From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 05:00:49 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote very well about what progress means to
> her. I empathize and agree. Now as to whether to remain the
> same person over time, I am unclear whether this is a terminological
> difference, or an important difference.
>
> >I haven't any great desire to stay the same person for very
> >long. What on earth (or off it) for? Change is intensely
> >fun. Do I mourn the fetus I used to be or it me? Of course
> >not!
>
> I do have a desire to remain the same person forever. I enjoy
> being me, and have not especially enjoyed being other people.
There are huge questions in there about what "me" is and is
not. Much of what most people think of as "me" is to me a
construct, a weaving of patterns of personality/ability/tendency
stuff by me consciously, subconsciously and by my environemnt
and genetics. Much of that construct I don't consider as
fundamentally *me* in the same sense as that which notices the
construct from within it and partially dreams of and weaves new
constructs both similar and very different.
>
> (If, of course, you are using "becoming a different person" as
> a metaphor for rich development, that's different. But I think
> that it confounds important issues.)
>
I am using it a bit differently (as above).
> Would you or would you not mind evolving into someone that has
> absolutely no resemblance to Samantha Atkins circa 2001? If
> you don't mind, then you might as well evolve into Lee Corbin.
> That way, I'd get twice as much runtime, and you (so you think)
> wouldn't lose anything.
>
It depends on what the core *me* that I do want to continue is.
It might very well be able to run a Lee Corbin. But it is
another question entirely whether *I* would find that
interesting or fun to do. :-)
I am pretty sure that I wouldn't have much fun running Samantha
circa 2001 indefinitely.
> But the fact is that if you do evolve into someone else entirely,
> then you're not alive anymore. (Why is it that I'm always
> reminding people of tautologies? E.g., being alive is better
> than being dead. Honestly, it really does seem necessary!)
>
It is not a *fact* at all. It is a supposition or position
from within a set of definitions and assumptions about what the
meaning of *me* and *alive* is and is not. It is apparent we
have somewhat different ones.
> >Change is not death, it is change. It is growth/transformation.
> >Being ossified on one form in the flow of being and becoming is
> >much more deadly.
>
> No argument there, although it depends on how much change
> you are permitting under "ossification".
>
> If you were to adopt my scheme
>
> >> The solution: run multiple copies of yourself in the background
> >> from each stage of your development. Anticipate being all those
> >> who are not too advanced. Leave it to the slightly more advanced
> >> versions of yourself to try to identify with those that are
> >> extremely advanced, because you won't be able to.
>
> would the Samantha Atkins that never entirely evolves away from
> the 2001 version become restless, or bored, or upset? Would she
> feel bored or trapped? Do you think that there are only a limited
> number of things to be interested in or to do with an I.Q. of 250
> and all the wealth and time in the world?
Yes. I would be bored if I didn't move on from Samantha Atkins
circa 2001 eventually. hehe, I don't have an IQ of 250, much
less all the wealth and time in the world. If I did I would not
be the Samantha Atkins circa now but rather someone different.
With those differences I would still get eventually bored
(overly familiar with the envelope of potential patterns) and
want to move on. I might even get "bored" more rapidly.
I could see sheafs of explorations of different packagings and
possibilities, preferably in parallel. But this doesn't
necessitate that I be attached to any one of the packagings or
the entire set as being inalienably *me* to such a degree that I
dare not let go of it for something else.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:50 MST