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

[Lee Corbin]

Anders writes

>> Suppose you have keepsakes from each of the vacations you have been on
>> (refrigerator magnets, shot glasses, marginally evil tiki dolls, primitive
>> masks, pottery, etc. etc.)  These are all physical tokens which cue your
>> memory of those events....
>> Suppose I have a garage sale without your consent and clean out the
>> clutter.  Have I "killed" some part of you?
> 
> I think identity is very much an ongoing process, where we bind and lose
> referents to our selves. Some people are more dependent on a personal
> narrative than others, and the relationship between the real past and the
> remembered/reconstructed one is often pretty loose. Whatever happens we
> seem to quite quickly construct a new self that still remains as "self-ish" as
> the previous ones, even when the change is quite radical.

It's in the best interest of the currently "new" living agent to selfishly
go with who he is now. Recall the over-used SF movie plot where
a secret agent with new memories finds out that he used to be a bad
guy. (E.g. "Total Recall").  He rightfully and logically identifies with
who he is *now*.

> I would expect the victim of the homicidal yard sale would be upset that a
> loss had occured, yet claim that he was the same he always was

And that is, of course, an error, since no one who changes is *always*
who he was. The victim of the "homicidal yard sale", as you so humorously
put it, has to be concerned that a certain backup plan that his former self
used didn't work, and be forewarned accordingly.

Of course, I exaggerate by making it black and white "former self" vs.
"current self", as if they had nothing in common.  It is precisely because
they undoubtendly have a *huge* part in common that gave rise to his
conviction, as you put it, that "he was the same as he always was".

> - even if his previous self would have claimed that a future self without
> the memories in the box would not be him.

Which in all normal, typical cases that Mike was trying to raise,
would be an error.  No one should suppose that his identity
depends *entirely* on just some small list of specific memories.
If someone steals $100 from you, then you're not broke, unless
you weren't worth very much in the first place.

> Our personal histories are backwards-linked lists, but we select our
> actions to make future links be like what we currently think they should
> be. When they fail to be that we tend to reassess our past instead of
> thinking we are bad selves.

We have to realize that we are "bad selves" as you put it (with some
exaggeration) when we have changed.  Of course "bad self" should
be replaced with "slightly different self".

But just because people do, as you write, tend to ignore the fact that
they've changed, doesn't make it any less true.  And if they don't realize
that substantial future change is a threat to who they are, they're making
a potentially fatal mistake.

Lee