From: Max M (maxmcorp@worldonline.dk)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 15:59:45 MST
Jef Allbright wrote:
> So much anthropomorphizing:
LOL ... only on this list would somebody call describing what it is to
be human anthropomorphizing.
> The sense of self is an illusion. Science has begun to show that our own
> sense of self, which seems to us continuous and central, and -- important --
> is actually a result of multiple asynchronous fed-back processes. One
> emergent characteristic of these processes is what we think of as
> consciousness or self-awareness.
I understand the argument, and that our bodies and minds are playing
trcks on us. Delivering senses late, and then afterrationalise. Taking
decisions and then telling the self that it was it who did it. But this
does not mean that there is no self. It only means that we are a
slightly more distributed system than most people think.
But we do make conscious decisions every day, and rational ones at that.
Or else we and society could not exist.
> What even most technophiles don't realize
> is that this sense of self is under constant revision, with memories lost,
> and sometimes replaced with various degrees of inaccuracy, emotions
> changing, and even "processing capability" changing all the time. The sense
> of self is an illusion.
No. Changes are part of being alive. We are running the program so to
speak. If we did not change we would be in a state of death. So living
is changing.
> What I find strange is that many people would generally agree with the above
> paragraph, but then continue to think that preservation of this illusionary
> "self" is an all-important goal.
You have yet to proove that the self is illusionary! The theory goes
against both common sense and observations.
> Philosophically-thinking (as opposed to evolutionarily-based
> self-preservation thinking) perhaps we should value and promote the
> "extropy" of an individual.
If there is no self, and no consciousnes, then there is no individual.
So there is litlte meaning in being humanist at all. I need more
evidence before I will change my beliefs that deeply.
> On this basis, I strongly disagree with Lee's assertion that the life of an
> 85-year old is less valuable than that of a 15-year old. In extropic terms,
> I think carrying on the 85 year-old knowledge base (given the means to do
> that) is much more valuable. In evolutionary-based terms, of course, it
> feels right to value the 15-year old who can better carry on the genetic
> legacy.
That is not all. It is also a question of "economics." What will give
the most years of high quality?
>>>The flesh is only the
>>>interface that allows us to experience the world.
>
> What is this "us" you speak of, Human? It is confusing to think that
> somehow "you" are separate from "the world".
But that is exactly the point! I am the state and the process. This
state and process can be extracted and run in another computing media
than this wetware. By current technology standards I am coupled together
with the flesh, but theoretically it is possible to extract "me"
> It's a stretch to say that mathematics can be self aware. It might be more
> useful to say that self-awareness is an emergent property of certain
> information-processing systems, which can be described by mathematics.
Yes that is more precise.
>>>So the amusing thing is that, given enough time, it should be
>>>possible to run a program with a pencil, on a piece paper, that has
>>>intelligence and conscience. If you stop writing the life ends and
>>>you kill your 'creature'.
>
> What is this "life" you speak of, Human? To make sense of this, you can
> only refer to information processing. If the program is written such that it
> has the feedback loops we call self-awareness, then it can be said to be
> conscious, without implying anything mystical.
I am not implying anything mystical at all. But it is mind bending to
think about. You remember, like being a child an imagining the
endlessnes of the Universe.
> Implying that something dies
> when the program stops running implies that there was something additional
> there that "died". That sense of self "dying" is the illusion I mentioned
> earlier. It's just a program running. There is no "self" to die (in the
> larger context.)
No. Dying is the program stopping, and the computing medium being
destroyed. Not nessecarily in that order ;-) There is no spirit. No life
force, or anything like that. But there is a self, I am convinced.
Naturally I will change my mind given the right evidence, but only then
it will not be "me" that changes my mind, cause there would be no "I".
> (I understand what is conventionally meant by "self", I live with this
> illusion constantly *myself*, but we're seeing enough cracks in this theory
> now, and understand enough of it's evolutionary basis, that I'm suggesting
> we start getting used to a broader view, beyond personal identity (beyond
> Lee's level 7)).
I have read some articles, and a book, about it, but you should by no
chance have some links? Then what is not i (WINI) would like to read more.
-- hilsen/regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark http://www.futureport.dk/ Fremtiden, videnskab, skeptiscisme og transhumanisme
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 06 2003 - 15:59:58 MST