3 ms·

> Those may be too complex to invent from scratch in a few decades. Long intellectual collaborations are a common good. Yes, that is the source for my assertio

> Those may be too complex to invent from scratch in a few decades. Long intellectual collaborations are a common good. Yes, that is the source for my assertion that culture/collective thought/pre-computed results is of primary importance ("essential"). You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime. > By virtue of emotional audit, knowledge I accept is assimilated by me, becomes mine. It was made by my allies, essentially by past instances of myself - nothing external here. In other words, you are "sampling" something from the common culture based on an "emotional audit", and then tweaking the sample to suit your "preferences"? In other words: P = Bundle of preferences (sampling biases that an emotional audit will check for) I_1 = State of Identity T = Transformation function that converts a sample of common good to suit the bundle of preferences I_2 = State of Identity after integrating the result of transformation I_1 + T(P(CG)) => I_2 (your formula) i.e previous_identity_state + transform(select(common_good)) = new_identity_state You argue that if, transform(select1(common_good)) = select2(common_good), then select1 = select2 i.e preference1 = preference2 [1] The problem with this model is that it is dualistic; you envision immutable (?) preferences and mutable identity states (and obviously mutable common good which is a super set of identity states and 'other stuff'). The common good is getting manipulated in a distributed and concurrent way all the time, so even if the preferences remain immutable, the common good keeps changing, and therefore [1] wouldn't work out (the actual equation will have common_good1 and common_good2)... I think all dualistic ideas of defining the mind tend to get into this sort of trap. That is, the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good (especially across time): > So if we have same preferences, we are one. And it seems obvious that people with similar preferences will create functionally similar designs.) I think a better model is to consider all localized preferences as part of the larger common good. There is just one common good (due to "dependency" of thoughts), across time and space, out of which everything emerges ("collective thought"). Such a model wouldn't admit any sort of immutable identity within the realm of thought.

chromoblob 3y ago
> You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime. That is just because "useful level of knowledge" is required to participate in society as I want to - most low-hanging fruit has already been collected. If you're at the frontier, you're immediately productive. > In other words: Sorry, I phrased a little incorrectly. It's more like Filter(Mutate(AmbientCulture)), that is, I selectively copy or mutate everything I see into stuff that gets accepted by the audit, after which it is my knowledge. (Mutate creates some modifications of memes as I am able, and Filter removes unsuitable ones; but computationally it is probably a one-stage directed process.) I would call it knowledge state, not "identity state", my identity is immutable too. Yes, preferences are immutable; preferences = identity. > You argue that if ... If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. > the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good Culture changes continuously. A given distributed identity would create a needed design over time, at each moment relying only on the current state of its own work. (It follows that identities can be nested: an identity may create a meme that will be owned by any identities that contain that identity.) If the work is not synchronized across space, work may fork and diverge, but the differences would not be functionally significant in the end. If something suppresses your work, you should defend against this, or you will be screwed too.
- atomicnature 3y ago
  > If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. Yes. Also, from a philosophical angle, consider this: It is possible to get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance; the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff. Therefore, I still think it is more sensible to avoid the idea of "immutable" preferences. What looks "immutable" (identity) may just be a short-lived illusion (or maybe a long-lived illusion - depending on the perspective; either way an illusion). The sense of self could be seen as a temporary, mutable "clustering" of pieces of thought within the larger system of thought. I like the idea of "nesting" you mentioned though. However, I'd still bet on "mutable preferences" over "immutable preferences" -- that "I" is a temporary illusion. Accepting this would remove the problematic dualism... The buddhist texts present the idea of a solid-looking rainbow; go inspect it, and poof, it really wasn't there in the first place.
  - chromoblob 3y ago
    I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise. > get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid. If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally. > the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.

chromoblob 3y ago

> You need way more than mere primitives to get upto any useful level of knowledge in a given lifetime. That is just because "useful level of knowledge" is required to participate in society as I want to - most low-hanging fruit has already been collected. If you're at the frontier, you're immediately productive. > In other words: Sorry, I phrased a little incorrectly. It's more like Filter(Mutate(AmbientCulture)), that is, I selectively copy or mutate everything I see into stuff that gets accepted by the audit, after which it is my knowledge. (Mutate creates some modifications of memes as I am able, and Filter removes unsuitable ones; but computationally it is probably a one-stage directed process.) I would call it knowledge state, not "identity state", my identity is immutable too. Yes, preferences are immutable; preferences = identity. > You argue that if ... If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. > the following will not remain true ("create functionally similar designs") due to changes/updates in the common good Culture changes continuously. A given distributed identity would create a needed design over time, at each moment relying only on the current state of its own work. (It follows that identities can be nested: an identity may create a meme that will be owned by any identities that contain that identity.) If the work is not synchronized across space, work may fork and diverge, but the differences would not be functionally significant in the end. If something suppresses your work, you should defend against this, or you will be screwed too.

atomicnature 3y ago
> If I understand you well, your criticism is that I use momentary artifacts created in dependency on a given environment to establish identity independent of environment. Yes. Also, from a philosophical angle, consider this: It is possible to get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance; the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff. Therefore, I still think it is more sensible to avoid the idea of "immutable" preferences. What looks "immutable" (identity) may just be a short-lived illusion (or maybe a long-lived illusion - depending on the perspective; either way an illusion). The sense of self could be seen as a temporary, mutable "clustering" of pieces of thought within the larger system of thought. I like the idea of "nesting" you mentioned though. However, I'd still bet on "mutable preferences" over "immutable preferences" -- that "I" is a temporary illusion. Accepting this would remove the problematic dualism... The buddhist texts present the idea of a solid-looking rainbow; go inspect it, and poof, it really wasn't there in the first place.
- chromoblob 3y ago
  I as a physical agent may very well be short-lived myself. Identity is simply a preferences code that is implemented by every one of a set of possible physical agents, one of which is my body. An executable identity is maintained as the code of the physical system as long as it can as that. This seems to me only a matter of engineering or biology (based on physics) and the minimal influx of free energy to store the code without errors, as well as resource expenditure for my actions that you need to see if you want to register / keep registering me. (That is, if you disregard the astronomically unlikely quantum events.) The preceding applies to any kind of identity, human or otherwise. > get an "immutable-looking" entity out of mutable substance That substance, though having a changing state, is governed by immutable (as we notice so far) laws of physics (more directly, emergence of life, evolution, human biology and any natural laws that technology depends on). That's how I feel that this immutability is valid. If you want, you can regard my identity as a little "physical/natural law" generated around my body. So the law will be there as long as the body works. And, I think, in principle any body housing any identity can be maintained indefinitely given minimal free energy and mass influx (this requires technologies not yet available today) if you again set a target probability of random quantum changes. This applies to "distributed" identities equally. > the reverse is not possible - getting mutable stuff out of immutable stuff If one depends on arbitrary data from environment and there is not enough experimentation done by either one or the producers of the data, one becomes mutable. Mutate or be mutated.