X-Message-Number: 11475
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 01:40:45 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Information Loss, Personal Growth

Garry Wright, #11468, writes
>
>In reply to Robert Ettinger, Message #11453:
>
>> In fact, although I can't prove it (maybe I could if I were
>> smarter or/and had more time available), I tend strongly to think that
>> information is conserved in the universe, and approximately conserved in
>> any reasonably large and nearly closed system.
>
>I am sorry to say that well established physics say you are wrong.
>Information is lost, and what is more, this is the most fundamental law of
>the
>Universe!  This is another way of stating the second law of thermodynamics,
>which always applies, even in a closed and collapsing Universe.  For a good
>explanation of this last point see 'The Emperor's New Mind' by Sir Roger
>Penrose.
>
No, this is not quite true. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, that entropy
is increasing (or "you can't break even") may apply, but it does not
preclude the recovery of information from an isloated system. It means,
however, that you may have to work very hard at it, and be lucky as well.
But in a practical sense it seems to me that information is lost, even if
not in an absolute sense--you just aren't going to be that lucky. One topic
of debate right now is whether black holes would destroy information in an
absolute sense, some holding they would (which would be problematic for
quantum mechanics), others invoking concepts of string theory to argue they
wouldn't.

>I also agree with Leon Dean, Message #11454, that there is no reason other
>than selfishness for cryonics.

I strongly disagree with this, insofar as "selfishness" is usually
understood. Cyronics can (and should) be practiced for other than narrowly
selfish reasons. I even think that *enlightened* self-interest, expanded to
the scale of a much longer life than is possible today (and hopefully
eternal), will fully reconcile egoism and altruism. (Thomas Donaldson
expresses some thoughts along this line too,  #11464). With proper
orientation and action, one can *benefit* others, and thus securing one's
presence can be seen as doing others a favor. Perhaps this will sound
facetious and a weak rationalization of simply wanting to save one's hide.
But it doesn't have to be. It can be taken quite seriously and literally--I
recommend making the effort. The benefiting too has a self-interested basis;
one expects reciprocal benefits in return, as is certainly reasonable.

>  For civilisation to not stagnate, it
>depends on
>change and evolution.  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.
>

Again, I strongly disagree, though this kind of attitude seems a common one.
It is *possible*, as I've found from personal experience, to regard an
earlier stage of oneself as still "oneself" even when much time has passed
and many new experiences have occurred, including schooling, acquisition of
new skills and knowledge, etc. In the future, as I see it, the
self-improvement process could take many forms, ranging from simple
education to radical physical changes. There will not be "the" latest
specification to which persons are "upgraded" as if some outside agency
determines the "specifications" and then allows or requires people to adjust
accordingly. The upgrading instead will be self-initiated. People will
determine the "specifications" they wish to upgrade to, and advance
accordingly by elective choice, a different choice and different mix of
enhancements for each individual.

>Sir Arthur C Clarke says that we change throughout our lives anyway, and I
>agree with him totally.

We change, but not necessarily so much as to become really different
persons. "The more things change, the more they stay the same,"--in some
ways at least. Clarke, in some ways and for some people, is horribly mistaken. 

>  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.
>
Not quite. Another idea that supports the "same person" concept is that of
convergence to an ideal self, a process that would take infinite time
overall and involve unlimited advancement. This is a somewhat complicated
idea to explain; email me privately if you are interested.

>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. 

I don't see the concept as an "illusion." I think it has (or can have)
logical coherence, even if many people themselves are not too consistent in
what they think of as the "self."

>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.
>

No problem. I don't think we have true free will either, but that does not
destroy the concept of self, which I think can be developed on informational
(and reductionist) grounds, without assuming any mystical soul or free will.

>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.
>
I hope and intend to become *part* of "the next level of intelligence" (and
the next after that, and so on) rather than just leaving the scene after
"trying to create" something I can have no part in.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11475