X-Message-Number: 3613 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 21:48:10 -0600 (CST) From: Ken Wolfe <> Subject: CRYONICS As this is my first posting on CryoNet I suppose I should introduce myself briefly. My name is Ken Wolfe, I am a computer programmer at the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg. I became interested in cryonics a few months ago, and I am seriously considering making plans for cryopreservation. Anyway, on to my comments... Bruce Zimov writes in 3585 (begin quote) In Case One, the surgeon performs a hundred operations. In each of these, he removes a hundreth part of my brain, and inserts a replica of this part. In Case Two, the surgeon follows a different procedure. He first removes all of the parts of my brain, and then inserts all of their replicas......In Case One, the surgeon alternates between removing and inserting. In Case Two, he does all the removing before all the inserting. Can this be the difference between life and death? Can my fate depend on this difference in the ordering of removals and insertions? Can it be so important, for my survival, whether the new parts are, for a time, joined to the old parts?" Parfit wrote this in 1984. As a philosopher and a physicist interested in cryonics and uploading, I more than anyone want this process to work, but to date I have only seen this naive giddy enthusiasm about the upload process, including works by Merkle, et.al., without addressing the seriousness of the identity problem. The time, money , and effort of the cryonics organizations in preservation is evidence that they want to reverse suspension to return the same brain to consciousness, and not to preserve the source just to destroy it so that some clone may live. (end quote) To me this sounds like a variation of the identity and duplication issue. We had a very interesting discussion about this at the cryonics room party at the World SF Convention in Winnipeg last September. Basically, the issue is as follows: if an exact duplicate is made of you, presumably by nanomachines cataloging every neuron, synapse and other cell (non-destructively) and then recreating you, and then for whatever reason one of you must be destroyed, do you care which one it is? In other words, is that duplicate just as much you as the original? I confess an emotional attachment to the original, and I have been trying to find some rational justification for this. The best I can come up with is this: my brain is undergoing gradual change, and is metabolizing even as I write this. As long as the change in my brain is gradual and not interrupted my major trauma, my identity is maintained. If it receives irreperable trauma, or is destroyed completely, my identity is gone forever. Even if information on my brain is kept in sufficient detail to make a duplicate indistinguishable from the original, it will be a new identity, not me. So how can I justify my commitment to cryonics? Cryopreservation certainly seems to qualify as major trauma to the brain, but if the freezing damage can be reversed or repaired by some means which does NOT mean simply 'reading' my brain structure and making a duplicate, I maintain that it is still the same brain, having changed little since before it was put in suspension. Therefore, it is still me. Comments...? Robin Andro writes in 3589 Ibegin quote) Basically, I feel the cryonics movement desperately needs a lot more money; the money could most easily come from the very rich; the very rich will not take us seriously unless we have a well-thought-out, responsible and mutually beneficial way of dealing with their finances as well as their physical existence. (end quote) I don't think that the main thing preventing more people from committing themselves to the idea of cryonics is worry about money or financial security. I think it is simply a mental block about death. Five thousand and some odd years ago somebody wrote about the failed attempt of Gilgamesh to seek immortality. Ever since then, our whole evolving culture has dreamed of immortality but somehow in practice has worked around the assumption of death's inevitability. That is a lot of cultural baggage to overcome, most people find it very difficult. Cryonics presents a profound paradigm shift. I think the question becomes what people are best prepared to take that paradigm shift. That is where advertising and promotion might bear fruit. Suggestions are people who are used to thinking about the long term future (not just dreaming about it like most Trekkers and such), such as people involved in the Foresight Institute or the First Foudnation or space advocacy groups. Best regards. Ken Wolfe | Fax: I hate fax machines Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | Compu$erve: | GEnie: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3613