Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> How would you define "identity"? The possession of a unified set of
> memories?
> A single set of goals? A single thread in a multithreaded process?
> A
> Cartesian consciousness? A unit having its own copies of basic
> reasoning
> faculties which can come to conclusions distinct from those of other
> units?
> All of the above? None of the above?
All of the above and none of the above.Could be composed of the above, but not necessary.
At this moment, i think an identity is a dynamically evolving whole interacting with his dynamically evolving environment. The distinction of what is in the whole and what is outside the whole could be of course, somewhat arbitrary. I don't believe in the notion of pure free will for example.
For me, a good compromise between the identity complexity and the complexity of his outside world and the bandwidth of interactions between the two has to be reached to provide an "interesting" identity.
If the surrounding of the identity is poor, if there is not too much interactions according to the complexity of the identity, the identity is somewhat in a state of stagnation... that's not what i wish.
"interesting" mean here, something that grow exponentially faster in complexity.
> Until you've decided what the distinction is between "many" and "one",
> you
> certainly can't figure out which the Singularity will be.
A "one" is something that can have "many" "parts", a "part" is a "one" ;)
> Bonus question: Why do you care?
Because i've really been dynamically shaped internally and by my environment to like to try to think, at least a little, to such things ;)
I do not take me seriously and i'm of course aware this his mostly wishful thinking and that in the end i can't understand even an infinitesimal of what has to come in the future.
delriviere
christophe