it might depend on what a person or AI considers part of them. like, for many, the boundary of themselves does not end at the surface of their body. for few, it ends even before that.
-
-
so, "extrapersonal": can be other people outside my continent. outside my nation or city or part of town. outside my family. outside my marriage. outside my skin. outside my consciousness.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
It turns out that everything and everyone you can think of is a creation of your mind. You cannot have experiential access to the hardware of the universe. All identifications are with figments of your imagination.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
right. they're the maps we make to navigate our existence. and the map is not the territory.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
It’s an amazing feat that the organism can corrupt the fine computational processes of our mind enough to make them identify with things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
fine computational processes? you must be jesting. natural selection has only permitted to exist what furthers. no identification with things (like babies or other people) means extinction. it's existentially useful. is it good or bad though? not going there :D
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
If you go there you may discover that it is completely mutable and how you can rewrite yourself. That’s why I think it is highly relevant to think it through. We are the first species that can acquire the cognitive tools to reprogram itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
that sounds like the awfully optimistic dreamery that humans are known for, also a great tool for continued existence. :) i guess to a degree this is correct, but in my experience, it has stark limits.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paniq @DavidDeutschOxf
Argh, don’t go down the path of romantic passion again. It is literally true what I said, not romantically significant!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
not really sure how i'm giving off romance. you must be seeing things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
“Optimistic dreamery” does not nail the current context, and neither to delusions of meaning of our existence. Existence is by itself clearly not meaningful, or lacking meaning. That is a category mistake.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @DavidDeutschOxf
we do not disagree at all here. but you were the one who talked of a "first species able to (...) reprogram itself" and that is just not going to happen.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.