Richard on Sentience

From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 10:05
To: cburke@nexus.yorku.ca
Subject: morning

Mrrrmm, pretty one ... it was very nice to talk with you just now. yet such a short phone call when there's so much I wanted to talk about...

what sentience is (my current theory: the ability to overcome a certain

kind of internal conflict), and how to test someone for it.

As far as I (inexpertly) know, there's only the Gom Jabbar, but it's a terrible method -- both innaccurate and dangerous -- prone to both false positives and false negatives, and easily confused by possibly-non-self-aware traits such as self-destructiveness, obedience, or willpower. It's what you used on me, once, in a slightly less brutal form;

whether it is possible to build confidence and a strong sense of long-term stability in relationships that are *not* founded on unconditional love or acceptance (if this is possible, it's something i'd like to do);

why until yesterday I thought of my simulacrum method of dealing with the world (two aspects:

modelling things to get control through understanding, and also forcing things to change by forcing certain models upon people) as a *conservative* strategy. The most salient aspect seemed to be that it involves a choice to take certain parts of the world into myself to be controlled, rather than the contrasting choice some people make to live in the world, i.e. with full responsiveness in thought and deed to what is around them. But now I think I was wrong, and the simulacrum method is *less* conservative than the major alternative, the attunement method (as practiced e.g. by mr. fruchter), since only the former gives sufficent scope for non-local (i.e. strategic, and even tactical) action; the ridiculously large influence on my personality that the switch to the English phoneme set at the age of 2 had on me (this is interesting in itself, and also as an early instance of the simulacrum strategy at work -- apparently at 2 I already chose to control people by modelling their reactions in advance, and my refusal to accept loss was already present);

whether it's possible to check a person for good will (i.e. non-deceitfulness) quickly.

If there is such a thing as a set of universal human needs, then this is almost possible: compare a person's avowed goals with what you know about their needs; discrepancy indicates deceit, self-deceit, or stupidity. Not such a good method; and anyway you'll say that there are no universal human needs;

Oh, and many other things..

I'm very glad to hear that you're relaxing, having fun and adventures, and being well taken care of. I miss you, and think of you always. Mrrrrmmm.

With warmth and love,

R.

From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 15:19

Thanks, on behalf of this 0.00001% of your Diary's readership, for a truly beautiful entry today.

[and for a wonderful intervening 'msg' conversation just now, too]

You're in my heart each minute you're away (and when you're here, too, for that matter). Be wonderful and wise, enjoy all that's good, discovery mysteries, have adventures, and wear this kiss (*) where it will keep you warm.

See you soon, and love you always,

R. Richard (416) 538-8589 :: 9 Alpine, Toronto, M6P 3R6