Mike Lorrey wrote:
>There is no contradiction. Max's thesis does not demand that the body be
>necessarily a *human* (i.e. homo sapiens) body, or that the word 'body'
>be limited solely to a biological system.
>
>We recognise that much of the human race defines itself by its physical
>appearance, but only because sight is such a dominant sense (at least
>for males), with one's 'feelings' being a close second (but dominant in
>women). Both are assumed by the public to be absent from a mind that is
>removed from its original human body, especially if its body is replaced
>with an artifical construct, and are assumed to be impossible to attain
>for an artificial intelligence. We don't assume these things.
>
>We generally think that you are you, no matter what body you are in.
>Your sense of self will still be highly dependent upon you sight and/or
>feelings, rather than your thoughts, which is what your true self is.
So you're saying that although our sense of self is about how we see and interact with others, it has no bearing on how we interact with our body - that is, by changing the body, the self remains the same? And that if our body becomes laoded with more functions and more senses via uploading, or less drastic modifications, then our 'self' will not be effected by this?
You need to explain more Mike, I really haven't got the jist of what you were saying.
Helen