X-Message-Number: 3642
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 15:30:30 -0500
From: 
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS survival, misc.

As usual, an unsatisfactory compromise between brevity and clarity. Actually,
clarity (at the receiving end, at least) is probably a mirage, even with a
book-length discussion, on which I have been working for some time. But let's
try again--and please forgive the rambling.

First, the problem of identity might better be called the problem of survival
criteria. 

Second, many ignore the problem of arriving at criteria for criteria. They
tend to rely on feelings or intuition, totally failing to achieve rigor or
anything close to it. Anyone after Einstein ought to realize that what seems
obviously true can be in fact wrong. Extreme care and caution are required in
handling such slippery and complex issues.

Third, thought experiments alone will not solve our problem, although they
can help a little. On the basis of thought experiments, for example, it seems
to me equally difficult to believe that continuity is important or that it is
not important, that a duplicate is you or is not you. We need more than
thought experiments: we need more information, in particular on the self
circuit and on time or space-time.
Just as the ancient philosophers aspired beyond their capabilities, so do
those who try to make final decisions on the basis of current knowledge.

Now a few specific responses to recent postings:

Charles Platt has selectively quoted one of my postings and ignored other
relevant parts of the same posting. I'm sure he did it not to win debating
points but just because all of us tend to pay attention selectively. I did
NOT say or imply that only mammals could have feeling; indeed I specifically
noted there were other possibilities. 

For that  matter, I have never denied the POSSIBILITY that inorganic systems,
including "computers" of some kind, could have feeling. What I have always
insisted upon is that there CANNOT be such an ASSUMPTION, for the very simple
reason that we do not yet know the physical basis of feeling (the "self
circuit.")

For newcomers--and maybe some old hands need reminding too--a description or
an analog of a thing is not the thing, and will not NECESSARILY be able to
perform ALL the functions of the thing SIMULTANEOUSLY. One can describe and
predict the behavior of a hydrogen atom with a computer, or with pencil and
paper for that matter; but neither a computer nor a notebook can substitute
for a hydrogen atom. It is conceivable that "information is everything" in
SOME sense, but it is also possible, even likely, that ONLY a hydrogen atom
can contain ALL the information about itself in the volume and mass of a
hydrogen atom. By the same token, it is conceivable that ONLY an organic
brain can host a self.

Turing's tape is the paradigm general purpose computer, which can in
principle perform any calculation that any computer--serial or parallel--can.
But it can't do two things at once, which may well be essential for a self,
as it is for many objects and systems in the real world. For those who rely
on intuition to any extent, just try to imagine a Turing Tape as being a
"person."

Mr. Platt also suggests that I have tried to prove machines can't be
intelligent. This is wrong on two counts. 

First,. I have never claimed to "prove" that machines have any limitations
(for that matter, WE are machines, or "mechanisms" if you prefer, as is the
entire universe)--just that one cannot  ASSUME that ordinary computers, or
anything similar, could have feelings or consciousness.

Second, I have repeatedly and emphatically insisted that intelligence is not
the stuff of life or humanity or consciousness: the central role goes to
FEELING, the capacity to experience pleasure and pain and the like, the
subjective condition.

Thomas Donaldson points out that if ONLY the "self circuit" were to survive,
without memories etc., this would be a very unsatisfactory outcome. Of
course. But it might be better than nothing (as the "reincarnation" people
seem to think)--whereas if memories etc. survived WITHOUT the self circuit,
EVERYTHING  would be lost, YOU would be gone, and in fact there would be NO
ONE there.

Mr. Platt failed to debunk my proof that the Turing Test is neither necessary
nor sufficient to prove humanity. 

It is NOT intelligence we are trying to prove. EVERY computer/program has
intelligence of some kind and degree. We have computers NOW that are more
intelligent in some areas than people--but I don't think anyone claims they
are conscious. Surely you must, then, admit that even if the computer/program
is so bright it  fools everybody, it still MIGHT not be conscious. It is
possible to be intelligent (in most senses of the word) yet unconscious; it
is also possible to be conscious and stupid.

The point is, for the umpteenth time, we do not yet know what underlies
consciousness and feeling--and no respondent can prove he has it just by
making conversation. Of course it is possible that, at some time in the
future, we might enounter a machine or a life form of questionable
consciousness, and have  a hard time finding criteria for decision. That
doesn't change anything. 

We must first discover the physical nature of the self circuit in animals;
after that we will be in a better position to speculate whether it can exist
on an inorganic substrate and what a generalized rquirement might be.

Mr. Platt says an impaired human would be less intelligent than normal. Not
necessarily. Many dyslexic people, for example, have superior intelligence in
most ways--yet a Turing auditor might fail them.

Is the question of survival criteria a serious one in the context of
cryonics? As Mr. Platt suggests, probably not, for the most part. Most of our
prospects will simply assume that if a revival succeeds that will constitute
survival. But I think there really are at least a few people--perhaps a few
important people--who hang back because they think uploading may save them
and more cheaply.

Besides that, the mere discussion of these issues may awaken some minds to
wider horizons, a sense of awe and adventure and unbounded possibilities.
Haven't we heard, over and over, "Who wants to come back? I'm tired of life
already." I believe there may be many people who are not as sunken in apathy
as that, but also not yet fully alive to the vastness of the potentialities
and rewards ahead of us.

Steve Harris mentions the factor of FEAR of cryonics, as opposed to mere
skepticism, and I am sure that plays a part, and have discussed it at some
length. 

He also observes, along with myself and others, that people in cryonics tend
to be--crudely speaking--failures IN THEIR OWN ESTIMATION, people who have
not achieved the success or recognition to which they aspired--even though
they may be successful enough by ordinary standards. Even a very rich man
might fit this description. 

But the key word is TENDS. In the longer run, neither fear nor one's
self-estimation is going to play much of a role. We may start as a small
group of revolutionaries, but as the revolution grows it matures into a new
establishment. In the longer run--which could begin rather soon--we will have
working for us not just the simple desire to live (which still has SOME
force) but also the bandwagon. In the end, few will want others dancing on
their graves.

About Mr. Bozzonetti: I am fascinated by his writings, and impressed by his
apparent breadth of information and imagination (not to mention humor). I
don't have competence in most of these areas, and perhaps, as others suggest,
most of his ideas are wrong. Maybe he's just blowing smoke. We'll see.  I
can't help hoping he has a nugget or two in there somewhere.

I'd better stop before Mae clobbers me for straying so long from my pile of
"real" work.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3642