X-Message-Number: 17104 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:44:33 -0700 From: Lee Corbin <> Subject: Transhuman Loss of Identity Scott writes >I think most of us think of our identities as comprised >of two main factors (1) personality [i.e. behavioral >dispositions derived from genetic and environmenal >influences] and >(2) our memories [understanding that a significant >portion of those memories have been edited and altered >over time]. Entirely accurate, I think, although I'd sure like to hear anyone try to enhance that list. >With respect to personality: let's use the >popular 5 factor theory of personalty for argument's >sake. Use OCEAN as the acronym for the five basic >traits: > >(1) openness, >(2) conscientiousness, >(3) extraversion, >(4) agreeableness, and >(5) neuroticism > >http://www.fmarion.edu/~personality/corr/big5/big5.htm > ... > >BUT in the future ... as a ">H" , I would not want >to be constrained by these kinds of predispositions. >Let's say I'm an introvert by circumstance. Becoming a >H >means transcending that predisposition if I find it helpful >to engage in extroverted kinds of behaviors. A >H should >be able to select any number of actions regardless of where >they might fall on any of the five factors. > >So, how does one describe the personality of a >H >since predispositioned behaviors have been eliminated? If I'm following you, then I would suppose that this "elimination" proceeded only at the rate requested by the individual. Some will choose to be cautious (like me) and others will evolve so quickly that from my point of view, they'll die practically instantly. >Instead only those behaviors which are most reasonable >and in the enlightened self-interest of the >H will >manifest. The upshot of this is that there will be >much less variation in the behaviors of different >H's >than we currently see among ourselves. But won't people have a great diversity of selection? I would think that some of us would want to evolve in some directions; others in other directions. No? In life, I note that people actually become more eccentric the older they become. Partly this is because they just stop caring what others think so much, but partly because they continue to develop certain sides of themselves. Now, sure, probably everyone will continue to evolve skills in relating to others, so in that sense yes, people will generally become more extraverted. >Now some might argue that transcending personality >does not significantly erode identity because it is >only part of the equation. They might say, "Who I am >is mostly about my memories". OK, so what happens >when we are able to share memories like computers >share text files? To keep from falling behind all the >those who are rapidly uploading all kinds of >experiences and memories from others, we will feel >compelled, I suspect, to keep up with the jones. But >eventually, isn't it likely that we'll all have about >99% of the same memories? Yes! A version of you that chooses this will be joining a "mass mind", and it will be up to him to weigh the risks to his personal identity; that is, if he really cares at that point. [More about a sort of mass-mind, which is a very hairy problem, deleted] >Only neo-luddites would hold on to their original >identities, but who knows ... maybe there'll be a >place for them to survive and/or thrive. The solution that I have recommended (that I first placed in a LifeQuest science fiction story in the late eighties is to get out of our heads the idea that we can only do one thing, or only be in one place, or only execute at a particular level of advancement. Provided the resources are available, I fully intend to run "earlier version" backups of myself, and make sure that they get plenty of run time, just as more advanced versions of myself will make sure that I get plenty of run time. And that applies to each "I" at each level. So if you have mixed feelings about joining a mass-mind, my advice to you is to join, and also to not join. Lee Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17104