X-Message-Number: 25429
From: "Brook Norton" <>
Subject: Survival Not Possible?
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:04:13 -0800

Richard B. R. comments on several ways in which things survive. His comments
illustrate how the entire train of thought can vary greatly on slight
differences in definitions of "survive". Richard points out that all matter
and energy survive due to the laws of conservation of matter and energy. So
yes, on that level things survive. And he points out that "nouns" survive
when a set of their properties continues to exist. And yes, on this level,
if one chooses to define survival as the continued existence of a set of
properties, then clearly many things are capable of survival at least in
part.

 

What I am objecting to is the higher level use of "survive" to mean that an
individual's "essence" continues through time and that some "essence" is
intrinsic in each person's identity. It is often questioned whether one
"survives" when one is, say, tele-transported to another location or time.
At the "noun" level of survival (defined above), the person survives because
a set of properties continues. But at the "essence" level, there is little
agreement as to whether the person "survives" tele-transportation (people
disagree on whether they would allow themselves to be tele-transported, even
when they know sets of properties will continue). My point is that there is
no special "essence" and so it is meaningless to discuss whether a person's
identity "survives". One must be satisfied to simply state that when
tele-transported, a certain set of properties continues in whole or in part.

 

Richard comments on whether I would want to be shot to death, given my views
of survival. The answer is "No!", but for non-obvious reasons. Natural
selection has created a complex human brain to increase the odds of
continuing our gene set through the generations. The first part of
continuing genes through generations is to continue through the moment so
that eventually we can procreate. Thus the strong survival INSTINCT. No, I
don't want to be shot, because my brain cries out "No!" because of my
INSTINCT. It is not some well reasoned response, but an instinct. An
instinct is the last thing you want to use as a guide to self enlightenment.

 

Our evolved (culture and) abilities to stay alive create the ILLUSION of the
survival of a personal essence. From an evolutionary standpoint it is very
useful to see yourself as separate from the universe and to protect yourself
from all external dangers. As we evolved, viewing ourselves as possessing an
essence was entirely consistent with our observations and experiences. But
now, with the looming prospect of cloning, nanotechnological duplication of
people, and uploading, the ancient view of self is not holding up to the
inevitable thought experiments. The instinctual, intuitive feeling of
survival of one's essence will therefore crumble, giving way to views that
are consistent with new knowledge and satisfying the modern thought
experiments (tele-transportation, time-transportation, uploading, etc.).

 

Richard also mentions that these views are in some way to relieve some pain
I feel. I believe there is some miscommunication here. Perhaps the above
will clarify my intention. I am not in any type of mental pain. In past
months and years, I have communicated that the above survival view is
troubling with regards to cryonics, but I am in an optimistic mindset these
days.

 

Brook



 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25429