-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joe Jenkins Wrote:
>My first shot at defining identity is as follows:
>Identity - A slightly dynamic but mostly stable fuzzy area
>within he design space of all possible information
Joe Jenkins Wrote:
>as defined by the ego.
I don't know what you mean by "design space", as far as I know
we were not designed. Perhaps you mean the set of all
experiences, but some experiences I can never have, such as the experience of reading every Chinese book ever written. If my brain were augmented then I could do it but as I understand your definition it would be a different ego. Perhaps you mean the set of all experiences any environment can induce in my biological body, but that looks like an arbitrary distinction, the hardware must be restrained but the software can be anything. It seems to me the two should be treated equally.
Another problem, I'll bet any definition of "ego" will have the
concept of identity in there someplace, it's the sort of thing
that gives circular definitions a bad name. I'm sure the ego
exists, consciousness too, but the chances that anybody
will ever come up with a definition of either that's worth a
is almost zero. This doesn't make me despair however because definitions are vastly overrated, most of our knowledge and all of the really important stuff is in the form of examples not definitions.
>In order to self preserve and keep my ego intact 999 of my
>point plots would not hesitate to commit voluntary amnesia.
>With the above definition it is clear to me that we are in
>talking about 1000 minds with one ego because the ego defines
>identity as the fuzzy area where all 1000 point plots reside.
Then why not look on me as an imperfect copy of you, after all from a Martian's point of view all humans are pretty much alike. If I could prove that I'm happier and more successful than you would it then be logical to kill yourself?
John K Clark email@example.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----