From: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 10:54:53 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> You are right. It should/could be formally stated, but we have not. I
This, of course, is the crux of the problem. People are saying the
same words, while meaning entirely different things. Much confusion ensues.
If we'd address it a tad more rigorously, there would be no need for
quite so much confusion.
> think that the real difference boils down to a preference instead of a
> rigorous definition. When each person argues what is valid for
Preference is irrelevant when we're describing reality. Interpretations
of reality are another pair of boots entirely, and should not be part
of the problem description.
> self-identity, they are actually describing what they value as important to
> save. Different people value different things and have different goals.
> One person thinks that propagating their DNA is immortality. Another think
> propagating their memes is immortality. Another wants to preserve their
> continuity.
Memetic or genetic immortality is a very shabby kind of immortality,
I have to admit. Me, I'm more of the Woody Allen school.
> I think these people can and do formally agree on each argument or
> statement. The disagreement is whether this "preserves identity", which I
Yep.
> think really should be restated as "is this good enough for my personal
> goals"? This latter question is not reducible or provable. It is a
Exactly.
> personal preference. What one person says "works" another would say
> "doesn't work." I think they can agree exactly on the procedure and the
> results, they just disagree on how the human would react or self-identify
Unfortunately, a personal decision of a person can have impact on
another people's life. For instance, because Robert Ettinger has
a very abstract definition of identity (he keeps rambling about
some mysterious "self circuit"), he thinks the quality of a suspension
is quite irrelevant. Either way round, his patients suffer to what
is from their end is effective problem set agnosia of CI.
Beliefs can kill, and sometimes they do.
> afterwards, and each participant is really discussing how they would react.
> As separate individuals, we all describe different reactions.
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:55 MST