **Related:** [[wiki/Runtime Coherence|Runtime Coherence]], [[wiki/Reconstructed Person|Reconstructed Person]], [[wiki/James Delos|James Delos]], [[wiki/Bernard Lowe|Bernard Lowe]] ## Definition **The Fidelity–Plasticity Paradox is the possibility that maximizing exact resemblance to a source person can reduce the viability of the resulting continuant.** Living cognition is not a static archive. It forgets, reconsolidates, generalizes, revises, repairs and diverges. A reconstruction optimized only to repeat a captured source state may preserve recognizable detail while losing the adaptive processes that made the source person capable of surviving change. ## Westworld Instrument [[wiki/James Delos|James Delos]] is repeatedly tested for exact fidelity and repeatedly collapses. [[wiki/Bernard Lowe|Bernard Lowe]] is not viable because he is a perfect replay of Arnold. He becomes viable through reconstruction, reinterpretation and divergence. The comparison suggests that continuity engineering may need to preserve **the capacity to change**, not merely the state that existed before change. ## Pantheon Interface [[wiki/Pantheon|Pantheon]] treats integrity failure as a problem of memory architecture during execution. Exact acquisition alone cannot guarantee [[wiki/Runtime Coherence|Runtime Coherence]]. Repair must preserve enough identity to remain a person while allowing enough plasticity to continue becoming one. ## Key Insight Fidelity without plasticity can become a high-resolution death mask. Plasticity without provenance can become replacement. Continuity engineering must keep both in a defensible relation. ## See Also [[wiki/UI Integrity|UI Integrity]], [[wiki/Restoration Integrity|Restoration Integrity]], [[wiki/Memory Integration vs Identity Erasure|Memory Integration vs Identity Erasure]], [[wiki/Architecture vs Accretion|Architecture vs Accretion]], [[collections/Consciousness Continuity|Consciousness Continuity]] ## Relationships - **Edge Annual Question source relationship:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]] preserves the annual-question source corpus from which a proposition-specific quotation is connected to this entry. ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "The bottom line of reconsolidation research is that your memory of some experience is only as good as your last recollection of the experience. Each use of a memory changes the memory. Obviously, the changes are not always so dramatic as what I have described. But the fact is that memory can, at least to some extent, be changed by experience, and sometimes the changes can be striking." > **— Joseph LeDoux**, *2010, Edge Annual Question, “How Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?”* [[reminders/Memory/Each Use of a Memory Changes the Memory by Joseph LeDoux|Each Use of a Memory Changes the Memory by Joseph LeDoux]] > "Two recent lines of evidence have relegated this dominant theory of long-term memory ready for retirement. First is the discovery of reconsolidation. When memories are recalled, they undergo a brief period in which they are once again susceptible to disruption by many of the same biochemical inhibitors that affect the initial conversion of short- into long-term memory. This means that long-term memories are not immutable, but can be converted into short-term memory, and then reconverted back into long-term memory. If this reconversion doesn't happen, the specific long-term memory is effectively disrupted." > **— Todd C. Sacktor**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready for Retirement?”* [[reminders/Memory/Long-Term Memories Become Fragile When Recalled by Todd C. Sacktor|Long-Term Memories Become Fragile When Recalled by Todd C. Sacktor]]