Mike wrote:
> oh, sorry. Though my memories stretch back to the crib, I don't know how
old I
> was then, though obviously it was in the first year or so. Comprehending
that
> early self, IMHO, is impacted more by the fact that most people have no
memories
> of that age. Its hard to comprehend something you have no memories of to
> associate with, so the 3-month old is not a good analogy for the question.
>
It is actually my full point that you can't grok your 3-month old self. Why
don't we have any memories of that age? At that age, kids do remember
things; they have more continuity of self than, say, a goldfish (in my
opinion as the dad of a 4 month old, anyway). They even have long term
memory; they know who their primary carers are, for instance.
I wonder if we can't remember what it was like to be that age, because the
points of view of an adult and a 3-month old are so disparate; maybe there
is just no way to model what it is like to be 3 months old, so you lose the
information, save for the odd, mostly untrustworthy, flash or vision.
I'm thinking that an SI, even one which is technically an augmented human
(ie: take raw human adult, add technology, iterate), may have the same
trouble with grokking grown up humans, that we have with our littlest folk;
surely, after all, the gap in mental power is similar.
It's pretty much impossible to understand/experience being smarter than you
are, to any large degree. Maybe it is likewise as difficult to be
understand/experience being dumber (outside of a small range)?
Emlyn
> Emlyn wrote:
> >
> > > Emlyn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sure, but the path there is contiguous (and paved with good
intentions
> > > > > every step of the way). Am I now something my 3-month old former
self
> > > > > can't possibly comprehend? Hell, yeah. But it's still me.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly enough, you likely can't comprehend your 3-month old
> > former
> > > > self any better than it could you now.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:28 MDT