From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 01:07:00 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> Samantha writes to suggest that who we are depends on the
> process being run rather than on the information of the
> states constituting that process:
>
No, I did not suggest any such thing. I suggested simply that
the physical implementation of our processes in one form does
not mean that we are only "we" if implemented in that way rather
than some other way that gives equivalent (or better)
processing.
> >> There are objective reasons why a stone (or Mr Blair)
> >> is not Samantha Atkins. In order for something to be
> >> Samantha Atkins... 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.
>
> Processes are physical. We need not distinguish between
> a process and the states that constitute it. Perhaps we
> agree: it's not the instantiations that matter, but the
> pattern and flow. By "physical criteria" then, please
> think of the physical criteria characterising your
> process, the process of being Samantha Atkins.
>
Why do we need to distinquish between process and states thus?
What does it add to this subject? I am lost as to what
physical criteria you are actually claiming are crucial to me
being me.
> >No [I do not want to evolve into something that no longer
> >has my core] But I believe this "core" can run/wear a wide
> >variety of packagings without being lost.
>
> Okay for that. But sorry, I must ask again about
>
> >> suppose that there exists in 3000A.D. an entity who resembles
> >> (to a tiny fraction only) 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.
>
> What? Please answer: if you slowly evolve into this entity
> do you survive or not? Or maybe I should ask, does your core
> survive or not? Please clarify. Thanks.
>
The *core* survives. I think our disagreement is on what is and
is not me in a critical, not to be parted with, sense.
> >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.
>
> Perhaps it would help if you could use your fine imagination
> and explain how incredibly different you could become without
> this core becoming so different that you're no longer alive.
> Also it might help if you explained how incredibly different
> an alien could be from a human being, yet still have Samantha's
> core. Finally, do you suppose that other people here on Earth
> already have this core?
>
Who said the core would be so different that *I*, what I
consider *I*, was no longer alive? Not I. I have no vested
interest in remaining a "human being" as most people understand
it. Much of what most people see as "human being" is a deadly
and noxious mixture even without transhumanist possibilities.
Why would I chose to carry all that latter-day primate baggage
around with me indefinitely? Out of fear of losing my-self?
Does a butterfly drag around a caterpillar shell?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:54 MST