X-Message-Number: 32884
From: Brook Norton <>
Subject: survival not logically possible
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:50:49 +0000 (GMT)

Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed


Brook: The initial assumption that is wrong with all survival thought 
experiments is "there is some essential human quality, that when preserved, 
results in survival of that person."


David: Why is that assumption wrong? If it was wrong then it is also wrong to 
believe that you are the same person when you wake up each morning.


Brook (this post): Words are slippery. One could say a rock "survives" an 
avalanche if it is mostly undamaged and that would be a reasonable use of the 
word "survive"; a convenient way to show similarity over time. But to say a 
PERSON "survives" over time has different meaning, implying some other 
identity-critical quality is passed from earlier to later times. There is no 
such quality. And yes, it is wrong to believe you are the "same person" each 
morning, each successive moment for that matter.
----- next point -------

Brook: I believe you have to totally step away from the mind set of "I" am a 
person, unique and separate from the universe and my uniqueness must be 
maintained. Instead, see yourself from a third party distant observer, where 
each human is a collection of molecules, interacting with their environment in 
essentially the same way as inanimate objects. The human's awareness is a 
special property, but no more special than temperature or weight, to the 
observer.


David: that is another place where I believe you error. I can't step away from 
my point of observation and experience, Me and you can only experience things in
our own unique and different brains. I submit that a 3rd party observer may not
be able to tell an original from a duplicate, but that has nothing to do with 
whether a person survives through a duplicate when the original (the one that 
wants to survive) has been destroyed.


Brook (this post): If the third party observer cannot in principle tell an 
original from a duplicate, then there is so significant difference between them.
In every meaningful way they are equal, regardless of how they got there 
(duplication, creation from scratch molecules, whatever).
----- next point -------

David: Also, as all other opponents have done for 25 years, you have 
side-stepped the telling question. It is just a yes or no answer that tells what
you really believe so long as you answer honestly. If you were convinced an 
exact duplicate was sitting across from you, would you then mind if you (the 
original) were killed and the duplicate were to live on instead of you?

Brook (this post): It's not a yes or no answer because the question assumes 
survival "to live on" of an identity-critical quality. The question is flawed 
and unanswerable, like "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" Yes or no.


At first glance, it appears absurd to believe we don't survive moment to moment,
but let me throw out this thought that may put a small crack in that belief. 
Clearly, evolution is a driving force in shaping individuals optimized for the 
continuation of their genes, the beings that possess those genes, and the 
species those beings belong to. The human brain is complex enough to be able to 
visualize the future and make plans for a favorable outcome, generally one which
enhances the likelihood of continuation of genes, persons, and society. Our 
brains motivate by releasing endorphins to make us feel good when we do the 
"right" things. Visualizing our future and planning for it feels good, so we do 
it a lot, and this process deeply ingrains in us the idea that there is a 
crucial link between our current and future selves. But what if we are just 
slaves of an evolutionary brain-mechanism? What if that "survival" instinct is 
evolution's way to keep the genes going, but in reality does not logically 
mandate that there is some essence or identity-critical quality that passes from
moment to moment. I think the view there is an identity-critical quality is a 
mistake, an evolution-induced mirage. Continuation of the genes, evolutionary 
pressure, and our joy at a good plan are all completely describable without 
reference to an identity-critical quality, and thus, describable without 
reference to "personal survival". We can "continue" (in large part, never 100% 
unchanged) but not "survive". And we can "continue" as a corpse, as an upload, 
as a duplicate, whatever - all equal options as continuers - but there are no 
survivors. And so concern over which is the true way to survive is misguided 
concern.

Brook
Content-type: multipart/related;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_FJybpdQRZfHWVlRx9uQEjA)"; type="text/html"



 Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32884