X-Message-Number: 76 From att!sun!proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu!Timothy.Freeman Wed Apr 19 02:10:31 1989 Received: from Sun.COM (arpa-dev) by sun.Sun.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AB19246; Wed, 19 Apr 89 02:10:31 PDT Received: from PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA01530; Wed, 19 Apr 89 01:25:32 PDT Received: from PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU by PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Apr 89 04:21:36 EDT To: sun!att!ho4cad!kqb Subject: CRYONICS - Mind links, artificial hearts, automobiles, and language Date: Wed, 19 Apr 89 04:21:34 EDT Message-Id: <> From: sun!PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU!Timothy.Freeman Status: RO writes: > ... >To be short - I don't buy it. Let me ask you: would you rather control your >own destiny, or give up some or all of the responsibility for your thoughts >and life to some metapsychic octopus with a secret agenda? > ... >I'm leery of your "high bandwidth direct brain / computer interconnection". >The RISKs of such an interconnection are beyond estimation. > ... Many technologies have moved along the path from impossible to impractical/untrustworthy to practical to indespensible/ubiquitous. Most of them caused intense apprehension before they became commonly used. Language was invented so long ago that everyone uses it, and those few who don't or can't just don't make much of a difference in the world any more. Language has become indespensible and ubiquitous. Automobiles (and mechanical transportation in general) are quite common now. People used to be afraid that going too fast would somehow lead inevitably to suffocation or death. No one believes this now, they happily use cars or public transportation to get from point to point. Automobiles have become practical. Artificial hearts are possible now, but not reliable enough or cheap enough for people to routinely have them installed. Only people who have no choice have artificial hearts installed. The heart was once considered the organ that causes emotions, and a person who believed this would have reacted strongly against having their "soul" replaced by a mechanical device. Most people don't believe that their souls are in their hearts nowdays. Artificial hearts are possible, but generally impractical and untrustworthy. Also note that the technology for artificial hearts was developed in stages. Some of the stages were anesthesia, blood transfusions, learning to prevent infections, heart-lung machines, and heart transplants. Mind-links are not possible yet. The first people using forerunners of this technology don't have much choice; consider communication tools for paraplegics and nerve hookups for artificial limbs. The belief that "my soul" is attached to a particular brain will probably pass by the time there are usable replacements for brains, like the belief that "my emotions" are imbedded in my heart subsided before artificial hearts were invented. Between the present and the time for useful mind-links, there will be many small advances. Libraries will come on-line, networks will get faster, computers will get bigger and faster, better input devices will be invented, and so forth. It will all be a gradual thing. >To be short - I don't buy it. Let me ask you: would you rather control your >own destiny, or give up some or all of the responsibility for your thoughts >and life to some metapsychic octopus with a secret agenda? The same argument works against language. By communicating with others, you have less control over your thoughts. I bet you can't avoid thinking of a pink polar bear right now. For all you know, I have a secret agenda. In my opinion, doing interesting things is important, not being in control. >I mean, haven't you ever wished you could shut your ears the same way >you shut your eyes? What if you couldn't shut your eyes, either? I can turn off my computer, I can get rid of windows on the screen, I can kill processes that are running, I can use kill files to censor information when reading netnews. I expect that the number of useful ways to block out information will increase rather than decrease. >The RISKs of such an interconnection are beyond estimation. In the very long run, not doing such an interconnection will result in being out of the game of life, since you'll be outclassed by the people who have made use of such an interconnection. Which seems the same as dying to me. Taking the risk (when the technology is ripe) can't be any worse. >The whole thing sounds like existentialist hell... You're in existentialist hell already, with the rest of us. One way out is to realize that, as a consequence of the way we came into existence, we have an irrational desire to continue to exist. Cooperating with this desire is easy and fun. Part of doing this in the long term is slipping the definition of "self" into something that is easier to add abilities to. Tim Freeman Arpanet: Uucp: ...!seismo.css.gov!cs.cmu.edu!tsf Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=76