CryoNet #32882 - #32885

CryoNet - Wed 29 Sep 2010

    #32882: My view about uploading/Identity/Emotion Changing [Jonano]
    #32883: Uploads, duplicates and such. [Keith Henson]
    #32884: survival not logically possible [Brook Norton]
    #32885: Edgar replies to Pizer on duplicates [Edgar Swank - President]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32882%2D32885

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 #32882
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:10:58 +0200
Subject: My view about uploading/Identity/Emotion Changing
From: Jonano <[email protected]>

The ability to change a personality, an identity, a memory or get new
emotions will be greatly enhanced in the future and might take part of
a rapid natural selection. 1 billion years of natural selection will
be less relevant to the notion of survivality then the next 300 years.

But this is only a theory and speculation that might become a prediction.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32882

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

Message #32883
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:49 -0700
Subject: Uploads, duplicates and such.
From: Keith Henson <[email protected]>

Dave I understand your uneasiness about duplicates.  However, if the
scan/duplication process split the atoms equally, both would have an
equal claim to being original.

As to the question of who gets the bank account, obviously it gets
split equally, which just might be a way to inhibit the process--which
I consider undesirable.  Or as one person put it, one Keith Henson is
enough!  (Though an inactive backup copy might be a good idea.)

As for killing one of them, that's really contrived.  The Golden Rule
would apply strongest to dealings with your identical duplicate.

The exception I can see to making duplicates is interstellar
exploration, where you wanted to go different directions equally.

Just this one galaxy is to big to do it in serial.

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32883

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

Message #32884
From: Brook Norton <[email protected]>
Subject: survival not logically possible
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:50:49 +0000 (GMT)

Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Brook: 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.

Brook (this post): Words are slippery. One could say a rock "survives" an avalanche if it is mostly undamaged and that would be a reasonable use of the word "survive"; a convenient way to show similarity over time. But to say a PERSON "survives" over time has different meaning, implying some other identity-critical quality is passed from earlier to later times. There is no such quality. And yes, it is wrong to believe you are the "same person" each morning, each successive moment for that matter.
----- next point -------
Brook: 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.

Brook (this post): If the third party observer cannot in principle tell an original from a duplicate, then there is so significant difference between them. In every meaningful way they are equal, regardless of how they got there (duplication, creation from scratch molecules, whatever).
----- next point -------
David: 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?
Brook (this post): It's not a yes or no answer because the question assumes survival "to live on" of an identity-critical quality. The question is flawed and unanswerable, like "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" Yes or no.

At first glance, it appears absurd to believe we don't survive moment to moment, but let me throw out this thought that may put a small crack in that belief. Clearly, evolution is a driving force in shaping individuals optimized for the continuation of their genes, the beings that possess those genes, and the species those beings belong to. The human brain is complex enough to be able to visualize the future and make plans for a favorable outcome, generally one which enhances the likelihood of continuation of genes, persons, and society. Our brains motivate by releasing endorphins to make us feel good when we do the "right" things. Visualizing our future and planning for it feels good, so we do it a lot, and this process deeply ingrains in us the idea that there is a crucial link between o
 ur current and future selves. But what if we are just slaves of an evolutionary brain-mechanism? What if that "survival" instinct is evolution's way to keep the genes going, but in reality d
 oes not logically mandate that there is some essence or identity-critical quality that passes from moment to moment. I think the view there is an identity-critical quality is a mistake, an evolution-induced mirage. Continuation of the genes, evolutionary pressure, and our joy at a good plan are all completely describable without reference to an identity-critical quality, and thus, describable without reference to "personal survival". We can "continue" (in large part, never 100% unchanged) but not "survive". And we can "continue" as a corpse, as an upload, as a duplicate, whatever - all equal options as continuers - but there are no survivors. And so concern over which is the true way to survive is misguided concern.

Brook
Content-type: multipart/related;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_FJybpdQRZfHWVlRx9uQEjA)"; type="text/html"



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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32884

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

Message #32885
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:42:43 -0700
From: Edgar Swank - President <[email protected]>
Subject: Edgar replies to Pizer on duplicates

Pizer said

> 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.  
>   

How do we know which is which? The "original" goes into the duplication 
machine and two persons come out. "duplicate" means they are identical. 
Do we ask them, "who is the duplicate?" They will both say, "I am the 
original." In a cryonics scenario, it's likely there will be no 
"original" only copies, reconstruction(s) based on information recovered 
from a frozen corpse.

> Therefore survival of the duplicate Edgar with destruction of the original Edgar, is NOT survival of you, Edgar.

By that artificial criterion, I'm afraid none of us will survive. I 
believe "I" am my memories, anything revived with my memories (or most 
of them) will think it is me. I in the here and now also think that will 
be "me" or good enough.

-- 
Edgar W. Swank   <[email protected]>
President - American Cryonics Society
http://AmericanCryonics.org
Phone: 408-227-3471
Cell:  408-605-4721
FAX:   810-277-7274

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32885

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

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