From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 13:47:25 MDT
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote,
> It's not hogwash. It's just that we seem to be leaving
> the field of facts, and moving into opinionland, which
> is perfectly allright, but this is not something which
> can (or should) be adressed with argumentation. Different
> strokes for different folks.
This is my opinion as well. There is no clear scientific answer to "what is
a person" or "what am I?" These kinds of questions really should be stated
more clearly:
"What attributes of me do I wish to put into the next version of me, and
what attributes of me do I wish to discard with the current version of me?"
John Clark's attitude of being an "adjective" is clear. He wants his next
version to be a new creation that acts consistently with his brand of "John
Clarkiness". I understand this and respect this. As the designer of the
next version of John Clark, it is up to him to decide if that's his next
version or not. He feels comfortable with creating a new version from
scratch, making it run correctly, and then shutting down the old version.
I have a different goal. I don't think it is any less valid or obtainable
than John's goal. But John's method won't work for my goal. I want to keep
my current version running forever. I like it. It already has the capacity
to grow, change and evolve. It is like a database that doesn't need to be
redesigned right now. I can add new information to it without doing a
software rewrite. Therefore, all I want to do is add more processors to
make it run faster, and replace its hardware peripherals to give it better
I/O. I want to replace all my physical parts, but without halting the
software that is running. I want to do this slowly and verify that each
replacement part is compatible before discarding the old part. When I
create a new body, I want to redirect my input/output to the new body. I
want to see it working before I discard the old body. If my I/O still goes
through the old body, I would say that the new one is not functioning yet.
Even though it can be made to move and use its I/O, it is not under the
control of my software yet.
My goal is different than John's. John is designing a replacement for
himself, and will kill the old version when the new version is ready. I
want to rescue my old version from obsolescence. I want to keep it running
forever. Building a replacement and shutting down the old one does not
achieve my goals.
There is no question of whether John's method or my method will work or not.
Both are entirely doable. As CEO's of our product line, we each are making
different choices on how to proceed. What is frustrating with his
discussion, is people are acting like there is a single best choice, or that
other choices are not scientifically doable. Some people seem to assert
that reality will support only one way or the other. This is not so. All
these choices are doable and functional for the future.
The only question left is "why?". Why does John not care about destroying
his old self? Why am I so insistent about not destroying my old self? Why
do we even care if we live or die? What difference does it make to anything
after we are dead? These are broad philosophical questions involving
personal preferences and choices. There is no right or wrong answer about
which kind of enhancements "should" exist. I assume the market will offer
all kinds of services, and consumers will choose the ones they prefer.
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:57 MST