X-Message-Number: 21287 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:29:44 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #21263 - #21283 For Mr Kluytmans: Oh dear, we may once more be in strong disagreement. You make a distinction between "information" and "person", and on it base a conclusion that the "information" should have no rights and cannot be a person. One way we can think of preserving ourselves past the time at which our medicine gives out would be to keep our information on hand. I will add that for many practical reasons this idea may not be implemented for a LOOOONG time, but ignoring that, such a practise would help our survival if our body (and so our brain) were even totally destroyed. Now rights (and responsibilities) come not from any objective physical facts but from social arrangements between those who participate in them. If I keep the information needed to make a duplicate of myself as of a given date (which I will likely renew often) then IF this method is to work as a means of preservation, that information will have to have rights. Sure, if you want to live in a society in which your information has no rights, you can do so --- but you may have abolished one way to survive for much longer. The main right this information has is that it will be turned into a living human being (or if you prefer to be a living superhuman being, into that) when and if you and your body have somehow become totally destroyed. (Perhaps your spaceship malfunctioned and dove into the Sun). Although similar things have happened today to real cryonicists, I am not proposing such duplication now because it's clearly impractical. But when and if it becomes possible, it may well be used often by lots of people. So explain your attitude to the information which totally describes a person. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21287