X-Message-Number: 8064
Date:  Sun, 13 Apr 97 15:34:42 
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: Cryonet #8043-#8058

Mike C., you said (#8043) you were interested in cryonics, 
and also (#8048), "Follow me, you will be led ... ." Are 
you signed up? You also say (#8048), "Tell me who you are; 
I want to know you." What's your last name?


Olaf Henny, #8052, wrote:

>*********************  MIKE PERRY WROTE 
>********************
>
>>> The issue Ben raises about"bulls" is possibly a serious 
>>>one, but not confronting these reactionaries could be 
>>>serious too.
>
>Nobody confronted 'the reactionaries' when CPR was 
>introduced, and if we do not make those ridiculous 
>assertions of immortality, we may not have to confront 
>them now.

CPR was not the same as overcoming the aging process, 
which is where we are aiming with cryonics. I question 
whether saying we plan to overcome aging will not have 
much the same effect as "those ridiculous assertions of 
immortality" (not always ridiculous, in my view). 
*Nevertheless,* I'll concede *we must proceed with cau-
tion.* Events in Canada are a cause of concern, both for 
that country and, in view of the precedend it sets, the world 
at large.

>I am not so much concerned about the threat from religion 
>as I am from our secular governments, who, out of 
>concern for the viability of pension and old age security 
>unds, already start prohibiting (here in Canada) such 
>potentially life extending hormones as DHEA.

Governments could be a greater threat than religion. 
"Secular" governments often (though not always) take their 
cues from organized religion, especially on matters of life 
and death. Once again, though, the threat from govern-
ments is a serious one. Thanks, Olaf, for pointing this out.

>>> The persistence of supernatural beliefs, and 
>>>institutions based around them, has increasing potential 
>>>for harm as we come closer to gaining full control over 
>>>our biology, harm in the sense of retarding our 
>>>progress and suppressing critical research. If we try too 
>>>much to soft-pedal our intentions (to try to become 
>>>more than human and free of aging and diseases) or 
>>>our approach (science, not belief in "higher powers")...

>Again it is our duly elected government here I Canada, 
>which is about to ram through Bill-47, which proposes to 
>criminalize 13 reproductive or genetic technologies 
>(Vancouver Sun April 12, 1997, Page A10). I understand, 
>that would put as at par with the most restrictive 
>(developed) countries, Germany and Austria.  We would 
>not have our citizens live too long now, would we.  
>Legislated ignorance is so much preferable.

Once again, I'll concede that governments are a big prob-
lem--and thank you again for pointing this out. What ever 
happened to the laissez-faire idea? A "right of individual 
self-determination" (I use this for want of a better term. 
Does anybody have one?) should be recognized as a prin-
ciple of law. Is there some way we can organize to push for 
such recognition? This would seem to be what the U.S. 
Libertarian party has been doing for many years already--
clearly without the success we would like. Anyway, let 
others comment.


Bob Ettinger, #8053, wrote:

>Change & survival: there was a mention that Derek Parfit 
>believes that, if he were gradually changed into Greta 
>Garbo, at the end he would not have survived. This is not 
>obvious to me (nor is any other conclusion).

This shows our difference in points of view. To me, under 
the circumstances described (assuming no hidden retention 
of information, etc.), Derek Parfit is gone, deceased, just as 
surely if he was dissolved in acid. And Greta Garbo is 
alive, assuming it's a faithful copy, even if she *was* 
dissolved in acid!

>If I am successfully reanimated after cryostasis, I 
>anticipate eventually becoming transhuman, and probably 
>being indifferent to retention of my ancient memories, 
>which I might even purposely jettison as junk, retaining 
>them only in an external file if at all.

Again, Bob, we have a difference in points of view. To me, 
retention of my ancient memories is essential to "my" 
continuing survival. I'm hopeful about this, even if these 
memories will be "vastly outmoded," in part by compari-
son with how we currently treat archeological and paleon-
tological information. Dinosaur remains are highly valued.

>Until we know much more--about the self circuit, about 
>objective and subjective time, about the construction of 
>spacetime, about whatever underlies quantum mechanics-
>-it is just guesswork.

I think this is not just a matter of "more knowledge"--that 
may or may not be important--but one's point of view is 
important, and in particular, what one values and does not 
value.

>And how about "organization" as a category? If my self 
>circuit requires a particular anatomy/physiology, it may 
>be possible only in meat. If he [John Clark] claims (as he 
>does) that meat can be emulated in other media, he is 
>disregarding the fact that the ORGANIZATION of matter 
>of a self circuit in meat is very different from the 
>organization in (say) a silicon emulation, or a tinker-toy, 
>or a Turing tape. If he then responds yes, but only the 
>isomorphism is important, not the specific organization, 
>not the kind of atoms or their relationships--then he is 
>back to dogmatism.

To me, having the "right" isomorphism would be sufficient 
(we must be sure of getting it right of course, and that may 
be nontrivial). This may be "dogmatism"--I think of it as 
point of view.  

>He [John Clark, #8045] also says (in re the possibility that 
>we do not "really" survive from hour to hour): "If I have 
>not survived, then survival is not important to me..." He 
>says, in effect, that he is satisfied with being the continuer 
>of something and the predecessor of something, whether 
>or not we can rigorously say that the predecessor/
>continuer series represents survival.

That's my viewpoint too, call it by whatever name you 
want. I'm satisfied with being the continuer of something 
and the predecessor of something else. I call it "survival" 
because that is what "survival" means to me. Whether this 
is "right" or "wrong" would seem to depend, again, on 
point of view, and not just on knowledge. However, for me 
it is a satisfying position for reasons I've gone through in 
other postings. Maybe that could constitute grounds for 
calling it "right." 


Kevin Q. Brown, #8054, wrote:

>So much for "Our Friends of the Future".  By the time 
>someone can revive people frozen with the techniques of 
>today, 20th century humans may no longer count as "real 
>people".  We have a much narrower window of 
>opportunity than most of today's people acknowledge.  
>It's important to improve our cryopreservation technology 
>today so that we can be revived _before_ we no longer 
>are interesting as people.
  
The thrust of this advice is worth heeding, even though my 
own position differs somewhat. I think it is unlikely that 
our frozen selves will not get some form of reanimation, 
even if the beings who decide the matter are far advanced 
beyond our present level. (And it may not take long at all 
for such advancement to occur, once a certain point is 
reached.) Reanimation by such beings, though, could be 
different from what we think. We might be made into 
advanced continuers from the beginning, for instance, or 
uploaded into a "nursery school" in which we'll have to 
spend a few subjective centuries to "grow up" and get 
"adjusted." In all, I think we're better off to get into our 
more-advanced existence as soon as possble, and be among 
those who'll shape and govern the world we'll inhabit, 
rather than having to "catch up" even with superhuman 
help.


Olaf Henny, #8058, wrote:

>I think defining the parts of the brain that are always 
>active, when consciousness is present is the easy part.  
>The IMHO much harder part is to figure out *when* 
>consciousness is present, or more importantly, to find a 
>period, when it is not present, whatever that is, that we 
>call consciousness.

I agree; also there is the issue of "whose" consciousness it 
is that is present or absent.

>When we dream, we ascribe subjective characteristics to 
>the persons in our dream.  They may do weird things, but 
>they still act within the traits and mannerisms we from 
>our own viewpoint attribute to them.  Does that mean 
>their consciousness is active?

A good question, which Steve Harris also raised (#8029).

>People who are unconscious for lengthy time periods are 
>said to be able to perceive some of the things that are 
>going on around them.  Does that mean, that their 
>consciousness is active during those times of perceptions?  

Another good question. Perhaps it's not "their" conscious-
ness but that of another "agent" in their brain, as may be 
the case with the dream-persons.

>If we now assume, that the seat of consciousness is 
>scattered in various locations, then is it not possible, that 
>any time there is any activity in the brain, it might or 
>might not take place in a seat of consciousness? 

There could be more than one seat of 
consciousness just as there could be more than one thinking 
agent. The MTRF may be the seat of consciousness for the 
"principal agent" that communicates with the outside 
world. Other agents may have their own seats of consious-
ness.


Mike Perry

http://www.alcor.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8064