From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
>Frankly, this whole thread seems to come from people whose concept of
>identity is seriously screwed. I am not my body, I am not my fingerprints,
>I am not my DNA, I am not my face, I am my mental programming.
Why do you say "my" mental programming? What entity owns, controls, posseses this particular mental programming? If the mental programming owns itself, then Mark = mental programming, and this crpto-ownership really means identity. So Mark must consist of more than his mental programming. He also has parts of himself (i.e., the entire complex adaptive system called Mark) resident in other cognitive artifacts -- for instance readers of his email posts and other communications harbor bits of the mental programming called Mark. Some identifiable parts of Mark (or the Mark-ness of Mark) may also reside in the skulls of his friends, relatives, and associates, as well as in the sources from which Mark has collected and collects mental programming.
But surveillance systems don't have any interest in this. They only care about the flesh and blood, and any property connected with it, because mental programming has no consequence until it manifests physically.
>My mind is just totally boggled by this thread; it's so obviously absurd
>that I can barely imagine anyone on this list actually taking it seriously.
>Things have definitely gone downhill since I started reading it four or
>five years ago.
Ouch! Does your mind make you say this, or do you make your mind say it? or does mental programming constrain itself from imagining this as serious discourse? -zen