X-Message-Number: 11111
From: 
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:57:30 EST
Subject: double-think

Brook Norton's post #11104 was mostly on the button and showed that I do make
myself reasonably clear at least sometimes and to some people. 

Yes, it may turn out that "you" only survive for a subjective moment, possibly
1/20 of a second (a common interval of subjective discrimination). As I (and
others) have said many times, we have no assurance that the universe is user-
friendly. Possibly life (or/and intelligence) is fundamentally and unavoidably
tragic. But I emphasize that it is MUCH too soon to actually reach this
conclusion.

For one thing, if subjective time is different from objective time--as seems
almost certain--then we are time-binders and "exist" for more than one chronon
(quantum of time interval). And if we can bind over 1/20 of a second, then we
can also bind (in some degree) further, since bound intervals can overlap.
Whether this means that "you" are rapidly attenuated over time is a question
too difficult, and too dependent on future research, to handle now with any
degree of confidence.

Brook links the psychological discomfort of evanescence with the discomfort,
felt by many people, in the question of determinism vs. "free will." The
latter, however, is in my opinion a much easier problem. Whether we are
deterministic in the classical sense, or in the multiverse quantum sense, or
in the older quantum sense that includes random elements, we have no freedom
whatever on the level of basic physics. But we do not live on that level; we
live on the level of consciousness, and on that level we do have freedom. (No,
it isn't really appropriate to call that kind of freedom "illusion.")

Suppose worse comes to worst, and it is proven that "you" survive only a
subjective moment, hence have no ability whatever to improve or change the
condition of your evanescent self one whit. Is all lost? Not necessarily. We
can still take refuge in double-think, as we necessarily do all the time
anyway. For example, in order to get by psychologically, it is essential to
turn off most of our empathy most of the time and ignore the unspeakable
sufferings of vast numbers of people and lower animals, even our neighbors. If
my momentary self chooses to focus attention in a more comfortable channel,
then this self and successor selves will feel better. So in a sense, on a
conscious level, we have some degree of power to defeat even a crushingly
hostile environment. 

But I EMPHASIZE once more that it is extremely premature to make any final
conclusions, pessimistic or otherwise. (And it is often better to err on the
side of optimism, since then at least you feel better for a while, whereas if
you are "correctly" pessimistic you feel worse both now and later. Pessimism,
as a choice, is justified only when it motivates actions that tend to improve
matters.) We simply do not yet know enough about the universe, and especially
about time and quantum physics, to justify any firm conclusions on these
matters. We do not, for example, even know for sure that actions in the
present cannot change the past; some serious people think they can. 

Evolution has bred into us (sometimes, among other things) an incredible
gallantry that allows us puny motes to take on all comers against all odds.
Even if the foe is really there, and even if he really is unbeatable, we will
continue to fight. But again, it is much too soon to assume the worst case.
Cheer up and be a happy warrior!

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11111