X-Message-Number: 5625
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:55:10 -0800
From:  (Dwight G. Jones)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #5609 - #5620
References: <>

> From: dave <>

> 
> This morning there were several interesting postings on DNA storage vs
> whole body, cloning, and up/down loading.
> 
> I don't think any of them will insure survival of the individual.  As a
> cryonicists I am interested in my *self* surviving.
> 
> A long time ago we had this debate and lots of participants tried to come
> up with their definition of a "self."
> 
> Mine was "A person is an unbroken, evolving *pattern* of matter (matter and
> energy are same)."
> 
> If this definition still stands, then cryonics is the only way for a person
> of today to "survive."
> 
> Dave Pizer

I'm beginning to think that the real issue is whether or not existence 
can be pluralistic, i.e. what phenomena attend the simultaneous (or 
sequential)existence of identical genotypes (such as two identical 
twins).

Looking at your definition, I see the continuous "existence" of DNA 
(even when archived, if a phenotype is generated periodically)as 
fulfilling your specs. I know that you've got memories stashed in there 
somewhere, but I'm wondering if they are necessary or contingent to the 
success of our respective goals.

I forsee another boom in "cloning" popularity coming, such as was 
previewed by David Rorsach's "In His Image" sensation in the 70's. 
Except that this time people are going to believe it's possible, and 
they'll be right. From there it will explode.

The whole house of cards in cryonics hangs from this "memories" tendril. 
If existence comes to be understood as being more flexible than that, 
(and I am not diverting into spiritualism, I mean "mechanical" 
existence)- you may be in danger of missing an awesome boat ride.  :-)


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5625