Doug Bailey, <nanotech@cwix.com>, writes:
Don't you mean "subjective time"? In objective time 24 hours might be
a subjective century
> If it were me, I would have a two backups stored of the latest acceptable
> version of my mind (heuristics, knowledgewebs, etc.).
>
> Backup One: The Judge
>
> There would be a gatekeeper AI that would be in charge of one backup. After
> a 24 hour period (objective time), the gatekeeper would boot-up my backup
> and let me scrutinize the current me (the end state of the last 24 hours of
This is an interesting approach. I can conceive of cases where it might
not work well, but they are not very convincing. Maybe you could drift
into an uptight, restricted mindset, and the only way out of it is by
some kind of mind-blowing, consciousness-expanding experience, the very
> mind morphing). If the backup me thinks the new me is acceptable, the
> gatekeeper overwrites the new me over the backup copy and the cycle begins
> again anew. If the backup me thinks the new me is unacceptable (e.g.,
> suicidal, psychotic, just plain "weird") then the new me is overwritten with
> the backup me and the cycle begins anew.
Still, I can understand the theory that if a change is truly worth making, then it will still seem attractive the next morning. Even the situations I have described here can be overcome, via a gradual process of awakening and enlightenment. Giving up the ability to have overnight mindquakes may well be a good strategy in the long run.
I suspect, thought, that given the ability to do the manipulations described here, most people would be forced to adopt more sophisticated approaches to identity.
Hal