CryoNet #32875 - #32881

CryoNet - Tue 28 Sep 2010

    #32875: Re: CryoNet #32870 - #32874 [Gerald Monroe]
    #32876: Ground of the upload discussion ? Sinn der Upload-Diskussion ... [Jens Rabis]
    #32877: thought experiment on progressive uploading [Daniel Crevier]
    #32878: reply to Brooks comments on duplicates [david pizer]
    #32879: Pizer replies to Edgar on duplicates [david pizer]
    #32880: Re: CryoNet #32861 - #32865 [Freeposity]
    #32881: Patients to be frozen into state of suspended animation for s... [Jonano]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32875%2D32881

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32875
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:33:06 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32870 - #32874

--001636457d789d01ef04913a6b2b

Synchronization solves the 99 duplicates problem, as well as most of the
other ones.  The technical mechanism for synchronization would be nanoscale
sensors and computing devices buried in the myelin sheaths for the synapses.
 A network of these devices would monitor stored human long term memories
processed by the hippocampus.  A data stream would be broadcast via radio in
realtime to receivers located in every human habitable environment.  With
compression, it wouldn't be very much data : I've seen estimates comparing
it to streaming a dvd.

Anyways, with synchronization, if you choose to kill your 99 duplicates, at
the next sync period (perhaps during when you sleep that night) you'll
remember the experiences of all of the duplicates as well as yourself.  From
the perspective of a duplicate, your existence will also continue on
smoothly as you "wake up" seamlessly merged with the original.

The very premise of cryonics is that your tissues were frozen and damaged
sufficiently to be considered dead, and torn apart atom by atom during the
scanning process.  If you can accept that upon awakening after this that you
are still "you", then you could accept being murdered as a duplicate and
remembering awakening again merged back with the original.

--001636457d789d01ef04913a6b2b

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32875

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32876
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Ground of the upload discussion ? Sinn der Upload-Diskussion ...
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:06:14 +0200

Hi cryonauten,

why this upload discussion? There are potential cryonic-customers. Swim the
Cryonic Services in money? Do you have a guilty conscience? Such people
freeze? A guilty conscience, because you think it better to know?
I would not feel guilty, but would say: "It may be that you upload will be
prohibited in the future. Its your poker game in poker game cryonic!"

We should not forget that some want/need die to live. As an Upload would be
one (of many) options.



*****

Warum wird diese Upload-Diskussion uberhaupt gefuhrt? Es sind potentielle
Cryonikkunden. Schwimmen die Kryonikdienstleister in Geld? Habt Ihr ein
schlechtes Gewissen, solche Menschen einzufrieren? Ein schlechtes Gewissen,
weil ihr meint es besser zu wissen?

Ich hatte kein schlechtes Gewissen, wurde aber sagen: ,Es kann sein, dass Du
Upload in Zukunft verboten wirst. Es ist Dein Pokerspiel im Pokerspiel
Cryonik!"

Man sollte auch nicht vergessen, dass manche sterben wollen/mussen um zu
leben. Als Upload, ware eine (von vielen) Optionen. 

Best greetings Cryoson Jens
Germany-Berlin

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32876

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32877
From: Daniel Crevier <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: thought experiment on progressive uploading
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:51:14 -0400

Greetings.

Given the recent rush of postings about uploading, now may be the time to 
submit some considerations I've entertained for a while about the thought 
experiment  where a person 's brain is gradually replaced by artificial 
components. Since we,  uploaders and opponents, are all materialists here, 
we are agreed that the procedure should not bring about any observable 
change in the behavior of the patient, since his or her "input-output 
function" remains unchanged.  During and after the procedure, the person 
should keep on reacting to the environment and report on his or her internal 
states in the same way. In particular, the patient should keep on insisting 
that he or she is still conscious.

Uploaders claim that this shows that the person effectively remains 
conscious throughout, and is thus  "the same" in the uploaded state as 
before. Anti-uploaders claim that since non-biological material cannot be 
conscious, the person in fact gradually loses consciousnous and becomes, in 
philosophical parlance, a zombie: a being with all the outwards appearances 
of consciousness, but effectively dead inside.

But for this last interpretation to be true we have, imho, to accept that 
some pretty weird things happen during the transformation. To be precise, 
let us assume that the person has had the V5 section in the back of the 
brain converted, and nothing else. To the rest of the brain (ROB), the input 
from the digitized V5 "feels" exactly the same as before, and therefore 
ROB's behavior should be unaffected. It so happens that V5 processes visual 
input from the optic nerve, and makes this information explicitly available 
to the rest of the brain.  By the anti-uploading assumption, since the 
digitized version of V5 lacks whatever magic is required to generate 
consciousness, then the person should not be conscious of what he or she 
sees. Hower, as per our assumptions, the person should report that he or she 
is still conscious of visual input.

But wait a minute! Remember, ROB is still intact. In particular, the 
monitoring and command areas in the neocortex, the centers that control what 
the patient says, and the auditory centers that interpret what the patient 
hears, are still biological. So how can the patient's mouth be activated to 
say something that is to him or her patently untrue (that he or she is still 
conscious of visual input), hear his or her mouth spout this nonsense, and 
not react? If you believe in the zombie interpretation, what's going on 
here?

(And in case you're wondering, it's not anything like blindsight: patients 
with a damaged V5 are perfectly aware of their partial blindness, even if 
other areas of the brain keep on processing part of the visual infrmation).

Daniel Crevier 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32877

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32878
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: david pizer <[email protected]>
Subject: reply to Brooks comments on duplicates

Brook says:  The initial assumption that is wrong with all survival thought experiments is "there is some essential human quality, that when preserved, results in survival of that person."

David:  Why is that assumption wrong? If it was wrong then it is also wrong to believe that you are the same person when you wake up each morning.

I believe there is a unique quality to myself that makes me different from any other person in that I experience consciousness and self consciousness from within my own brain that is mine and mine alone.  That is true whether I am doing it now, suspended a while and then doing again later on as long as that experience in always in my original brain.

Brook says:  I believe you have to totally step away from the mind set of "I" am a person, unique and separate from the universe and my uniqueness must be maintained. Instead, see yourself from a third party distant observer, where each human is a collection of molecules, interacting with their environment in essentially the same way as inanimate objects. The human's awareness is a special property, but no more special than temperature or weight, to the observer.

David: that is another place where I believe you error.  I can't step away from my point of observation and experience, Me and you can only experience things in our own unique and different brains.  I submit that a 3rd party observer may not be able to tell an original from a duplicate, but that has nothing to do with whether a person survives through a duplicate when the original (the one that wants to survive) has been destroyed.

Also, as all other opponents have done for 25 years, you have side-stepped the telling question.  It is just a yes or no answer that tells what you really believe so long as you answer honestly.

If you were convinced an exact duplicate was sitting across from you, would you then mind if you (the original) were killed and the duplicate were to live on instead of you?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32878

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32879
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: david pizer <[email protected]>
Subject: Pizer replies to Edgar on duplicates

Edgar says: Actually both copies have an equally valid claim to be You, but neither actually is, since the two (or more) copies start to diverge immediately. 

Pizer:  After a duplicate of you is made and you exist across from the duplicate, it is wrong to say as you have above "both copies have an ..."   There are not two copies in my scenario.  There is the original and a duplicate.  The original is not a copy.  We know the original is the original.  We know the duplicate is a duplicate.  

By the very chore of having to explain one's position in this ongoing debate of 25 years now,  the Duplicate-Huggers have to refer to the original as different from any copies or duplicates.  This alone should comfort the wise man that there is a difference from an original and a duplicate.  You, Edgar, are the original Edgar, a duplicate Edgar is not YOU.  Therefore survival of the duplicate Edgar with destruction of the original Edgar, is NOT survival of you, Edgar.

So be sure they put in your reanimation instructions at CI to revive YOU and not just a picture of you.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32879

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32880
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 12:19:56 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32861 - #32865
From: Freeposity <[email protected]>

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:00 AM, CryoNet <[email protected]> wrote:
> One comment on the debate over uploading.  I agree entirely with Keith's
> premise that a person could be uploaded in a smooth and reversible manner
> and thus it's philosophically impractical to say the uploaded personality is
> not the same being.  However, Keith's comment "it's only a slight upgrade of
> what's needed to get you back from the frozen state" brings to mind other
> consequences.  One complication of philosophical discussions of cryonics is
> that if one has the technology to rebuild a person from scanning their
> frozen remains, one could readily make multiple copies of that person.  If,
> in the future, a particular copy were killed, the other instances of that
> person would continue.  The problem with copies is twofold : how do you know
> if you're the original

What does it matter? If you found out today that you're a duplicate
are you going to terminate your life or live it?



-- 
Money isn't speech.
A Corporation isn't a person.
http://www.movetoamend.org/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32880

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32881
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:03:48 +0200
Subject: Patients to be frozen into state of suspended animation for s...
From: Jonano <[email protected]>

Patients to be frozen into state of suspended animation for surgery

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8024991/Patients-to-be-frozen-into-state-of-suspended-animation-for-surgery.html

--Jon

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32881

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************