X-Message-Number: 6353 Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:33:40 -0700 From: Tim Freeman <> Subject: CRYONICS Souls, etc. >I have a good question for anyone who cares to answere it. Lets say you >freeze the brain or body or whatever so you can preserve it to revive the >person later. If the person can be revived will it be the person >themselves or a shell of a person? Your body may be active but wouldnt >your soul be long gone?? You may have the body but not what makes a >person a person, only a zombie. Please correct me if I am wrong because >I am just learning about all this stuff. Define soul, "shell of a person", zombie, and person. Depending on how you define these words, you can cause cryonics to fail by definition even if it happens as hoped by the participants. The world does not tell you what definitions to use, and I can't either. For instance, we can define a "person" by continuity of electrical brain activity. Then people who have taken lots of barbiturates and recovered may not be the same person any more, because barbiturates can turn off electrical brain activity in a way that can sometimes be restarted if the person is kept breathing by artificial means long enough for the barbiturates to pass out of the body. But they obviously remember, and they can even argue philosophy if they want to. Hypothermia can have the same effect. Hypothermia is used in some heart surgery, so we can twist things around to say that people who have successfully undergone this surgery have by definition died (that is, ceased to be the same person). The only good way I can think of to decide what definitions to use is to decide what you want to accomplish, then to give names to the abstractions that you need to think about to accomplish the goal. The name is the word you are defining, and the definition is the abstraction. It helps if you choose the names so the definition is similar to what other people expect, so they can remember it easily. Some bad ways to decide what definitions to use are: 1. to choose them to support some pre-existing conclusion that was not carefully thought out, or 2. to try to choose them "right" according to pre-existing emotional attitudes that have not been examined to see whether they are consistent with what you want to accomplish, or 3. to define things to fit with the stated opinions of some authority figure, without first determining what goals that authority figure has, whether those goals are consistent with yours, and whether they had enough sense to choose useful definitions. Tim Freeman Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6353