X-Message-Number: 4176
From: 
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 13:18:01 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS survival

Bruce Zimov's posting #4171 seemed nearly 100% correct to me; he is always
very pertinent and clear.

I don't use "self circuit" to imply self consciousness in any intellectual
sense, but just to indicate that it permits the existence of a self or a
sentient being or subjectivity. But in view of the possible misinterpretation
I'll agree that "subjective circuit" is better.

Concerning survival criteria, I think Dr. Zimov is on shakier ground. I
heartily agree that a person is not a mere abstract pattern; if that were the
case we (and everyone and everything conceivable or allowable by the laws of
physics) would all exist at all times, in much the same sense that a number
"exists" whether or not there exists any physical set with that count. But
the question of "survival" through duplicates and related questions are not
so obvious. 

As a well-worn example, consider the beam-me-up machine, which can
nondestructively scan a person down to the last atom, disassemble him, and
almost instantly reassemble him, either at the same location or elsewhere.

If the location is unchanged, and if the subject (victim?) were unaware, "he"
would notice nothing. From the point of view of an observer, it is also
difficult to see why this is not survival--or if you wish, revival after a
hiatus, perhaps not so very different from the hiatus of a coma or cryonic
suspension or even deep sleep.

Of course, if he is copied without being disassembled, or if he is
disassembled but then copied twice or more, we have trouble with intuition.
(The question of using the "same" atoms does not seem important.) But some
feel intuition just needs reeducation here, and indeed it is hard to argue
against this view.

Many writers think continuity is important, as Dr. Zimov seems to do, and
only continuers maintain identity or constitute survival. If there is no
continuity, then maybe it is a different instance, implying a different
person. But this view also runs into problems.

Perhaps one of the deepest problems with "continuity" involves the nature of
time. If time is quantized or discrete--if there are quanta or atoms of
time--then perhaps there is no survival at all, even in the ordinary course
of life, because a different "you" makes the quantum jump from the previous
one with the tick of every chronon.

Not only objective time has relevance here, but subjective time also, perhaps
more so. In order to feel or experience, presumably there must be an EVENT,
not just a quantum STATE. But events span time, suggesting that a feeling or
subjective experience must  include a non-zero time interval or more than one
chronon. In other words, subjectivity is time binding. 

How much time? It is usually said that at least 1/20 second is required for
the brain to recognize one event as distinct from another. But this may be
highly variable; also, other conceivable living systems might have different
resolving power. In any case, it becomes very knotty.

One possible (emphasize "possible") advantage of the concept of the
subjective circuit is that, if it turns out to be something dynamic although
stable, vaguely analogous to a standing wave or a resonance, then it might be
seen to have something of an all-or-nothing character, more or less on the
order of pregnancy. This might largely vitiate the partial-survival problem.
But it might also mean that any hiatus is fatal.

The main lesson, I think, is that we are far short of the information base we
need--in physics, in biology, and in philosophy--to come to any firm
conclusion yet on criteria of survival. The importance of filling this
information gap can hardly be overemphasized.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4176