4 ms·

> If text is all you need to produce personhood, why should we be limited to just one per lifetime? Maybe AI helps making this obvious to many people, but I th

> If text is all you need to produce personhood, why should we be limited to just one per lifetime? Maybe AI helps making this obvious to many people, but I think implicitly all of us know that we have, and are well versed in employing, multiple personas depending on the social context. We need the right prompt, and we switch. This is one dehumanizing aspect I found in the Real Name policy put forward by Facebook in 2012: in real life, because of it's ephemerality, you're totally free to switch between personas as you see fit (non-public figures at least). You can be a totally different person in office, at home, with your lover. Online, however, everything is recorded and tracked and sticks forever. The only way to reconcile this with human's nature is to be allowed multiple names, so each person get's one. If you force people to use a single Name, their real one, they restrict themselves to the lowest common denominator of their personalities. See the Facebook of today.

resource0x 4y ago
> you're totally free to switch between personas This happens subsconsciously and gradually, not as a result of deliberate choice. You adapt to your environment by changing personas. You can even assume different personas while talking with different people. You can be one "persona" while writing, and another - while speaking. Who is the "real you" then? I can argue that even the "inner dialogue" with yourself might involve a different persona or even a couple of them. Those, too, might be "roles". Can it be that depression is at least partially attributed to unhealthy "roles" we play while talking to ourselves?
- visarga 4y ago
  I think we have these voices in our head since childhood. They originally are the voices of our parents warning us of dangers. But after a while we can simulate the warnings of our teachers and parents even when they are not there. This external feedback is packaged as roles or voices in our heads.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Must the sources of all voices be external?
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Many people don't have voices in their head, they just think normally without voices. The voice in your head is just a distraction, it isn't representing your real thoughts.
    - visarga 4y ago
      It's not a voice as much as a persona. I call it a voice because that's what I was calling it before this article and GPT3. It will sometimes make me think negative thoughts about myself, internalised critiques that start talking again and again.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Then what represents your 'real' thoughts? I have a feeling your response will be attemong to define why some forms of thought are more pure than others with no facts to back it up.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Since people can function normally without voices in their head then those voices aren't your logical thoughts, it is that simple. Instead the thoughts are stuff you can't express or picture, its just thoughts, but I guess that noticing them could be hard if you think that your thoughts are just some internal monologue. Edit: For example, when you are running, do you tell yourself in words where to put your feet or how hard to push or when to slow down or speed up? Pretty sure you don't, that wouldn't be fast enough. Most thoughts you have aren't represented in your words, and some people have basically no thoughts represented as words, they are just pure thoughts like how you place your feet when you try to avoid some obstacles etc. Or some people might think "left right left right" as they are running, but those words aren't how they decide to put down their feets.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > This happens subsconsciously and gradually, not as a result of deliberate choice. I wonder if everyone is talking about the same thing. When my partner and I are arguing angrily about something and a stranger walks into the room, our change is neither subconcious nor gradual.
  - resource0x 4y ago
    The "style" of your arguing with your partner may evolve gradually over time.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  Have you heard of method acting? It's brutal on the psyche. I encourage it if not, given you ask this question, it's quite poignant.
kornhole 4y ago
This is a reason why the fediverse is becoming so interesting and engaging. We can for example create an identity for the family and some friends and another for political discussion. They are only linked by word of mouth. The experience of followers is improved by the ability to follow a narrower but deeper identity.
ravagat 4y ago
Yes, one of the best parts of the early internet was the separation of space/domain that exists in real life. Now, it's much harder online. Which I always find ironic.
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
There is this one line of thought I had where giving someone a name "the christening" was an ancient spell of a type of 'possession and framing of the mind' as it enforces possessiveness and ownership over "things" vs a language and culture that never named anyone at birth. This led me to realize that it is entirely feasible, and you'd simply develop "nicknames" for every relationship on a graph. It actually becomes much more intimate and at the same time you may in fact connect 'personally' with every thing and everyone the same way you don't name your body parts. My left hand, my right hand, and so on. Food for thought. Then the whole thing about spirituality and ego, and how a persona is etymologically linked to mask and being an actor in a play. It starts to get a bit interesting, especially in light of a 'cosmic theater' participating in Maya on the backbone of Brahama. Then there is the poignancy of contemplation where one realizes one cannot eliminate the ego at any point of time because every interaction is done through an act, however one does have the power to switch that mask at any time. Perhaps this is the true meaning of the biblical free will. Perhaps at one time we did not have the ability to change our persona, ego, mask. Perhaps at one time we were subject to the same type of nightmare of hell of torture, birth, rebirth, and maybe without any memory due to a self-similar creation event of "virtualizing a universe" from another layer. Perhaps that event was similar to our moment now when the creators were in effect, parents of a new kind not knowing the consequence of their actions. Then, through the realization of what was happening over who knows how long something happened through love, and free will was enacted over the domain. Forgive me if that is too imaginative, for some reason, it resonates more strongly than anything I've ever come across. It seems to me that the stories of old really do make sense in a technological age rather than a mythological one. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistuingishable from magic. I'd like to add "or myth."
- alexpetralia 4y ago
  Very thought-provoking comment!

resource0x 4y ago

> you're totally free to switch between personas This happens subsconsciously and gradually, not as a result of deliberate choice. You adapt to your environment by changing personas. You can even assume different personas while talking with different people. You can be one "persona" while writing, and another - while speaking. Who is the "real you" then? I can argue that even the "inner dialogue" with yourself might involve a different persona or even a couple of them. Those, too, might be "roles". Can it be that depression is at least partially attributed to unhealthy "roles" we play while talking to ourselves?

visarga 4y ago
I think we have these voices in our head since childhood. They originally are the voices of our parents warning us of dangers. But after a while we can simulate the warnings of our teachers and parents even when they are not there. This external feedback is packaged as roles or voices in our heads.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Must the sources of all voices be external?
- Jensson 4y ago
  Many people don't have voices in their head, they just think normally without voices. The voice in your head is just a distraction, it isn't representing your real thoughts.
  - visarga 4y ago
    It's not a voice as much as a persona. I call it a voice because that's what I was calling it before this article and GPT3. It will sometimes make me think negative thoughts about myself, internalised critiques that start talking again and again.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Then what represents your 'real' thoughts? I have a feeling your response will be attemong to define why some forms of thought are more pure than others with no facts to back it up.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Since people can function normally without voices in their head then those voices aren't your logical thoughts, it is that simple. Instead the thoughts are stuff you can't express or picture, its just thoughts, but I guess that noticing them could be hard if you think that your thoughts are just some internal monologue. Edit: For example, when you are running, do you tell yourself in words where to put your feet or how hard to push or when to slow down or speed up? Pretty sure you don't, that wouldn't be fast enough. Most thoughts you have aren't represented in your words, and some people have basically no thoughts represented as words, they are just pure thoughts like how you place your feet when you try to avoid some obstacles etc. Or some people might think "left right left right" as they are running, but those words aren't how they decide to put down their feets.
wolverine876 4y ago
> This happens subsconsciously and gradually, not as a result of deliberate choice. I wonder if everyone is talking about the same thing. When my partner and I are arguing angrily about something and a stranger walks into the room, our change is neither subconcious nor gradual.
- resource0x 4y ago
  The "style" of your arguing with your partner may evolve gradually over time.
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Have you heard of method acting? It's brutal on the psyche. I encourage it if not, given you ask this question, it's quite poignant.

kornhole 4y ago

This is a reason why the fediverse is becoming so interesting and engaging. We can for example create an identity for the family and some friends and another for political discussion. They are only linked by word of mouth. The experience of followers is improved by the ability to follow a narrower but deeper identity.

ravagat 4y ago

Yes, one of the best parts of the early internet was the separation of space/domain that exists in real life. Now, it's much harder online. Which I always find ironic.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago

There is this one line of thought I had where giving someone a name "the christening" was an ancient spell of a type of 'possession and framing of the mind' as it enforces possessiveness and ownership over "things" vs a language and culture that never named anyone at birth. This led me to realize that it is entirely feasible, and you'd simply develop "nicknames" for every relationship on a graph. It actually becomes much more intimate and at the same time you may in fact connect 'personally' with every thing and everyone the same way you don't name your body parts. My left hand, my right hand, and so on. Food for thought. Then the whole thing about spirituality and ego, and how a persona is etymologically linked to mask and being an actor in a play. It starts to get a bit interesting, especially in light of a 'cosmic theater' participating in Maya on the backbone of Brahama. Then there is the poignancy of contemplation where one realizes one cannot eliminate the ego at any point of time because every interaction is done through an act, however one does have the power to switch that mask at any time. Perhaps this is the true meaning of the biblical free will. Perhaps at one time we did not have the ability to change our persona, ego, mask. Perhaps at one time we were subject to the same type of nightmare of hell of torture, birth, rebirth, and maybe without any memory due to a self-similar creation event of "virtualizing a universe" from another layer. Perhaps that event was similar to our moment now when the creators were in effect, parents of a new kind not knowing the consequence of their actions. Then, through the realization of what was happening over who knows how long something happened through love, and free will was enacted over the domain. Forgive me if that is too imaginative, for some reason, it resonates more strongly than anything I've ever come across. It seems to me that the stories of old really do make sense in a technological age rather than a mythological one. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistuingishable from magic. I'd like to add "or myth."

alexpetralia 4y ago
Very thought-provoking comment!