X-Message-Number: 4133
From: 
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 16:42:46 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS misc.

Thanks to Bruce Zimov (#4130) for the Lutz/Nilsson bits and the comments.
Cryonics Institute investigators will try to follow up some of these
suggestions as soon as possible--hopefully within two years, maybe some much
earlier. 

John Clark (#4121) thinks some on Cryonet are only comfortable with a
mechanical explanation of consciousness as long as the mechanism remains
"safely unknown." I don't recall any such indications. 

Brian Wowk (#4127) said several things very well--in particular to the effect
that IT'S PEACHY KEEN TO BE A MACHINE, because machines can be repaired and
improved. I would LOVE to have all parts/aspects of me uploadable,  because
that would greatly improve my chances; I only note the possibility of
nonuploadability of the self circuit because I try to face reality. I am
skeptical about complete uploading for the same reason I am skeptical about
"paranormal" phenomena, which I would also love to be true--viz., there are
gaping holes in the evidence. It is still possible that there are psi
phenomena, and it is still possible that the self can be uploaded, but the
evidence is weak. 

However, I don't agree with Brian that the arguments about uploading are a
waste of time. It is difficult to phrase this concisely or persuasively, but
my impression is that HARDLY ANYBODY in the scientific community takes such
questions (or any "philosophical" questions) seriously, i.e. as matters of
life and death, of overriding personal importance.  Almost to the last man
and woman, they are just dilettantes and kibitzers, basket weaving while
waiting to die. These discussions may conceivably have an oblique effect on
these attitudes, and if attitudes shift enough in some important people, we
may get some needed help.

Jim Davidson (#4128)  makes good criticisms of Yvan Bozzonetti's posting on
world economies and polities. But I find Mr. Bozzonetti's bravura scientific
speculations highly enjoyable, and I am frankly dazzled by his apparent
(superficial?) familiarity with some esoteric areas of physics and biology.
If I had the time to pay very close attention and follow up and fill in the
background, maybe it would turn out to be all hand-waving. But if I had to
make a bet, I would bet that Mr. Bozzonetti might occasionally bag us some
game.

As to Mr. Bozzonetti's question, why more immortalists don't engage in long
term projects, the short answer is that, for most of us most of the time, we
have all we can do to cope with the present and near future, including our
strategies for cryostasis. Beyond that, long term projects such as planting
trees or whatever could easily be made irrelevant by future developments; it
doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to plan in detail for the distant future, except in the broadest
strategies, beginning with personal survival.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4133