X-Message-Number: 2712
From: 
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 18:56:21 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS have fun

Mike Darwin's stories emphasize that we not only do not yet know the
appropriate criteria of survival/identity, but that such questions may not
HAVE any answers, of a kind welcome or acceptable to us. The universe is not
necessarily user-friendly.  But new possibilities and options open up so
rapidly that I remain optimistic.

Strehler's thoughts, as Mike recalls them, are similar to old Eastern ideas
of all-in-all, that we share being with each other and with other creatures.
If the Self Circuit is generic in its pattern (and to some degree at least it
must be) then we are not far from Lee Corbin's idea that duplicates share
identity, and we should be willing to suffer and die  (locally) if that will
help maximize joy to the world.

But all this is simply premature. We can't just speculate from intuition.  We
need to know what IS, and what OUGHT to be.

In the simplest case, knowledge of the physical nature of the Self Circuit
will tell us what constitutes basic satisfaction (as contrasted with
derivative satisfactions and delusions based on habit and brainwashing). We
may then know what we ought to want--which will usually be very different
from what we want in practice, on the level of personal plans and strategies.


When we know what we ought to want, the problem (from the standpoint of the
individual, if the concept of the individual proves valid) then becomes that
of maximizing personal satisfaction over future time--assuming we continue to
believe that our planned actions can only affect the future, and not the past
or present. The trickiest part may be adjusting plans for feedback; we do not
plan to satisfy present wants necessarily, but to satisfy the wants we ought
to have, and try to achieve, at the appropriate time. It is an iterative
process based on probability theory and feedback, and probably requiring the
deliberate modification of our own character. 

And if  cryonics is an unwelcome idea to most people, this will be much
worse, because it says you cannot achieve maximum happiness or success by
being "good" but only (if at all) by making complex calculations and
sometimes acting against your gut feelings.  It  will require a high level of
both intellect and discipline/courage.

Mike points out, correctly, that understanding the Self Circuit will not in
itself answer all questions--at least not necessarily. For example, the
apparent paradoxes of continuity remain--UNLESS  we need and achieve a full
understanding of time, and this proves to be the key.  If causal loops in
time and bootstrap quantics prove to have any basis, for example, everything
changes.

On a common-sense basis, we have to compromise for the time being. We cannot
work directly for the well being of our far-distant-future selves, for three
reasons. First, we don't yet know how. Second, we don't  yet know whether we
"ought" to regard these continuers/successors as self or their existence as
our survival. Third, the first approximation is always to give most weight to
the concerns nearest in space and time--you are more concerned about
tomorrow's self than next year's, other things equal. 

We can't be sure the contented cow is wrong, or the TV-watching, beer
guzzling couch potato.  Maybe cuds, beer, and sitcoms are the best there is,
or the best available in practice.  And very few are comfortable with the
idea that  the universe is large, dark, dangerous, and possibly fundamentally
hostile. But most people seem to have enjoyed life most when engaged in
crusades of one sort or another. Our particular crusade--to learn and enjoy
as much as possible--has the virtue of ultimate honesty, and the possibility
of unlimited reward.

R.C.W. Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2712