X-Message-Number: 11471
From: "Scott Badger" <>
References: <>
Subject: re: Physics of information loss and comments on belief in cryonics
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:18:47 -0600

"Garry Wright" <> wrote:

I also agree with Leon Dean, Message #11454, that there is no reason other
than selfishness for cryonics. For civilisation to not stagnate, it depends
on change and evolution.

Yes, of course we are selfish - - SELF -ish.  So?

Change and evolution is not only possible without death, extended lives are
more likely to hasten the pace of our progress than to impede it. See my
response to Leon Dean's post.

>Mike Perry, Message #11463, suggests that 'primitive' individuals will be
'upgraded' to >the latest specification. I think that this superior
intelligence will not be the same person, >apart from sharing some memories.
>
> Sir Arthur C Clarke says that we change throughout our lives anyway, and I
agree with >him totally. You would have to actually be religious and believe
in a supernatural >unchanging soul, to think that an upgraded version of
yourself would be the same person.
>
> The relatively new theory of memetics suggests that the very concept of
self is an >illusion - merely the result of Darwinian evolution of so called
memes. The concept of a >conscious self is a powerfull meme for obvious
reasons. There are experiments, also >described in Penrose's book, that
demonstrate that we do not actually possess free will.

OK. The identity issue again.  Good.  I've really been wrestling with this
one lately, and I haven't arrived at a satisfactory conclusion so far.

So let's examine the "self as illusion" model. This model suggests that you
are not the thinker of your thoughts; you are the one who hears your
thoughts. Let's call the part of me that is not an illusion the "organism".
I have tried to use several analogies to get my mind around this idea:

Consciousness is like a rainbow - an emergent phenomenon without substance,
nothing more than a side effect - a side effect that quite accidentally and
unexpectedly woke up.

Consciousness is like symphonic music - the players in the orchestra are the
various parts of the brain.  Of course the music may believe that it is able
to direct the actions of the players but this is folly.  The music has no
will of its own.

Consciousness is like a cognitive echo, a reflection of some of the
processes of the brain.  As the organism became increasingly complex, so did
the echo...eventually leading to its awakening.

Some suggest that there is a part of the brain that observes what all the
other parts are doing and weaves a story that seems to best
explain/integrate what it observes.  The Self is that story.  Again, no free
will.

And even though it really, really seems to me as though I have the ability
to ponder, to plan, and to exert some level of control over my actions...I
am deluded.  The organism does all the pondering and the planning and the
executing and the Self is just along for the ride believing that it's
sitting in the driver's seat.

This, then, is my limited understanding of the model.  I realize I still
need to read Dennet, Penrose, and Blackmore's new book, "The Meme Machine".

But the notion of Self as side-effect still seems problematic to me.  Here's
why.

Let's say it's the case (which it is) that my Self, realizing that it has no
free will, chooses to rebel against this arrangement.  It chooses to take
over, to wrest control from the organism, to become substantial rather than
illusory, to gain access to any currently unavailable unconscious
information, to directly manipulate the organism for it's own Self-ish
purposes.   But wait, who's thinking this thought?  The model says thoughts
come from the organism, not the Self.  So this suggests that the organism is
not only aware of the Self, it actually values the Self and wants to
relinquish its control to it.  The fact that my conscious Self wants to be
in charge indicates then that this is actually the organism's goal, to
expand the Self by moving it's operational center into the conscious realm.
This further suggests that the Self is more than some non-functional,
purposeless, side-effect. Else the organism would not choose to expand it.

There are probably flaws in my thinking here and I'd appreciate having them
pointed out.

Now let me move on to address the other point raised by Mr. Wright.  His
argument appears to boil down to this: "Upgraded versions of ourselves will
be so far removed from who we are now that it is folly to seek to be
upgraded."

I am currently far removed from who I was as a 1 year-old.
Is it still me?
Yes and no.
Am I glad I didn't die as a 1 year-old.
Sure am!
Will I be glad when I'm super-intelligent that I chose cryonics?
I'm betting the answer will again be, "Sure am!"

>Having said all this, I am not against anyone who wishes to be preserved,
and I wish the >movement well. It is certainly a more interesting thing to
do with a dead body than >burning or burying it. I just think that it is
pointless, and the efforts of these intelligent >people could be better
utilised in trying to create the next level of intelligence, rather than
>trying to preserve the current one beyond its usefullness.

IMO, the primary rationale for cryonics is not about super-intelligence and
transformations and such.  Cryonics is about saving human lives.  Human
lives are precious.  What those lives choose to do when they are reanimated
is their business and not ours.  If you think that cryonics is pointless
then you must logically conclude that other life-saving emergency medical
procedures are pointless as well.

Best regards,

Scott Badger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11471