<div dir="auto"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 3:42 AM Samantha via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>We have been beating this particular horse for at least three
decades that I know of. <br>
</p>
<p>What is a "computer"? Seriously, is it reasonable to label as
"computer" with its connotations today whatever substrate can
contain a human mind or perhaps several? Is that label a device
to cast shade on the possibility from the beginning? <br>
</p>
<p>What if you have machine phase nanotech and rod-logic hyper tiny
computers through your brain that simply take over more and more
of the functioning of your brain over time. Is that still
you? <br>
</p>
<p>Are you still you when you are knocked out for surgery and then
find yourself apparently back in reality and in apparently your
same body? What if you were instead in a coma for years? Or
if part of your brain was damaged and replaced with future tech?
<br>
</p>
<p>What is this "you" in the first place? Have you inquired into it
much? </p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There's a whole subdiscipline of philosophy devoted to this question. It's a deep and important topic: the philosophy of personal identity.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I summarize the field as attempting to answer the question of which experiences belong to which persons.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My conclusion after much study is that there are no personal borders, nor any preconditions for being you. You remain you always, regardless of how you change materially, bodily, or psychologically, and regardless of the content of your experience.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This implies that there is only one mind, it is you, you are it, and it is everyone. This is a view that has been called universalism by Arnold Zuboff, and open individualism by Daniel Kolak. It's been espoused by many thinkers, including Erwin Shrodigner, Freeman Dyson, Fred Hoyle, Kurt Godel, and Aldous Huxley. It's a core belief of vedantic Hinduism, and provides a foundation for the Golden Rule (or it's many derivatives).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><p> <br>
</p>
<p>All of these arguments and more we have discussed many times and
entertained ourselves with their slipperiness to come to firm
conclusions by head tripping about it. <br>
<br>
What can we simply build and what can we change in ourselves to
perhaps get us closer to being able to try it? <br>
</p>
<p>- samantha<br>
</p>
<span style="white-space:pre-wrap">
</span>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>