From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Thu Feb 06 2003 - 18:35:02 MST
Max M wrote:
> Jef Allbright wrote:
>> So much anthropomorphizing:
>
> LOL ... only on this list would somebody call describing what it is to
> be human anthropomorphizing.
>
Yes, I think it's funny too, and I'm glad you realized that it implies the
following comments tried to be from a post-human or other-than-human point
of view.
>> 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.
>
Yes, the well-known split brain experiments, and other recent discoveries
tell us that we are not quite who we think we are. So how far might this
extend...?
> But we do make conscious decisions every day, and rational ones at
> that. Or else we and society could not exist.
In my experience observing myself and others, much of our behavior is
unconscious, and I observe that many, if not most human decisions appear to
be based on local values, emotional drives, tradition, and rationalized as
necessary later. Various forms of society exist with all this
other-than-rational behavior.
>> 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.
I think we are referring to two different things here. I agree with you
that living implies changing.
I was saying people conventionally think of themselves as having some
essentially continuous or unchanging aspect, and suggesting that this too is
suspect and will have low value to us as we advance beyond our evolutionary
bonds.
>> 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.
I say it's illusory because it's not what it appears.
I am not arguing that self is not a useful concept. I'm sure that a sense
of self has been essential to survival at the most fundamental level. A
successful organism must distinguish between Inside and Outside in order to
fight and defend.
I'm suggesting that the conventional concept of self is due for upgrading as
we move beyond evolutionary constraints.
>
>> 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.
I was actually thinking of a greatly expanded form of consciousness, but a
greatly diminished sense of individual self.
Yes, I admire and appreciate humanist thinking, and I am suggesting some
form of post-humanist thinking will turn out to be more useful for the
future.
>
>
>> 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?
Clearly the example above calls for a more detailed response.
85 year old:
Carries a great deal of knowledge, and more highly refined heuristics. Of
course those heuristics may be predominately out of date and therefore of
doubtful utility.
Remaining lifespan (currently) quite limited, but are we considering
cryopreservation?
Hedonistic value: Quite limited due to decreased vitality, short remaining
years.
Selfish gene value: Quite low.
15 year old:
Relatively little knowledge, but most of it fresh and current.
High energy may be applied to creativity.
Remaining lifespan quite long (but when practical life extension arrives,
this item cancels out.)
Hedonistic value: Potential for a relatively long and enjoyable life
Selfish gene value: Quite high
You can choose either, depending on your values. I tend to prefer knowledge
over hedonism. Others see it exactly opposite.
>
>>>> 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"
>
I agree with this functionalist definition of self, and I'm suggesting that
we expand it to be more consistent with our future potential and
opportunities.
>
>> 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.
Yes, I know and enjoy that feeling of discovery, and it's also mind-bending
to take the functionalist theory of consciousness and consider expanding it
beyond the individual self. Replace the current motivations of
pleasure-seeking and self-preservation with ....what? Any thoughts on this?
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 06 2003 - 18:37:20 MST