[extropy-chat] Detectives and red herrings (was Survivaltangent)

[Lee Corbin]

Here is Jef's very fine analysis of our positions:

> Let me state (my understanding of) our positions so we all feel clearly
> heard, and perhaps to lay a clean solid foundation upon which future
> discussion can *grow*.   [Hear, hear!]
> 
> Slawomir's position:
> Survival of one's personal identity is strictly dependent on continuation
> of the physical constituents of the mind-producing process. While some
> people talk as if they could survive indefinitely by means of copies of
> themselves to overcome loss due to aging or accident, they overlook
> or deny the simple ontological truth that a copy is, by its very definition,
> not the same as the original.
> 
> John's position:
> Survival of one's personal identity is quite perfectly achievable in theory,
> and will become so in practice when we have acquired the technological
> means to make an effective working copy of a person's identity. Neither
> substrate nor continuity matter in this endeavor, as long as the process
> which constitutes one's mind is faithfully reproduced and running. Copy
> and Original *are* identical when there is no measurable functional difference.
> 
> Lee's position:
> Survival of one's personal identity is absolutely possible in theory and will
> become absolutely achievable if and when we have technology enabling us
> to run copies of the pattern that constitutes the mind including (but not
> necessarily limited to) its values, beliefs and memories.  While it's an obvious
> mathematical truism that a copy is absolutely identical to the original (in all
> ways that matter) at the instant of copying, it is also true that values, beliefs
> and memories naturally change over time so it is vitally important to survival
> of one's personal identity that copies be made before too much change has
> accumulated.  Beyond that point, the original person should be
> considered effectively lost and dead.

Bravo!  It seems that *here* you've ennuciated my position with great accuracy!

> Jef's position:
> The Self that one imagines might survive independently of changes in its
> environment is an illusion (albeit a convenient one) because the self
> exists only in terms of its interactions with its environment. As an
> agent acting within a given environmental context, what is best from the
> point of view of that agent is not necessarily survival but that it
> influences its environment so as to promote its own values into the
> future, in effect acting to create a future world matching the model it
> would like to see. To the extent that the future world contains an
> entity representing Self, then it can be said that Self "survived."  To
> the extent that multiple agents represent Self, then it can be said that
> they are indeed Self.
> 
> Corrections, questions, comments...dirty jokes?

I think that skillful efforts like this one someone's part are incredibly
helpful, so thanks!

Lee

P.S. Apologies if I've made the formatting worse:  it occurred to me 
while I was doing it that I'm not using fixed-font, and many readers
probably are.