From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu May 31 2001 - 23:40:02 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> At 04:00 AM 5/30/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >> Would you or would you not mind evolving into someone that has
> >> absolutely no resemblance to Samantha Atkins circa 2001?
> >
> >It depends on what the core *me* that I do want to continue is.
>
> So the answer is "Yes"? For example, suppose that there exists
> in 3000A.D. an entity who resembles to a tiny fraction Tony
> Blair, Prime Minister. That is, this tremendous entity has
> some of Blair's memories, but that's all.
If that is really "death" then I have no fear of it at all. I
fear death as utter annihilation of all of me, rather than
change of much of me but with a crucial core that remains.
>
> I say that if you slowly turn into this entity, then you are
> just as dead as if you slowly turn into a stone. There are
> objective reasons why a stone (or Mr Blair) is not Samantha
> Atkins. In order for something to be Samantha Atkins (to
> varying degrees of fidelity) it must satisfy certain
> physical criteria (though we do not today know what those
> are).
>
Really? I would think it rather needed to fulfill some process
level criteria rather than specific physical instantiations of
that processing.
> >I am pretty sure that I wouldn't have much fun running
> >Samantha circa 2001 indefinitely.
>
> You speak, again, of a core you "running" these various
> persona. Okay, I can buy that. Then let's direct my
> remarks to your "core". Do you want to evolve into
> something that no longer has this "core"?
>
No. But I believe this "core" can run/wear a wide variety of
packagings without being lost.
> >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.
>
> That's very interesting. Of course we're being very crude
> here, but it's revealing nonetheless. Have any idea about
> how many I.Q. points you could gain without undergoing this
> loss of identity? (You might not like that phrasing; help
> yourself to a re-word.)
>
I have no doubt IQ or general intelligence or functioning
intelligence could be boosted tremendously, far beyond 250
without losing what makes *me* myself in this core sense. But
much of the packaging might change rather drastically with that
increase of IQ.
> >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.
>
> Oh, well, recall that boredom is an evolved process, like pain,
> that helps us to survive. If that's your only beef, well, there
> will doubtless be correctives available. Food and sex don't
> "get boring" precisely because of natural selection, of course.
>
Guess again. Food and sex get very boring at times.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:52 MST