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