A taste of madeleine

A taste of madeleine

Photo by Luna Hu on Unsplash

Originally published 24 February 2008

I want­ed to write on the volatil­i­ty of mem­o­ry at age 71 — a sub­ject of con­sid­er­able inter­est to myself and my spouse — and searched my com­put­er’s hard dri­ve for pre­vi­ous mus­ings on the sub­ject. (One has a ten­den­cy to repeat one­self at this age.) Lo and behold, here, just over a year ago, was exact­ly the essay I now want­ed to write. Com­plete­ly forgotten.

My wife and I sat at the din­ner table last evening trolling trough mem­o­ries of our 50 years togeth­er. We were aston­ished at some of the triv­ial stuff we remem­bered, but aware too of whole epochs of expe­ri­ence that have evap­o­rat­ed into forgetfulness.

Too much life, not enough disk,” said my wife. She sug­gest­ed that the human brain evolved when an aver­age life­time was a only few decades. Now that we live two or three times longer, we just don’t have the giga­bytes to store it all.

There may be some­thing to that, since remem­ber­ing past expe­ri­ences — croc­o­diles in the riv­er — can clear­ly have sur­vival val­ue. But it’s hard to see how nat­ur­al selec­tion would work to keep every lit­tle thing in the archives. Just before my moth­er died at age 92 she could still recite long poems by Longfel­low, Whit­ti­er, Riley, Low­ell, and the rest. Not much Dar­win­ian advan­tage there, but it gave her con­sid­er­able plea­sure. Amaz­ing that all those musty poems were some­how squir­reled away in a tan­gle of her neu­ronal synapses.

The human brain con­tains 100 bil­lion neu­rons, and each neu­ron is in con­tact with a thou­sand oth­ers, more or less. If we think of each con­nec­tion as being “on” or “off” (a crude sim­pli­fi­ca­tion), then we can say that the human brain stores rough­ly 5,000 giga­bytes of infor­ma­tion (the equiv­a­lent of 5,000 bil­lion key­board char­ac­ters). I’m not sure I did the cal­cu­la­tion right, but that’s more than enough capac­i­ty to store every poem you ever learned plus enough copies of Proust’s Remem­brance of Things Past to fill a library.

Still, mem­o­ries slip away. And, when the pow­er goes off, it is lost for­ev­er. Which is why we resort to diaries, scrap­books, pho­to albums, sou­venir col­lec­tions. More pub­licly, we have mem­oirs, auto­bi­ogra­phies, home­pages, blogs. The inter­net has become willy-nil­ly the col­lec­tive mem­o­ry of our species. How vul­ner­a­ble are our wiki­selves to evap­o­ra­tion? I have piles and piles of flop­py disks around the house that will nev­er be read again.

There was one more thing my wife said last evening that I want­ed to add. Now let’s see, what was it? It’s just at the tip of my tongue.

To this I would now add the fol­low­ing obser­va­tion. It is alto­geth­er con­ceiv­able that as sci­en­tists dis­cov­er the caus­es of senes­cence, human life­times will be great­ly extend­ed, per­haps — in the absence of dis­ease and acci­dent — indef­i­nite­ly. It’s not for me to say whether this is a desir­able devel­op­ment; if it can hap­pen, it will hap­pen. But if the mem­o­ry capac­i­ty of the brain is intrin­si­cal­ly lim­it­ed, it is hard to imag­ine how it can be bio­log­i­cal­ly increased. So the longer we live, the more of our past will be for­got­ten. Our phys­i­cal lifes­pans will be extend­ed, but our remem­bered lifes­pans will remain essen­tial­ly what they are now.

Decid­ing to remem­ber, and what to remem­ber, is how we decide who we are,” wrote Robert Pin­sky, Amer­i­ca’s long­time poet lau­re­ate. It is an attrac­tive, oft-quot­ed for­mu­la­tion, but I’m not sure that it works. Pin­sky is four years younger than me, but at my age decid­ing what to remem­ber seems like a hap­py priv­i­lege. I don’t “decide” who I am; I am what­ev­er has been inex­plic­a­bly retained in my over­crowd­ed tan­gle of neur­al webs.

There was a time when we decid­ed what pho­tographs to put in the fam­i­ly albums, what clip­pings to paste in the scrap­book, what memen­tos and love let­ters to stuff in that box in the attic that we might open a few decades hence. Much of that ana­log archive has now been replaced by dig­i­tal pho­tos, e‑mail, blogs. How much of this will sur­vive the con­stant upgrad­ing of com­put­er hard­ware and soft­ware remains to be seen. I sus­pect not much. I look at the hun­dreds of unread­able flop­py disks around the house and see a part of “who I am” that has van­ished into the realm of mean­ing­less 1s and 0s.

So we are back to what is con­tained retriev­ably in that soft­ball-sized knot of meat at the top of the spine.

What nev­er ceas­es to amaze is the vol­ume of stuff that’s stored there, increas­ing­ly beyond recall. It appears in dreams, like faint echoes of dis­tort­ed sound, nev­er quite vivid enough to drag into con­scious­ness. One wakes with a sense of hav­ing vis­it­ed the past, but with no clear notion of when or where.

For­get­ful­ness may be a strat­e­gy of evo­lu­tion to keep us from hav­ing to car­ry around a par­a­lyz­ing bur­den of past expe­ri­ence. I wish I could decide what to remem­ber and what to for­get, but nature seems to have a hand in the writ­ing and eras­ing. Pin­sky is sure­ly right that what we remem­ber is a big part of who we are, but he may be over­es­ti­mat­ing the extent to which who we are is under our con­scious control.

Share this Musing: