X-Message-Number: 14132
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:45:04 -0600
From: Fred Chamberlain <>
Subject: Scott Badger Re: Identity
Date: 7/20/2000
From: Fred Chamberlain
Subj: Scott Badger's Thoughts On Identity
I strongly agree with what Scott has to say, so what follows is not so much
counterpoint as endorsement and further discussion. I've entered some of
Scott's key phrases or other topic cues in "ALL CAPS", to make pathfinding
easier.
Message #14121
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Badger <>
Subject: Preserving the Self
Greetings all,
IS IT ME OR IS IT A COPY?
(Scott) I, also, have been thinking about the nature of identity lately and
the whole "is it me or is it a copy" problem presented by uploading and other
future possibilities. I'd appreciate any comments, corrections, or criticisms
to my argument below.
(Fred) My picture of "copy identity", in the context of recovery from
cryostasis, is projected in the form of fiction at
<http://www.alcor.org/lifeqst4.htm>http://www.alcor.org/lifeqst4.htm. The
story
deals more with how people will feel about it, however, than how they will
reason about it. This is why Scott's thoughts are so important.
I STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT MY MIND "IS" WHAT MY BRAIN "DOES
(Scott) Premises: 1. I want to save my brain because I strongly suspect that
my mind "is" what my brain "does", and what my brain does is a function of
it's
architecture. Structure "is" identity. (remember, this is a premise, not a
statement of fact)
(Fred) The word "mind", like "personality" or "self", tends to suggest a
monolithic identity, a seamless, totally integrated "me" of some kind. For
those who visualize themselves in this way, personality models such as Freud's
(ego, superego and Id) or Jung's arguments for the manifestations of a
multitude of "archetypes", must be disquieting. Marvin Minsky ("Society of
the
Mind") goes even further from a singleness of focus. Back in the 1970's, in
working up presentations on cryonics, we used the term "cerbropsyche" to refer
to "that part of one's brain which constitutes "me", but this was simply
perpetuating thinking which was out of date decades before.
"I" AM NOT A PRODUCT, "I" AM A DYNAMIC PROCESS.
(Scott) 2. From moment to moment, my brain structure undergoes physical
changes. Dendrites from some neurons are reaching out, seeking connections ...
while others are withdrawing and disconnecting. Some cells are dying. New
evidence suggests that some new neurons may be forming. Point being, "I"
change
from moment to moment. "I" am not a product, "I" am a dynamic process.
Therefore, it can be argued that successive versions of myself are continually
being generated. Though each successive version is a close approximation to
the
last, they are not the same.
(Fred) Many persons experience short term memory in traumatic accidents.
They
wake up, but don't remember the last few minutes or even (perhaps) the last
few
hours. In such a case, would your "self" in being at the moment of the
accident "die", only to be replaced by an earlier version of "you" which took
its place? No heirs come forward claiming that persons who lost a few
hours of
memory have died, thus the estate should be distributed. Yet, it is argued
that a "copy", even if identical to the "you" at the moment you died, would
not
really be "you". Conversely, it could be argued that such a copy would be
more
"you" than the former "you" after a traumatic accident, which awakened with no
knowledge of the "real" you which, was thinking and pondering various things
now not to be known, just before the accident.
I'M ALREADY JUST AN APPROXIMATE COPY OF WHO I WAS A MOMENT AGO. SO WHAT?
(Scott) 3. I am unable to consciously discriminate between these successive
versions of myself. As a result, I experience a distinct sense of
continuity of
self. It is this sense of continuity that gives me the impression that my
self/identity is a static thing despite the evidence to the contrary.
Consider
the transporter beam (ala star trek). One can argue that the original has been
destroyed at point A and a copy created at point B. But isn't Entity B just
another version of Entity A? Suppose that Entity B is not reconstituted right
away and instead, the information for reconstituting Entity A at point B is
held in a buffer for a period of time. Whether it be 10 seconds or 10 years,
Entity B would be a closer approximation to Entity A than Entity A would have
been to itself had it not been transported.So at what point am "I" not "me"
anymore? Exactly how much structural change does it require between the "then
me" and the "now me" for me to "feel" like a
different person? Is that subjective evaluation sufficiently discriminating?
What if I developed enhanced discriminatory abilities? Instead of feeling
different when a 1% structural change had occurred in my brain, I would notice
a .01% change. Of course, to protect our sense of continuity and thus our
sense
of self, limits to how much change we can detect may be necessary. Actually
being able to feel the changes in one's self from moment to moment might
completely disrupt one's sense of identity. The critical factor appears to be
that a sense of
continuity is what matters, regardless of the substrate within which your
consciousness resides. Whether you're beamed to the other side of the planet,
have your brain place in someone else's body, or even if your uploaded into a
computer, it's just another version of you ... and new versions of you are
being generated all the time anyway. If a sense of continuity remains, then
self is preserved. For me, then, it seems the argument that uploads are
"just"
copies is a moot one. I'm already just an approximate copy of who I was a
moment ago. So what? I know I'm different, but I feel the same.
(Fred) As to "sense of continuity", I cannot help but feel awe at the
reported
cases of people who have half of their brains removed, and when asked (since
they are conscious during the surgery) to report what differences they feel,
they still feel like "they're themselves". Yet we know their identities have
been profoundly reduced in many ways. (When the left or "verbal" side of the
brain remains the person can still speak and understand speech. But the
image-sensitive "right brain" is not there, any more.)
IT SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT ONE MAY WAKE UP WITH A SENSE OF CONTINUITY DESPITE THE
FACT THAT SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS TO THE SELF HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
(Scott) Now, a brief counter-point. What if, due to brain damage, I am
uploaded but a large number of memories can not be retrieved? Or what if
other's memories are introduced into my psyche? And yet I still feel fine? In
other words, it seems possible that one may wake up with a sense of continuity
despite the fact that significant alterations to the self have taken place.
That is, a sense of continuity would not necessarily be dependent on very
close
approximations of the previous version of the self.
Part of the solution may lie in being able to empirically validate one's sense
of self with historical records. If I'm reanimated and I have a
portfolio of information regarding who I was, and that matches to a large
extent with what I recall about myself, then I can be reasonably confident
that
my identity has been preserved to a great degree. Of course, it's possible
that
a fake portfolio might have been created for some sinister purpose, but this
seems excessively paranoid. Why would anyone bother?
Best regards,
Scott Badger (I think)
LIFEPACT INTERVIEW "DEMO" VIDEO TAPE
(Fred) Two to three years ago (see, I'm not *sure* even how long ago it was),
Joe Hovey, Linda Chamberlain and I spent the weekend up in the Arizona
mountains, a kind of "retreat", and made "LifePact" interview videotapes of
each other (the format for that interview has been reprinted in the current
issue of Cryonics magazine.)
The reason we did this was two-fold. First, Linda and I wanted to update our
tapes (we started making these video tapes back in the late 1980's, when we
tried to start a little organization named "LifePact"), and Joe needed to get
one made for him. The second reason was that we wanted to make a "demo" tape
which Alcor could sell to those who wanted a "how to do it" example, and this
was the perfect opportunity to do that (Joe interviewed Linda, and I ran the
camera). It's an interesting case study, if any of you are thinking of doing
this, and you can buy a copy from Alcor.
WHAT MEMORIES WOULD YOU PERMIT THE REANIMATION TEAM TO *IMPLANT*?
But before we did the "demo" tape, we "practiced" round-robin on each other.
One question kept coming up, in connection with the idea of "restoring
memories", and that was: "What memories, if any, would you permit the
reanimation team to *implant* in your mind?"
That was a sticky one. Remember, we were making video tapes which actually
*might* be looked at by a reanimation team someday. When you do this, you
have
to be *really* careful about what you say. After stewing about this a bit, I
think we generally agreed (and at least one of us said so, on the video tape),
that we would be willing to have the memory of making *that* one video tape
"implanted". At least we knew what the limits would be, and since we had just
finished saying all those things, we felt reasonably comfortable with that.
You've got to draw the line somewhere, we figured! We would want the "memory"
to be nothing less than a direct "playback" of the tape, where we would see
ourselves talking. If we were worried about whether it had been done
right, we
could at least watch the actual copy. Hopefully, the "implant" would be close
enough for any discernable purpose.
WHO WILL DECIDE? HOW WILL IT BE PAID FOR?
The tape was not only a recap of early memories, life experiences,
perspectives
and views of the future. It contained, very specifically, answers about
whether or not we would be willing to obligate ourselves to pay off upgrades
and better quality reanimation on an installment basis, if that turned out to
be necessary or advisable. While we hope that Alcor will grow to such
strength
that it can cover such costs, the future is unknown. Also, there may be a
question of level. At the gas pump, you have to choose what octane you'll
buy,
against what cost. Who will decide? How will it be paid for? The LifePact
interview is packed with such questions.
REPAIR OF NEURONS? REPLACEMENT WITH "PROSTHETIC" NEURONS?
The interview questionnaire also asks if you would be willing to have a neuron
repaired, biologically? No problem with that? Then how about having one
neuron replaced with a "prosthetic" neuron? Does that sound OK? Well if
that's all right, what about a group of ten neurons, 100 neurons, 1000
neurons. I mean, where do you draw the line?
And when you get to the question of replacing 100,000, or 1,000,000 or; well
the final line on that series of questions reads, "whole brain replacement",
what are you going to say? You've got to say *something*? After all, the
video camera is running and you should have *some* kind of opinion about this,
right? Or, you might simply say, "I'll leave it up to the reanimation team!"
Is that the best idea?
If you think that's just fine, then go read the story at
http://www.alcor.org/lifeqst4.htm! (Or, you can read the story in the current
issue of Cryonics, mailed out in early June - it's in *there*, too!) Some of
you will feel comfortable with that picture. Others of you will worry about
it, and say, "That's not for me!!!" But either way, you should make a record
of how you feel. These questions are too important to be ignored. You don't
want to just have "name, rank and serial number" on your capsule, do you?
PRIORITY: GET YOUR THOUGHTS RECORDED WHILE YOU'RE STILL ABLE TO THINK CALMLY.
Making a LifePact videotape, or an audio tape, or just writing out some notes
in handwriting, isn't a bad idea. And believe me, if you really get sick and
you're about to need to be suspended, you *won't* feel like it at that point.
We've seen this happen again and again. By the time you really know you're
going to have to go into cryostasis, either there's no time (like an auto
accident) or the illness will weigh you down a lot more than a bad case of
flu. At that point, what you need is a standby team, not someone with a video
camera telling you, "Hey, have you ever made a LifePact video tape? Well,
it's
still not too late. We can squeeze it in just two hours". No, you won't feel
like it, or at least you won't have the kind of positive outlook such a tape
needs, to be representative and valid concerning your viewpoints.
WHO (WHAT SPECIFIC PEOPLE) ARE GOING TO "BE THERE FOR YOU"?
There are deeper issues still, and now time to go into them right now. Like,
OK, you set up a wealth preservation trust, and maybe the money manager does
manage to keep the assets safe and make them grow. But when a reanimation
team
finally meets and makes its recommendations, who is going to be "at the
controls", representing your interests? Who is going to have only one
thing in
mind, what *you* wanted? Will your suspension organization (for me, it's
Alcor) fill that role to your satisfaction?
Remember, by that time, every cryonics organization which survives will be
enormous. How can you be sure there will be someone there who will take a
strong, personal interest in *you*? Who will understand what you wanted well
enough to balance your perspectives now against what is known about
reanimation
options decades from now? How can we manage that? Isn't this important?
INTEREST IN "LIFEPACT"? YES, BUT "EACH ORGANIZATION SHOULD TAKE CARE OF ITS
OWN!"
I think most of you would agree that it is. To push the point, back in the
late 1980's others were running Alcor, and Linda Chamberlain and I were living
in Northern California. We we worried about this, and attempted to get
*everybody* who was concerned about it to join together to confront these
problems, through an organization to be named "LifePact". So, what happened?
The predominant view was that, "Each cryonics organization should take care of
this themselves!" At the same time, those who held responsible roles in
cryonics organizations said, "But we're so busy, there's no time of money for
it!" And so, not much got done. With the help of Norm Lewis (then with ACS)
and Jim Stevenson (an Alcor Member), Linda and I got a few videotapes made,
for
those who we felt were high-risk cases. Three of those people are now in
suspension, and a few others who are *not* yet in suspension have video tapes
in their files. But this is still in its embryonic stages.
LIFEPACT INTERVIEW FORM IN CURRENT ISSUE OF "CRYONICS"
The current issue of Cryonics, as I mentioned, has the interview format and an
article by Linda with suggestions. This material also appeared several years
ago in an issue of The Phoenix (now part of Cryonics). Alcor has the "demo"
tape for sale, as already noted. Each time a new membership is finalized in
Alcor, we send out LifePact interview forms in two different versions, to the
new member. As things stand now, other than this posting on CryoNet, that's
all the energy we can put into it.
THANKS AGAIN TO SCOTT BADGER
I really thank Scott Badger for expressing his thoughts on identity. They are
*very* well put, and I'd encourage you to reread them up above (part of why I
wanted to include them intact). These are central to making your membership
something more than just "wearing a bracelet, paying dues, and maintaining
insurance or other funding".
You're in this because you want to be "part of the future no matter what", and
a LifePact interview on record could be a great help. At the end of his
posting, Scott Badger *really" makes this point. I'm going to copy it down
below, so you have to look at it still one more time. This is *why* LifePact
activities are needed. It's *why* Scott's ideas are so important!
END PORTION OF SCOTT'S CRYONET POSTING
(Scott) Now, a brief counter-point. What if, due to brain damage, I am
uploaded but a large number of memories can not be retrieved? Or what if
other's memories are introduced into my psyche? And yet I still feel fine? In
other words, it seems possible that one may wake up with a sense of continuity
despite the fact that significant alterations to the self have taken place.
That is, a sense of continuity would not necessarily be dependent on very
close
approximations of the previous version of the self.
Part of the solution may lie in being able to empirically validate one's sense
of self with historical records. If I'm reanimated and I have a
portfolio of information regarding who I was, and that matches to a large
extent with what I recall about myself, then I can be reasonably confident
that
my identity has been preserved to a great degree. Of course, it's possible
that
a fake portfolio might have been created for some sinister purpose, but this
seems excessively paranoid. Why would anyone bother?
Best regards,
Scott Badger (I think)
Thanks again, Scott!!!
Fred Chamberlain, President/CEO ()
Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013 (800) 367-2228 FAX (602) 922-9027
for general requests
http://www.alcor.org
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14132