[extropy-chat] the self identity quest - summation to Bradbury, Wallace and Jef

[Jef Allbright]

David, I'll mention again that your messages are at risk of being ignored if you don't use plain text (it's a gmail setting) and be as concise as possible. 


david ish shalom wrote:

> I would advise you to check Joe Strout Fuzzy experience theory

I'm pretty sure I came across his writing already and found it to be too fuzzy.  Fuzzy or multivalued logic is okay with me, as long as it's crisply defined.


> of the self - a summary in my site - since it is complementary
> to your theory. Yet I would suggest that your "agency theory of the self" 

I proposed a theory of personal identity based on agency, but I don't say anything (there) about the nature of self. You are displaying the category confusion mentioned in my preface.

It's a bit ironic that you, Slawomir, and others refer to Max's "Diachronic Self" as if you understand it but don't seem to understand the meaning or the significance of the word "diachronic" in the title.  You need only ask Google and receive enlightenment (with a bit of serious analytical thinking on your part).


> is strongly contributing to representing the self from the outside point of view 

Yes, I prefer the scientific method of describing systems from an increasingly objective "outside" point of view.  I utilize the subjective point of view for issues of value and meaning.

> and maybe only partly so from the inside qualia 

A key point of personal identity based on agency is that it provides a coherent framework with no need for any immeasurable externalities while recognizing the valid role of subjectivity in assigning meaning. 

"Qualia" is similar to "phlogiston" or "élan vital" in that it serves no useful purpose other than to represent a particular erroneous or superfluous concept. Thinking in terms of qualia is related to the Cartesian bias I mentioned in the essay.


> -"is it me who will wake up" point of view

As mentioned in the essay, one can argue logically from the ontological basis that you are not the same as before you went to sleep.  Perfectly valid -- within the ontological domain.  Does it apply in real life?  No not really--because how we perceive reality is a different domain.  If you don't understand this you might want to google, or even just play around with examples in your mind.  "Is that a cat?" No, because any observable cat is only an approximation of a Platonic ideal..., or "I can't know, since my only information is through my imperfect senses..." But we have no trouble recognizing a cat in a useful and effective way.

If you get comfortable with thinking in terms of systems rather than Cartesian minds, most, if not all of these confusions fall away.  We can never know a Self, but we certainly can model, predict, and respond to stimuli within our environment.


> - yet I have to delve on this more - and from this respect, 
> maybe Max Mores The Diachronic Self, come better for our rescue. 
> Further I would suggest that all these theories of the self are 
> complimentary and all of them, including yours give credence to 
> the identity capture feasibility.  

I think identity capture *does* make sense.  So do many people on this list. It's easy for me because I don't have to wonder how you're going to capture the soul or unique essence of a person.  You don't have to sell us on the idea.  Note that I responded earlier saying that I think you're aiming in the right direction but falling short of the target.  But I AM NOT aware of any technology at hand, other than possibly cryonic preservation, that has a reasonable chance of capturing the essential complexity of a human identity.  That's why I asked you whether you really believed that this software that you are promoting is going to be "perfect" solution.

- Jef