X-Message-Number: 18025
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #18018 Another angle on duplicates
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:54:56 -0800

David Pizer astutely discusses the value in looking at reanimation options
now to decide in advance which we would opt for.

In discussing the issue of "duplicates" he suggests:

"If you agree that *you* can be in two places
at once, then you probably will agree to the reanimation technique where
your original brain is taken apart and a new one made.  If you disagree,
you probably will hold out until your original brain can be fixed up."

David goes on to explain:

"I think people like to discuss these ideas to try to figure out what
instructions to leave to their suspension providers."

I would like to add to this issue the importance of caring for those we
leave behind.  For example, if I die now and in 20 years there arises a
technological means to replicate "me", then I would want to see that
replication happen as it would mean for my wife, friends and family that "I"
am once again in their lives.  From their perspective, I would be returned
from "the dead."

The same reasoning goes on with current common motives for the purchase of
life insurance.  Because we care for our loved ones we wish to see them
financially safe in the event we should die.  In exactly the same (*) way I
would want a replication of "me" created if this were possible even if it
were certain this was not "me" because from the perspective of those I care
for, they would benefit by having "me" back again in their lives.  For them
it would be "me".

If later the "real me" were to be restored to life, I would have to cope
with the outcome of that former decision but at least I would be alive to
cope with it.

Two asides.

First, this philosophical issue comes about as a dilemma because of the
underlying assumption that there exists a unique "self" (identity) to begin
with.  Like the old poem about the "little man upon the stair who wasn't
there", if we assume that the self is a thing rather than a dynamic process,
we run into all of these problems regarding the "nature" of "the self".

(*) Second, I am still attempting to cope with the grating, modern
grammatical shift in the English language which causes so many people to use
the moronically redundant phrase of "the exact same ..." rather than to hang
on to those elegant adverbs yielding the more comfortable and soothing to my
ear phrasing of  "exactly the same".  If a duplicate of me is created and he
uses the phrase, "The exact same ..." , you can be certain it isn't me for I
would want to bash in his head in "exactly the same" manner I would desire
to do so now.  If he utters this obnoxious phrase you can be certain he is
really an evil demon from hell possessing a clone of my body.  Please kill
him for me.

However  as I still tend to split infinitives and fail to maintain proper
punctuation in general I suppose it is only justice that I should be so
tortured in the present.

Just my opinion,

George Smith
CI member

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18025