X-Message-Number: 11132
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 17:06:05 -0500
From: Brook Norton <>
Subject: CryoNet #11109 - #11116

Bob Ettinger in #11111:  

>>  

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!  

>>  

Here's to the good fight!  

Mike Perry in #11113:  

>>  

Brook Norton, #11104, has offered some interesting comment on the
viewpoint that a person perishes each instant, to be replaced by another,
similar if not identical being. Fundamentally, this
instantly-perishing-self theory does not depend on any such property as a
gradual loss of memories over time, or other changes. Even if that is not
the issue we can still hypothesize that "you" perish each instant to be
replaced by a similar but different individual. A similar, if weaker form
of this is the "day-person" concept advanced by Thomas Nagel, that
basically, we die in our sleep to be replaced by a different but similar
individual. Such theories are untestable; they cannot be refuted, they
"fit the facts." Yet if we take literally the idea that we will not live
past our next period of unconsciousness, it makes little sense to plan for
such things as cryonic 

suspension.  

As it happens, I like the opposite extreme, i.e. to say that "you" survive
in any construct whatever that is sufficiently like you (with the exact
meaning of "sufficiently like" a matter to be decided, but certainly
allowing the possibility of duplicates). I think this can be made to "fit


the facts" too and I prefer it for other reasons.  

>>  

If the "instantly-perishing-self theory" turns out to be false, I also
like the theory you describe where you exist in "any construct whatever
that is sufficiently like you".  In that case, I don't think its necessary
to say 

"sufficiently like you".  Instead, you could say "you" survive some
percentage in other constructs.  You survive 100% in clone (at any time,
in any universe), 15% in an identical twin, 5% in any mammal, 1% in a rock
because those are the percentages of the characteristics you share with
those other constructs.  Its a fuzzy survival.  I think it would be more
fun, forever and for all,  if your interpretation is right.  

Brook Norton not a member of any cryonics org (but plan to this year)  

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11132