X-Message-Number: 3761
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 22:00:58 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Uploading


"Bruce Zimov" <> Wrote:

	>Getting your understanding of physics from popular books
	>borders on the fallacy of appeal to authority. 
Being accused of making an appeal to authority is a very serious
charge in my book ,so I hope I'll be forgiven for responding at
length, some may want to skip this section as it has little to
do with Cryonics.
You may indeed know more physics that Heinz Pagels ,or anybody
else , but my problem is I have no way of knowing that when you
don't say one word refuting the facts. If you've found that The
Principle of The Identity Of Indiscernibles is not true or
Exchange Forces are not important don't keep it a secret ,tell
the world! Then rent a tuxedo for the ceremonies and buy a
ticket to Stockholm. I  post to Cryonet to learn, if I've made
an factual or logical error point it out ,the education would be
worth the brief embarrassment and I'd thank you for it. 
Taking a reputation into account is about induction, an appeal
to authority is about faith, there is a difference and its much
more  than a rhetorical distinction. Faith makes you believe in
something even if there is absolutely no evidence. For reasons I
have never understood most people  think this is a wonderful
virtue; if you actually have overwhelming evidence AGAINST
something yet still believe ,it's even more wonderful. Induction
is not like that, people can live without faith, I do, so do
most (all?) on this list , but nobody could live without
induction. The inductive principle simply stated is " The more
often things are found together, the more probable it becomes
that the same things will be found together in the future ". 
I can't prove this, it seems to work very well but that proves
nothing because we can't use induction to prove induction ;so
that leaves deductive reasoning but I wouldn't know how even to
begin to prove it with deduction and I don't know anybody who
can . We just have to accept it as an axiom of existence. I say
"have to" because it's even more basic than logic and it would
be impossible to function without it. It's not a question of
having faith and deciding to believe in induction, we have no
choice, that's the way our brains work, it's hard wired. Of the
100 million species of life on this planet only a few hundred
vertebrates and maybe a few of the higher mollusks (squids) are
capable of any deductive reasoning at all ,but all animals, even
a few  micro organisms ,are capable of some simple induction.
Will the laws of physics remain the same tomorrow as today and
so allow the sun to rise? Very probably, because they have
remained the same for as far back as we can go ( ignoring the
first nanosecond of the Big Bang), but inductive reasoning does
not engender certainty just high probability. A chicken expects
benevolence from the farmer because he has always acted that way
but one day he will chop his head off. Induction is about
probability and using a process to gain information. Faith is
about certainty and beliefs regardless of the evidence pro or
con.. Induction tell us that when somebody has been reliable in
the past they probably will be in the future too, that's why I
usually believe what I read in Nature or Science even when I
have not personally done the experiment. That's also why I never
believe what I read in The National Inquirer or The Weekly World News. 
OK, I feel much better now, back to Cryonics. 
	>If you understood Bell's theorem you'd know that the 2 items
	>influencing each other at such a distance are "strongly correlated".
Agreed . Some have suggested that all particles became strongly
correlated during the big bang  before the inflation phase
started when everything was less than a Planck distance away
from each other, this has not been confirmed experimentally so I
don't  I don't know if it's true or not and  again, I think this
has little or nothing to do with the question at hand.
	>Even though the brains and senses could be separated by
	>telepresence and distributed, this is TOTALLY irrelevant 
Strange, I would have thought it very relevant. You argument is
that two identical brains somehow produce different subjectivity
because the brains are in different positions but a brain can't
detect it's position. A brain without senses can't detect
anything. Senses can certainly change subjectivity so the
position of the sense input is of paramount importance but the
position of the brain is TOTALLY irrelevant.
	>Brain 1 located at A does subjectivity A. Brain 2 located at B
	>does subjectivity B. Terminating Brain 1 will cause the end     
	>of subjectivity A.
If two phonographs are synchronized and playing the same
symphony and you destroy one machine the music does not stop.
	>subjectivity B is not numerically identical to subjectivity A
Well, that's the question isn't it, I maintain they are
numerically ( feel free to place a similar adverb here) 
IDENTICAL , remember were talking about subjectivity here, not
about brains or bodies or some other object. It's really not
that difficult, if two brains are doing the same thing then the
thing their doing (mind) is the same. If a small car and a large
truck are traveling at exactly 60 mph then their speed is
identical, numerically and every other way. The objects are
quite different but what they are doing , moving at 60 mph, is
exactly the same. If the truck comes to a stop and then
accelerates back up to the original speed, it is moving at the
same 60 mph not a different 60 mph.  
	>Brain 1 is not just the material at A, but the organization of
	>material at A.  The material can change, but the organization is
	>stable enough to continue to produce subjectivity A.
	>When that organization is lost, then subjectivity A is lost. We
	>freeze heads to stop the degradation of that organization, the 

	>actual material involved is secondary, and will be  repaired and
	>swapped out somewhat
	>in any nano-reanimation scheme. 
Surprisingly I find myself agreeing with every word. Yes, a
brain can produce subjectivity but a brain is not subjectivity,
a car can produce speed but a car is not speed. I'm glad you
used the word "organization", preserving the organization of the
brain means preserving the structural information in it so you
can arrange the parts into a functional whole. It might not  be
necessary for the parts to be as small as molecules, as small as
neurons or a bit smaller might  be good enough, but you could if
needed. Once the information is recorded the original brain is
no longer needed . I agree with you that the actual material
involved is of secondary importance, at best .

				  John K Clark         

Version: 2.6.i


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3761