X-Message-Number: 17202
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:51:37 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Duplicates, Free Will

      #17196: Jul 19-22 Cryonet Responses [Louis Epstein]

>...individual identity implicitly
>requires uniqueness,

Not in my view. It's the bits that count, not the atoms.

>alternate-universe analogues
>of an individual may be interchangeable like
>copies of a book,but they are still not each
>other.

In the ways that count to me, they can be considered "each other," that is 
to say, multiple instantiations of a single entity. The book analogy is a 
good one.

>In the case under discussion I think you
>WOULD be "creating a fantasy individual" to
>the extent that a biographer is making an
>estimate of a subject.You can't know what's
>inside someone's head!

Whatever you put in would actually have occurred somewhere (in one or 
another parallel universe), thus you would restore this material without 
having to "know" what it was beforehand.

> >Now, granted, I don't think this is as good as bringing someone back from
> >a good cryosuspension (or other adequate preservation) with memories intact.
> >That's why I remain a staunch advocate of biostasis. But nevertheless it
> >supports the conclusion that death is not an absolute, something I find
> >essential.
>
>A duplicate is nonetheless not an original.
>You may make a copy of someone who has died
>without bringing the dead person back to life.

This again is a point of disagreement. But I think you'll find this 
disagreement among many immortalists too. Some of us would have no problem 
with our original material being completely replaced (say with similar 
atoms) before reanimation, others would. To me, nanites working on my 
frozen remains would mainly have the task of ascertaining information. With 
sufficient information "I" could be straightforwardly reanimated (not 
"just" a copy, but the real, original me, to the level that is important to 
me), from the information alone, even if the original material is lost.
...
>How can we tell if people frozen today
>are more revivable than James Bedford?
>It's now in the 35th year since he was
>frozen.Of course,this discussion is
>taking place mainly among people who are
>thinking maybe they'll be frozen 35 years
>from now and revived 35 years later,
>...
>But I'd rather be around in 2071 by
>having gotten to age 110 the old-fashioned
>way.

Well, suppose the choice is as follows. At 75 your brain and mind will be 
essentially intact and unimpaired. At 110, however, though remarkably 
enough "you" will still be alive, you will also be a human vegetable, your 
mind in a dim, twilight state of near-unconsciousness, most of your 
identity-critical elements now obliterated. Under those assumptions, would 
you choose a premortem cryopreservation at 75, or wait till nature took its 
course? (To simplify the argument I'm assuming you have only these 
alternatives to choose from.) For me, the choice of a premortem suspension 
would be self-evident. The task, if the laws are still the same as today 
(let's hope they aren't!), would be to arrange it without interference. Of 
course, in choosing the suspension, I would be recognizing that there are 
risks involved there too. But it seems likely to me that, even with today's 
methods, a well-preserved brain that was intact before freezing will 
contain more identity-critical structure than that of someone who, though 
technically still "alive," is badly mentally compromised through senility 
or other damage. Whether it is correct or not, I have the right to this 
opinion, and feel strongly that I--and others too of course--should also 
have the right to choose accordingly.

>...
>If the hypothesis that we have no free will,
>since all our actions are predetermined by the
>laws of physics applying to our atomic components,
>is correct,then we can not logically be held
>responsible for the inevitable occurrences.
>Any concept of our being able to make decisions,
>in such a framework,is nonsensical.

Effectively, we *can* be held responsible, even in the absence of free 
will, simply by a mutual agreement among others around us ("society") who 
will enforce such an agreement for their own protection.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17202