From: CyTG (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 15:44:30 MDT
You're taking a big leap into cognetive science here, one i dont think you
can take "just like that".
One thing is having data on record, another is, is it meaning anything to
_you_! You need to associate given events with similar events, emotions and
whatnot .. the kinda stuff our brains are engineered to process.
On 10/16/07, Jack Lloyd <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 07:19:39AM -0700, Larry wrote:
> > Technology can't 'fix' impermanence. Death is a sudden big change, but
> > even if sudden death goes away, we die bit by bit. Your memories of
> > the 1990s would eventually fade to be no more than what you'd read in
> > a history book. It would no longer be real to you, your 1990s self
> > would be effectively dead.
> Presumably at some point it would be at least possible (if maybe not
> desirable) to cover the planet in a sensor network so you could later
> recall/relive any event that happened to you (or anyone else?) at any
> point, even if your own hardware (biological or otherwise) fails. So
> in principle I don't see any reason that forgetfulness, like death,
> shouldn't be optional.
> Perhaps related:
> Apropros: I couldn't remember who wrote that essay, when I saw it, or
> what the title was, but I found it again in less than a minute using
> del.icio.us and email search.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT