X-Message-Number: 9213
From: Ettinger <>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 21:52:53 EST
Subject: quantitative survival

Even though I can't hope to produce anything balanced or adequate in a few
pages, I have to make a couple of more comments on criteria of survival.

The quantitative view that Joe Strout seems to espouse (#9203) (and that I
have also considered) has, as one of its problems, an unusual susceptibility
to reductio ad absurdum. Joe says that, in certain situations (e.g. if some of
your memories are lost) you have "partially or mostly survived." This is the
essence of the quantitative view: Survival simply means similarity of the
subsequent to the original, with respect to some specified quality or
characteristic, or some set of such. (Some people would require continuity as
well, but presumably Joe would not, since he apparently would be satisfied
with uploading, judging by some of his messages.)

Well, suppose you die but have a grandchild who is very similar to you, not
only genetically but also in upbringing, personality, etc. The grandchild's
memories would not be yours in detail, but they might be very similar in their
psychological quality and effect on personality. Maybe, by some calculations,
that grandchild would be 60% you. Have you "mostly" survived? While you and
the grandchild are both living, is there more than one of you--maybe 1.6 of
you? If you eventually have 1,000 descendants, each on average 1% you, have
you survived 10 times over?  

I don't say the answers to these questions are negative, just because of the
strangeness or unsatisfying quality of the supposition. It is very possible
the correct answer will not be satisfying or even psychologically acceptable.
But if anyone truly believed in the quantitative view, he would be led into
some very peculiar value judgments. 

Joe also says that "most answers to the personal identity question fail on
tests of logic or self-consistency, or are not consistent with common usage…"
I think ALL proposed answers (that I have seen) fail on one or more of these
tests. 

Once more: There is highly relevant information that we simply so far lack. 

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9213