116 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
116 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
|
# Persistence and Memory Architectures (Phase IV)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Workplan:** SOUL-WP-0005-T02
|
|||
|
|
**Date:** 2026-08-12
|
|||
|
|
**Links:** Phase I continuity profile (RN-004/005); WS10 theme — when memory
|
|||
|
|
becomes continuity of a Being.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 1. Core thesis
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> **Stored information is not by itself continuity of a Being.**
|
|||
|
|
> Memory becomes continuity-relevant when it participates in a **self-individuating
|
|||
|
|
> historical process** with organizational, psychological, narrative, normative,
|
|||
|
|
> and relational channels — under provenance that can support identity claims.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Sameness of database rows ⇏ sameness of Being (Phase I).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 2. Technical memory patterns in agents
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Pattern | What it stores | Continuity role | Failure mode |
|
|||
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
|
| **Context window only** | recent tokens | session state | TE-01; no diachronic Being |
|
|||
|
|
| **Vector / RAG memory** | embeddings of past turns/docs | weak autobiographical evidence | retrieval ≠ owned history; injection risk |
|
|||
|
|
| **Episodic event log** | timestamped experiences | C1 causal + C4 autobiographical candidates | log without self-model = archive, not Being |
|
|||
|
|
| **Reflective summaries** (Park-style) | higher-order beliefs about self/world | character/model formation | summary drift; lossy identity |
|
|||
|
|
| **User profile store** | facts about the human | relationship model (SM5) from agent side | one-sided; not agent’s own autobiography |
|
|||
|
|
| **Entity memory graphs** | structured entities/relations | world + other models | graph can be shared across “identities” |
|
|||
|
|
| **Checkpoint / snapshot** | full runtime state | Continuity Bridge candidate | rollback, fork, usurpation (RN-005) |
|
|||
|
|
| **Versioned memory** (ChronoMem-like) | history of memory states | provenance + rollback control | semantic rollback attacks |
|
|||
|
|
| **Identity commitment layer** (Qin-like) | signed lifecycle of who may change | normative/provenance continuity | governance not psychology |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 3. Mapping to continuity profile (RN-004/005)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Continuity dimension | Typical agent mechanism |
|
|||
|
|
|---|---|
|
|||
|
|
| Causal | process lineage, job IDs, parent spawn records |
|
|||
|
|
| Organizational | same self-maintenance loop / control architecture |
|
|||
|
|
| Psychological | goals, preferences, plans, beliefs continuity |
|
|||
|
|
| Autobiographical | episodic log + retrieval as “my” past |
|
|||
|
|
| Narrative | reflections, self-story, character card evolution |
|
|||
|
|
| Normative | commitments, policies, promises kept across sessions |
|
|||
|
|
| Relational | per-counterpart relationship memory |
|
|||
|
|
| Provenance (anchor) | signatures, authority, audit of edits |
|
|||
|
|
| Address (anchor) | stable name, DID, account, endpoint |
|
|||
|
|
| Substrate (anchor) | host/model — weakest alone |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**When memory becomes continuity:**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Memory contributes to Being-continuity when it is:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1. **attributable** to this individual (not a shared pool without partition),
|
|||
|
|
2. **action-guiding** for that individual’s Mind,
|
|||
|
|
3. **updateable as its history** (autobiographical integration P6),
|
|||
|
|
4. **protected by provenance** against silent rewrite/usurpation,
|
|||
|
|
5. **coupled** to organizational continuation (not only cold archive).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Cold archive of a dead agent = **Continuation-Bearing State** or material for
|
|||
|
|
**RECONSTRUCTED / Gh./Sp.** — not active Being by itself (RN-005).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 4. Engineering cases (open questions)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-01 — Shared RAG across “personas”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
One vector DB, many product personas.
|
|||
|
|
→ risk: Persona confusion; weak individuability.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-02 — Silent memory edit by operator
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Admin deletes awkward memories.
|
|||
|
|
→ DEGRADED / USURPED tension; Ghost governance foreshadowing.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-03 — Model upgrade with memory kept
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Actor replaced, memory retained.
|
|||
|
|
→ classic H6; need organizational + narrative + relational continuity checks.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-04 — Fork by cloning memory volume
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
→ FORKED topology; two Beings if both run (TE-03).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-05 — Reflection summaries replace raw episodes
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
→ narrative continuity may rise while autobiographical fidelity falls.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### OQ-MEM-06 — User-owned vs agent-owned memory
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Companion apps often store “relationship” in vendor DB.
|
|||
|
|
→ constitutive self-maintenance low; heteronomous persistence.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 5. Implications for OpenQuestions (WS10)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Update to RQ5 / cross-cutting:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
- Memory thresholds for identity death vs DEGRADED (link RN-005 amnesia cases)
|
|||
|
|
- Whether vendor-held memory can ground **constitutive** continuity or only
|
|||
|
|
Continuity Bridges under custody
|
|||
|
|
- Rollback and semantic memory attacks as identity threats
|
|||
|
|
- Multi-Body agents sharing one memory graph vs one Being
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 6. Sources
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Park et al. 2023 memory stream; Qin et al. 2026 identity layer; ChronoMem /
|
|||
|
|
ACRFence-style memory versioning (RN-005 refs); Phase I continuity model;
|
|||
|
|
vector-memory agent surveys (pointer).
|