From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 20:26:15 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>
> >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.
>
> I was hoping that you would simply acknowledge that there
> are such conditions or criteria. I was hoping that you'd
> agree that "whether Samantha Atkins exists in a certain
> volume of spacetime" is an objective query, as much as
> it is to ask whether a printed volume of "A Tale of Two
> Cities" exists in a certain region of spacetime.
>
Does it? A Tale of Two Cities is a set of words/ideas. It is a
story. A printout of this story exists in spacetime. But many
different version can exists with arbitrary locality as long as
the
ideas/story can be found within them. I don't believe I know
the *me* as simply as I know this story. So I don't see how I
can make the query very objective. In principle it is ok but
the particulars get pretty squirrelly.
> >> What? Please answer: if you slowly evolve into this
> >> [Tony Blair] 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.
>
> Okay. I think that I understand.
>
> >> 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.
>
> >Who said the core would be so different that *I*, what I
> >consider *I*, was no longer alive? Not I.
>
> Alas, our communication falters. If you **carefully**
> read my sentence, you'll see that I was interested in
> knowing exactly how different you could become yet still
> have the same core. I'm sorry for writing with so little
> clarity.
>
I am not sure of the answer here. It is an experimental
question perhaps. Since I am not certain what this *core* is I
cannot
answer what its minimum requirements are. Nor, I think, can
you.
> I won't press the point. First, I know that you're eager
> to get into discussing future possibilities (what this
> thread is really about).
>
> I conclude that you'll eagerly evolve into something
> so different from what you are now, that those of us
> who care about precise conditions will have to suppose
> that you're not alive any more.
>
It is fine to care about precise conditions once you know
precisely what it is you are being precise about. :-)
> >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
> >choose 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?
>
> Sure, there are many things about myself that I want
> to discard too. Are you at present a "deadly and
> noxious mixture"? I doubt it. I want to know what
> you see, not what "most people understand".
>
Why yes, there is much about this personality structure and set
of programmed responses that I do find, if not deadly, at least
quite stultifying and limiting.
I definitely have no vested interest in this particular body
with all its increasing weaknesses and gimpiness. I would trade
it in for a 20 year old model in perfect health that could house
this consciousness in a heartbeat. A body improved with various
types of technology would be even more acceptable. Best of all,
while I am dreaming, would be to decide what (if any) body to
put on for the activities of the moment.
I wish to find ways to step outside many of the biologically
programmed behavior patterns and semi-automated psychological
responses. I wish to write my own programs and meta-programs.
I want to train my cognition, memory and so on to a very high
state of ability most likely aided by various devices including
eventually implanted ones.
Many of us want these things. But somehow we often seem to
think that we can have all of this and keep a lot of the
subconscious patternings laid down accidentally that we somehow
identify deeply with at the same time. We think this even when
these patterns were obviously developed and make sense for much
more limited beings than we hope to be in much more limited
environments. am not so sure therefore, that we get to claim
so much as essentially *me* if we are to move forward. I don't
believe I would want to be a godling without massive examination
and reprogramming of most of those patterns.
Could that make me not me. Certainly, depending on those pesky
definitions so difficult to come by. Is that enough for me not
to want this? No. I recognize the possible price.
> Apparently, you want to discard more than anyone else
> I've ever talked to.
>
> I think that I can keep a huge amount of what I am now,
> even though there'll be inconceivably wonderful enhancements
> and additions. On my whiteboard here at home I wrote last
> year "Is there any human being that feels that life could
> be of more worth than I think it could be?"
>
That is a good thought. But I think that ultimately "human
being" is too big a limitation on just how wonderful it can be.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:55 MST