X-Message-Number: 2246
Date: 14 May 93 06:47:26 EDT
From: Mike Darwin <>
Subject: neuro vs. whole body

	Since I am one of the "grand old men" advocating the neuro idea I
couldn't resist throwing in some comments of my own.

	First of all, I must say that I agree that we probably throw away
some identity-information when we discard our bodies.  In some cases it
might even be very important information depending upon the
value-structure of the individual.  However, in most cases I think the
loss when weighed against the benefit is small.  It goes almost (but not
quite) without saying that each individual must weigh these factors for
his or herself before choosing the neuro option.

	More specifically, I would like to comment on the notion
put-forth by the likes of Candice Pert (a neuroendocrinologist) and
others that the brain and immune system are sort of the same organ and
that by discarding your immune system you may be losing vital
identity-critical information.  While Ms. Pert is certainly right that
the brain and immune system are intimately linked and do interact, it is
questionable whether this linkage is identity-critical.  Here we must
define identity-critical.  I will do this broadly and sloppily here, but
in a way that I think few will disagree with.  Identity-critical is meant
to comprise those elements of mentation and personality which are
necessary for the integrated function of a person's mind/personality.  So
for instance, having your memories survive on a floppy disk is NOT
sufficient, since a floppy disk is not a person.  Nor (as I would point
out to Garret Smyth) is it sufficient to have a person's memories alone
survive.  Garret's memories superimposed on my brain (what a HORRIBLE
thought, just thinking about all those sordid heterosexual (ha ha)
encounters is enough to make me ill!) would not be Garret.

	And it is at just this juncture that we get into stickier
territory.  What IS personal identity?  This question must be asked and
answered before we can proceed in any rigorous way.  Since I do not wish
to write a dissertation for Ph.D. I will not recieve, I will not tackle
that subject here in any detail.  Rather, I will point out that the kind
of thing our skeptic and Ms. Pert are talking about is likely to be
subtle differences which occur as the result of getting a new body.  For
instance, maybe a central feature of your personality is crankiness
caused by frequently low blood sugar which is in turn the result of
changes in your pancreas which occuured while you were in utero as a
result of a drug your mother took during pregnancy.  When you get
reconstituted you will have a "normal" pancreas and perhaps a different
personality as well.  I use this as an arbitrary example, but hopefully
you get my point.

	Similarly, a clone of you may not have the same genes turned on as
you do.  Some genes are expressed or unexpressed during development not as
a result of programming but rather as a result of chance and the influence
of many no doubt unknown, and thus unreproduceable effects.  Ditto many
other fine details of development; identical twins don't have identical 
fingerprints, retinal prints, abilities, disabilities or even (in some
cases) sexual orientations. As I have often said in the past: your DNA is
a recipie, NOT a blueprint.   Presumably all of these things could impact
upon your personality and thus perhaps upon your identity.

	So much for the theory, now lets talk about "facts."  Let's start
with Ms. Pert and her immune system theories vis a vis identity.  Just how
critical is having an immune system to human mentation?  And just as
important does losing your immune system alter your identity in any
grossly observable way?

	Fortunately, or unfortunately, (depending upon your point of
view) there are people with varying degrees of malfunction of their
immune systems.  There are people with severe combined immune deficiency
(SCID) who have essentially no immune system at all.  A clever experiment
was done with one such person, a boy named David, who was raised to
almost the age of puberty.  He appeared to be a normal person in almost
every way -- this is remarkable considering the fact that he was never
touched by human hands during virtually all of his life.  Similarly,
people with AIDS amnd other immune system defects do not lose their
identities because they have lost one or both arms of their immune
systems (granted they may DIE from this and thus lose their identities,
but that's not what we're talking about here).  Also, people have lost
their immune systems as adults (such as with aplastic anemia and total
body irradiation) and they do not seem to lose their minds or become
zombies....

	People have also had transplants of their immune systems, as well
as transplants of almost all of their abdominal and thoracic organs
(sometimes as many as 6 organs transplanted AT ONCE).  These people also
do not seem to change in some terrible way or to feel "alienated from
their bodies," etc).  Mostly, these people just feel BETTER and, as I can
attest from YEARS of first-hand contact with such people, they usually
report "feeling just like my old self again..."

	People woith spinal cord injuries, including complete transection
of the cord, also do not report sudden changes in their identity other
than those unhappy emotional and physical sensations directly
attributable to being turned into a profoundly disabled person.  

	My point here is a simple one, really.  While it is unfortunate
that this is so, the natural world has provided us with many examples of
persons who have experienced loss and/or replacement of many non-brain
body parts including the loss/replacement of their ENTIRE immune system.
 While there may be subtle changes in these individuals' personality, no
gross changes have been observed.  By contrast, damage to people's brain
produces PROFOUND observable change to their mentation, memory,
personality and so on.  Any by the way, brain damage often produces
exactly the feelings of alienation from the body or of "things not being
right," which critics of neurosuspension worry so much about.  Indeed,
even the phantom limb syndrome is now though to have its origins in the
brain, rather than in the body.
   
	More to the point, just the generally debilitating experience of
surviving to an advanced age probably has a far greater impact on
personality and identity than getting a new body is likely to.  The
massive loss of neurons and functional capacity in every organ system,
the necessity (in many cases) with advancing age to use drugs which alter
perception, mentation, and probably personality is accepted today without
so much as a raised eyebrow.  Indeed, the effect of ACE inhibitors,
propranalol, antidepressants not to mention recreational drugs probably
does more to alter mentation (identity?) than any of us would be
comfortable with if we could only see the effects of these things
clearly.

	So, what is an acceptable amount of change or alteration in
"identity?"  Are you still you after a stroke that leaves you emotionally
labile, crying over the most trivial things, throwing tantrums over
nothing and being intellectually unable to do complex maths?  This is a
very real question to be answered by hundreds of thousands of people and
their loved ones.  Sadly, it is a question that will be confronted by a
significant number of those of you reading this message -- if you live
long enough....  

	What is the bottom line?  It appears that most of us live mostly
in our brains.  While our pancreas' and livers contribute to who we are,
the question we MUST ask and answer is HOW MUCH DO THEY CONTRIBUTE?  And
just as importantly, *how much is that contribution worth when weighed
against the cost of taking our livers along with us on a difficult and
COSTLY journey?*  In the final analysis this a highly personal decision. 
While it can be argued convincingly that taking one's whole body along is
the most conservative approach (from an information standpoint), it can
also be argued that this is an approach fraught with peril when the long
view and the tempestuous nature of human institutions/civilization is
considered.  Luckily, we live (at least so far) in a somewhat free and
somewhat resource rich society where people get to make those choices. 
As scientist, I await with interest the outcome of the experiment.  As a
potential participant in such an experiment I merely hope that I will
make the right choice when/if I get signed up again.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2246