From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 22:21:29 MST
Samantha wrote
> Jef Allbright wrote:
> > So much anthropomorphizing:
> >
> > It all depends on the context within which you are making your comparisons.
> >
> > 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.
>
> The "sense of self" is certainly NOT an illusion. The actuality
> may be a different story or not what we sense that it is.
I agree. Though what Samantha has written so far is not,
of course, an argument---merely an assertion.
> > 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.
>
> Is a cloud an "illusion"? Is something that is constantly
> shifting for that reason "illusion"? If so, then what does it
> matter? Matter itself is consistently shifting at the
> fundamental level.
Exactly. Jef has not answered this point yet.
> > 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.
>
> So it does not matter to you if you die in the next nano-second,
> heh?
Yes. This point also has not been addressed adequately
by those eager to assert that the self does not exist.
> Now I do agree that it is quite essential to greatly loosen the
> notion of "self" if we are going to be able to change packaging
> and characteristics radically. Too much baggage defining the view
> of self is tied to the particulars of the current implementation
> and its associated evolutionary programming.
I don't have any problem with some versions of myself embracing
a "greatly loosened" concept of self. In fact, I prefer it.
I don't even have any problem with some of us joining a group
mind. Unlike Rafal, who finds that about equivalent to death,
to me, it would be just another form of experience---but
experience too radical and too disturbing to my *present*
concept of self for all of my copies to accept.
My insight here, which (sorry) I've been repeating many times
for ten years or more is that after one accepts that duplicates
are self, you can have your cake *and* eat it. To wit, you can
explore multiple roads, even on local Earth.
I have also proclaimed the following as "the logic of cryonics":
We save others so that in time we may be saved;
I give earlier versions of myself occasional
run time so that this version too shall receive.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 22:18:16 MST