From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 21:09:45 MDT
Russell writes
> I believe most modern "sighted" individuals would situate themselves at the
> point of their "mind's eye" which, for me, feels about three to six
> centimeters behind the bridge of my nose....
> What if, by some miracle of modern medicine, my optic nerves might somehow
> be extended to a length of roughly two meters...
I think that you have a new take on this old question that
has not been addressed on this list, or at least not in a
long time. (And of course, there's really nothing new
under the sun---in The Mind's I there was a story called
"Where am I?" and also one in which someone was gradually
placed at a greater and greater remove from his actual
body.)
What I find of the greatest utility in your suggestion,
however, is that it *finally* separates out this "feeling"
that so many of us report (and that so many of us have)
that we are *in* our bodies. Now, yes, if my memories
do in fact reside in my brain, and my brain is in my
body, then on some logical level I indeed am *in* my
body. But the trouble that keeps coming up and preventing
many people from adopting a *logical* view of identity is
that of this nagging "feeling" that "the other duplicate
is not them".
(They don't have any trouble identifying with the entity
they'll be tomorrow, or were last month, even though
*formally* those entities are much more different from
them than in their newly minted duplicate.)
> My point is that the concept *me* and, more specifically,
> my *location* may be somewhat fluid.
Absolutely. Apparently one can train oneself to have an
"out of body" experience, and the tall tales of alien
abduction often stem from such experiences.
So, what you have distilled here is an essence of feeling
of location---and once that people compensate for that
feeling, or take it into account, they'll be much closer
to accepting that their duplicates *are* themselves.
(Of course, your duplicate does diverge from you, but
it should take years and years before you ought to stop
identifying with him---just as it ought normally require
years for you to think that you've become someone
different from who you used to be.)
Lee
P.S. Your entire quite readable message included below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of nanowave
> Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: duck me!
>
>
> Hi, I've been thinking about this and I'd like to come at the problem from a
> different angle.
>
> First, I'll begin by stating a couple of things that I think would be true.
>
> 1. A perfectly rendered copy of myself - an xox, would consider itself to be
> "me" and its normative perspective would be to view myself (the original) as
> someone "other".
>
> 2. From the moment of xox's creation, our personalities would begin to
> diverge given that our sensory inputs would be slightly different, even if
> we were standing shoulder to shoulder staring at the same blank wall.
>
> Now it seems to me that the essence of this thread might be stated thusly:
> Is the xox "me enough" to make me feel better if I'm faced with imminent
> destruction knowing with absolute certainty that my xox will go on living?
>
> At face value, I'd have to say no way, but this begs the question: Why
> should this unfortunate scenario come about in the first place? To show what
> I mean, lets first consider the wondrous nature of "me".
>
> More precisely, what exactly is *me* and where am *I* situated?
>
> I believe most modern "sighted" individuals would situate themselves at the
> point of their "mind's eye" which, for me, feels about three to six
> centimeters behind the bridge of my nose. Even though I understand that my
> visual cortex is located at the back of my brain, I still feel that "I"
> reside in my mind's eye closer to the front of my skull. But am I really
> stuck there, or can I imagine a scenario where I might feel that I am
> located somewhere else?
>
> What if, by some miracle of modern medicine, my optic nerves might somehow
> be extended to a length of roughly two meters. I might then design a small
> wheeled trolley and place my eyeballs on top of it such that I am able to
> walk about trailing this unsightly (or sightly) contraption and it
> faithfully follows my body wherever I go, all the while keeping my eyes
> pointed squarely at my backside.
>
> Now I am not certain, of course, but I "feel" that after a few days or weeks
> of watching my body and *brain* go about their business from this unusual
> vantage, I might begin to think *I'm* watching *someone else* and not
> myself. If this seems unconvincing then toss my nose and ears on the trolley
> as well.
>
> My point is that the concept *me* and, more specifically, my *location* may
> be somewhat fluid. Dreams would seem to support this. If that is so, and
> given that the technology to create a xox in the first place implies
> nanotechnology, I should also be able to arrange the acceptance of direct
> sensual (wireless, techno-telepathic) inputs coming from my xox's physical
> senses. Should accepting inputs from two sets of senses feel freaky, I/we
> might each be equipped with a kind of flip-flop switch, whereby I/we can
> accept the inputs from either sensual set at will. This should effectively
> place either of us in the other's location, or mind's eye in the blink of an
> eye. If the sensual inputs could be faded in and out, instead of abruptly
> switched on or off, then either of us might easily and contently face
> imminent physical destruction by quickly extracting *ourself* to the safe
> remote location of the other's mind's eye.
>
> Waddya think?
> Russell Evermore
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:32 MST