From: hal@rain.org
Date: Sun Jan 17 1999 - 09:53:03 MST
Anders Sandberg, <asa@nada.kth.se>, writes:
> It is a bit ironic that borganisms are so often suggested, since they
> appear to be harder to implement than individuals. In very complex
> individual the concept of self will likely be rather complex (in some
> sense we are borganisms already, collective minds made up of
> semi-independent brain systems), but connecting minds evolved to be
> individual in an useful way is likely rather complex; it is likely
> easier to extend them instead.
This is a good way to look at the mind: separate systems, some evolved
earlier (the "reptilian mind"), some added later (the mammallian cortex).
Imagine reptilian minds looking forward with horror to a future where
they were taken over, suppressed, and dominated by a higher level
mammallian mind. They might see this as an oppressive future in which
they would lose their reptilian individuality. But actually, from
our perspective as integrated minds, we see that the added layers give
us more capability, more understanding, and a fuller experience.
Calls to "fight the future" have something of the same flavor. Are we
so sure that our present minds have reached the peak of perfection that
we should see any extensions to them as threats? What is the point of
going forward if we have to keep our minds static?
I see Extropian philosophy as adopting the "embrace and extend"
perspective towards mind enhancements. Yes, it may leave us with
a new kind of mentality in which our current minds are just part of
a much larger and richer whole. Some people view such a change as
being so major that the person they are today has effectivelly died.
But I think we have to accept that the future will bring major changes,
and that we should adapt to them and welcome the new opportunities.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:51 MST