X-Message-Number: 5584
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 21:09:13 -0800
From:  (Dwight G. Jones)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #5565 - #5575
References: <>

Joseph Strout wrote:

> In Message #5563, Dwight Jones wrote in reply to Bob Ettinger:
> 

> > > If Mr. Jones only wants his DNA preserved, and would be satisfied with a 
new

> > > "instantiation" as a "clone" of himself--as his message seems to say--then
he

> > > has made assumptions about the nature of identity and criteria of survival
> > > that are not warranted by available evidence.
> >
> > What evidence? The Church of Man takes the view that your clone is you,
> > if only because two pieces of chemistry with 6 billion identical parts
> > (DNA) cannot be anything but identical.
> 
> I would think this sufficient reason to question the wisdom (not to
> mention knowledge) of that Church.  If personal identity is defined by
> genes, then identical twins are the same person.  If you have a twin
> brother, then you should be able to calmly kill yourself, since you live
> on just as well in him.  (A clone, of course, is exactly a twin brother
> or sister, no more or less.)  My father and uncle in law are twins, but
> I'd really rather you didn't kill either one of them.


Understanding this relationship is a prime project for the Church. Indeed, if 
the COM has one article of faith, it is that 
these two individuals are units of the same phenomenon.


Let's consider your example. Using your analysis, you could kill your twin 
brother almost remorselessly. We all know that 
family members are dear above all others- why is this? Simple familiarity?


Twins are not the same item as identical twins, fraternal doesn't count here 
(although fraternal twins are very close 

themselves. It's just that identical twins are eerie-close. Simple separation 
from each other causes anguish.
> 
> This is a very interesting viewpoint.  I've been doing quite a bit of
> reading on personal identity in the last couple years, and this is the
> first time I've ever heard anyone, from a religious OR secular viewpoint,
> seriously suggest that identity is defined by genotype.
> 
> > That is evidence, what evidence do you have that these idividuals are
> > different?
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming.  For example: one answers to "Bob", and the
> other to "Tom", therefore they are different (and I'd say that's a pretty
> important difference, too).  One's an engineer, the other a business
> manager; each can do things the other can't do.  One sleeps with Martha,
> the other with Betsy.  The list goes on and on...  [names were changed]


These are necessary circumstantial differences. The issue here is can IDENTITY 
be a pluralistic phenomenon? Can there indeed 

be 30 of you running around and have us still speak of this "group" being you? 
Our position is Yes!


Certainly having clones of yourself wouldn't cancel your identity, we know that.
Let's suppose the 30 of you are crammed into 

one room and all staring at each other. There'd be a moment of silence. There'd 
be a moment of understanding. Right away you 

would want to have some strategy for time-slicing your presence in Life, on 
Earth, in the Universe. 


The position of the Church is that each unit of it shall carry the entire DNA 
complement of the entire Churcvh. This is the 

way some religions like Judaism work, with each parish representing the entire 
Church. Such an approach gives us time to 

colonize Venus,e.g. (much more likely than Mars, we have an atmosphere to work 
with), other planets, time to carry ourselves 

across the stars. Note we do NOT turn into cyborgs, indeed Cyborgs promise to be
formidable competitors to us. The Church of 

Man's only mandate is to preserve your genetic blueprint forever. It doesn't 
mean you can bring your hip replacement with you 
 :-)


I do not pretend to have this figured out to its logical conclusion, like I say 
it's an article of faith. This is why I think 

we should keep the institution of the Church and change the books in the pews. 
Sounds sarcastic but I am most serious. The 

Church is what Man built when he realized he had powers, and it's what he has 
invested a lot of heart into. And I do know 

that when I let go of this life, there will be a lot of emotion for my Church 
and my fellow travellers.
> 
> > The key question: would nature and evolution regard them as
> > different or as the same phenomenon in two iterations?
> 
> No, the key question is: WHO are they?  


I think Nature regards two carrots (with identical DNA) as one phemenon in two 
pieces. Pluralistic identity is not something 
we have a tradition of philosophically but I think its time is coming.
> 
> It appears that your viewpoint arises from an emphasis on genetic
> evolution.  But as you pointed out, the human gene pool has not changed
> significantly in ten thousand years or more.  Yet in that time, human
> *culture* has evolved tremendously.  Not just in technology, but in
> religion, philosophy, arts, language, mathematics, etc.


So has the culture of insect colonies. Cultures are harmonics that can come and 
go, they are attending behaviour and customs 

that mass-produce adaption by individuals.  The atom can power us across space 
ot it can wipe our kind right off the 

blackboard. Right up to the minute it happened, you'd think we really had 
something going here. Right after it did, you'd 
KNOW we were rather primitive.
> 
> To me, this is no mystery: when a species reaches a level of intelligence
> and communication where information can readily be passed from parent to
> child, and from family to family, culture is born. 

Culture wasn't born recently, and it hasn't passed genetics yet.

 Cultural evolution
> quickly outpaces genetic evolution, though the driving forces are the
> same: customs and knowledge which increase reproductive success are
> selected for; detrimental customs (such as incest) are selected against.


Selection based on Ethology, on behaviour. OK. It has a role. But the engine 
remains at the mutation level, differential 

survival of genes shapes the descendants more surely than culture. You are a 
classical Lamarckian evolutionist.
> 
> Genetic evolution brought us to a key threshold many thousands of years
> ago; cultural evolution has brought us the rest of the way.  So it would
> seem that nowadays, genetic makeup is not what we need to preserve; our
> identity is much more defined by what we have absorbed from culture:
> ideas, skills, knowledge, habits, personality traits.


Every species wakes each a summer morning to the conclusion that its strategy 
has blossomed. Who can argue? Life is 

heaven and we are all in heaven. (I feel so sad for people like the Witnesses 
who claim we're in hell). From our 

human-centric perspective we view the World as ours alone and our interests as 
paramount. So does every species. We're just 

one idea among millions, beating around our lab as one more of Nature's 
experiments.


The Church of Man agrees with you. It is time to take another path, the human 
path instead of the genes' path. And our 

culture and technology are not inconsiderable, I'm not denigrating them, they're
what give us powers. But this is not a 

linear either/or proposition. All aspects can move forward in concert, including
the parallel game of the genes we bear.


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5584