Re: IDENTITY- What it means to be 'me'

From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Sun Dec 02 2001 - 11:27:19 MST


From: "Max More" <max@maxmore.com>
> I'll wake up a new man.

If only the IRS could see things that way, yes?

I think identities depend on environment (including memory) and personal
relationships as well as on physical instantiation, continuity of embodiment,
and functionality. Psychological and sequential connectedness form elements of
the identity process, and the processor itself needs to work in the same old
familiar ways in order to create the sense of self. I feel neither cruel nor
magnanimous enough to make a copy of myself (which would amount to injecting
angst and elation into formerly inanimate matter) or to put a simulation in my
place. If manipulation of identity becomes feasible, then I'd opt to become
someone else. Perhaps a teenaged billionaire Nobel laureate.

> I will survive into the future
> even if I forget everything about Max-2001... just so long as Max-2001
> leads to Max-2002 and so on, in the appropriate way. Max-2001 is a
> person-stage rather than a person.

Unfortunately, if you permanently forget everything about Max-2001, you'll
have a great deal of difficulty staying out of a mental hospital. I don't
think the authorities recognize "person-stages."




This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT