CryoNet #33402 - #33409

CryoNet - Wed 2 Mar 2011

    #33402: Re: Barriers to entry to cryonics, etc. [cihq]
    #33403: Re: CryoNet #33395 - #33401 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33404: Re: Uploading again [Luke Parrish]
    #33405: Cryonics Organisations should be run by welfare assisted peop... [=?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_Despr=C3=A9s?=]
    #33406: Uploading [Mike Perry]
    #33407: Passive and active euthanasia [marta sandberg]
    #33408: Re: Open letter to the cryonics community [marta sandberg]
    #33409: Passive and active euthanasia [M2darwin]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33402%2D33409

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 #33402
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Barriers to entry to cryonics, etc.
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:47:08 -0500
From: [email protected]

----------MB_8CDA636ACA06CBC_11E8_72FA_Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com

Dear Kennita:

The email address [email protected] is the email address for the Cryonics Institute in which I communicate with our members through.  It appears that this email address somehow mistakenly got added to your distribution list because I received the below email regarding how to promote growth at Alcor.  I believe that you should delete [email protected] from your Alcor distribution list.

Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Andy Zawacki

 

 


 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kennita Watson <[email protected]>
To: Forrest Bennett <[email protected]>
Cc: Kennita Watson <[email protected]>; Dan Dascalescu <[email protected]>; Alcor-North <[email protected]>; American Cryonics Society <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Perry <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Sat, Feb 26, 2011 8:10 pm
Subject: Barriers to entry to cryonics, etc.


If we are going to take off, we need to lower both the perceived and the actual 

barriers to entry.  Probably best not to mention the full cost of suspension 

($200K), since 1) virtually no one actually pays it, and 2) it makes a lot of 

people swallow hard and flee.  Better to discuss the per-month cost that people 

actually pay, for insurance, membership, etc.  If the full-body cost still makes 

them gulp, add up the costs for neuro.



To increase visibility and get more people involved, we may want to have 

non-suspension memberships, whose cost would go to research and be 

tax-deductible.  We might also want to have store-genetic-material-only 

memberships, with and without data and/or physical object storage.  There could 

also be benefit donations, to cover costs for suspension of a profiled 

financially-strapped member.  Or a lottery ($100/ticket, winner gets a 

contract?).



What other ways are there to get people involved?  Getting a lot of people 

involved a little bit is arguably even better than a few people a lot, but any 

ideas are welcome.  A video contest?  AT&T paid a $20,000 first prize for a 

boring topic, and got probably millions of dollars worth of publicity from this 

excellent video (which is as good an argument for cryonics as for AT&T online 

services):



http://simplify.att.com/videos/dave-and-att



The Alcor Web site is competent, but I don't think I'm alone in finding it dull.  

One addition I think would help is a page full of "Why I'm signed up for 

cryonics" entries.  We need to communicate our excitement about the 

possibilities for the future!  Maybe in a brighter color.  FWIW, maybe the 

entire Web site should be brighter; that shade of blue is sleep-inducing, and 

certainly not a call to action.  Who came up with it? What do other folks think?



It's been a while since I worked on http://gocryo.org .  Check it out; is it 

worth more of my time?





Live long and prosper,

Kennita


 

----------MB_8CDA636ACA06CBC_11E8_72FA_Webmail-d115.sysops.aol.com

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33402

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

Message #33403
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 09:30:44 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33395 - #33401

--bcaec53f9861016162049d6d7c30

Robert Ettinger, I am not talking about a digital computer and I never was.
I am saying that electronic analogues of neurons, printed into a massive
cube that mirrors precisely the configuration of the brain you start with,
should have the same emergent properties the brain has, but with greater
fidelity and stupendously quicker performance.

There is no practical difference between this and uploading, however - you
could copy the electronic analogue at any time, merge it's functions with
others, and so on.  The only thing different is the underlying hardware
would not be purely digital computers, although large chunks of it would
be.

Again, building hardware like this would most likely be much easier than
creating a new biological brain.  And just as importantly, there would be
tremendous advantages for our descendents to do it this way because the
resulting 'uploaded' humans would be capable of thinking many times faster
than humans think today, and could enhance their mental faculties by editing
in new systems.

--bcaec53f9861016162049d6d7c30

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33403

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

Message #33404
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 11:37:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Uploading again

"If  it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may still be just
a decoy. A  page full of words, or a  computer full of files, is not a person, or indeed anything at all other than a set of symbols."

"Symbols" which are set up to interact directly with hardware in
a strictly defined logical fashion are indistinguishable from any
other kind of mechanical part. Thus it seems the question Robert
needs to answer is why we should care more about the composition
of the machine than its functionality.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33404

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

Message #33405
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 03:11:29 +0100
Subject: Cryonics Organisations should be run by welfare assisted peop...
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_Despr=C3=A9s?= <[email protected]>

Cryonics Organisations should be run by welfare assisted people

Because they have time, and cryonics is all about time.

--Jon

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33405

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

Message #33406
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:30 -0700
From: Mike Perry <[email protected]>
Subject: Uploading
References: <[email protected]>

Robert Ettinger writes:


>The nonsense enters when we focus on  uploading in the sense of a
>simulation of a brain (or simulation of 
>succession of states) in a digital  computer.
>
>First, fix firmly in mind the fact that the computers in question already
>exist, except for speed and storage capacity.  The deficiency of a
>simulation is  not a matter of speed or storage 
>capacity, but of the  intrinsic
>nature of a simulation. A simulation is a description, and a  description (in
>general) is not the thing.
>
>
>Either of two mantras ought to do the trick, for those accessible  through
>logic.  Either "The map (with unimportant exceptions) is  not the territory"
>or "A blueprinjt of a house (no matter how accurate and  detailed)  is not
>a house."
>

A simulation of a computation (in another 
computer, say) is a computation, and I would not 
consider computations "unimportant." A case has 
been made also that all processes in the universe 
are basically computational in nature. The 
universal quantum simulator described by Seth 
Lloyd (Science 273 (23 August 1996): 1073-79) 
establishes this, a quantum simulator being 
simply a type of quantum computer that can be 
efficiently programmed. Consciousness in 
particular is computational. It would be 
reasonable to conclude that if a computational 
device simulates consciousness in the sense of a 
quantum simulation (i.e. at a very deep level, 
below which everything is arguably unimportant), 
the result is also consciousness. This would 
provide a basis for the validity of uploading. In 
practical terms, though, a classical computer, 
even if revved up in speed and storage capacity 
by orders of magnitude, may be unequal to the 
task of simulating human consciousness; at 
present this is unknown. But this possible 
limitation is suggested by certain processes such 
as protein folding that nature accomplishes very 
quickly but take prohibitive amounts of time to 
simulate computationally. We know that a quantum 
computer for certain problems would have more 
than a polynomial-time advantage over a classical 
computer. A brain too may do certain things, 
critical to thinking or feeling, that no 
classical computer could ever do in realtime. But 
if so, in due course we should be able to master 
the hardware technology that could, and make uploading a reality.

Uploading, as imagined, would not be the same as 
a static description of a person or of the 
changes in their mental states over time. The 
uploaded individual would instead be an 
interactive system like the natural original, 
capable of responding in creative ways to inputs 
from the outside. When we think of a living 
individual we have in mind this creative 
potential and not just a static record, that is 
to say, we take account of what they might do and 
not just what they do. Such a being is an active 
part of our world or "frame of reference" unlike 
the static record--the two can be formally distinguished.

Mike Perry



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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33406

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

Message #33407
From: marta sandberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Passive and active euthanasia
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:49:11 +0800

--_36afbe0d-ff3c-4994-ae17-90f4fe2dfa8f_


There has been some discussion about euthanasia and assisted suicide on CryoNet lately.
 
This is what I learned when I researched the subject.  
 
If US law is similar to Australian law, then we have to remember that there are two distinct type of euthanasia.  Passive euthanasia means not doing anything to stay alive whilst active euthanasia means doing something to die.  The end result is the same, but the legal implications aren't.
 
I can disconnect myself form life support equipment whilst knowing it will kill me; refuse dialysis and let my body's poison kill me; I can refuse to take insulin even if that is the only thing that keep me alive; I can even refuse to drink or eat even when I am perfectly healthy until I thirst to death.  All of this is OK as long as I know what I am doing and I am of a sound mind.  If anyone tries to stop me - inject me with insulin or force feed me - then I can call on the police and they must protect me from those who wants to keep me alive.
 
All of this is passive euthanasia.
 
On the other hand taking a deadly drug, hanging myself or slitting my wrists are all considered active euthanasia.  It's illegal in most places.
 
The distinction does not make much practical or philosophical sense, but it has enormous practical implications.  As most people aren't connected to life support equipment nor need a drug to keep alive, their only option is to refuse food and drink.  In other words, they will thirst to death.
 
I saw my husband do it and I may well be forced down that path myself.  It is not something I look forward to.
 
So far a small group of hardliners are blocking legislation enabling active euthanasia in all except a few places.  This forces people to die in cruel and horrid ways.
 
Let us hope that their resistance is soon worn down.  After all, passive euthanasia was not legal until about half a century ago.  Before then, anyone who tried to refuse medical treatment that would keep them alive was automatically deemed of unsound mind (as they were trying to commit suicide), declared a ward of the state and the treatment forcibly administered to them.
 
Long life,
 
Marta
  		 	   		  
--_36afbe0d-ff3c-4994-ae17-90f4fe2dfa8f_

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33407

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

Message #33408
From: marta sandberg <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Open letter to the cryonics community
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:10:43 +0800

--_ceb1eedc-2791-4520-9e3d-960865c323cf_


Kennita Watson is getting impatient with the slow growth of cryonics.  I can understand her frustration
 
. . . but . . . 
 
I don't know about Alcor, but CI is growing as a slow but steady pace.  We have preserved over a hundred patients and will sooner or later crack the thousand mark with our membership.  In the quarter of a century since I joined I have seen CI go from a small operation in a decrepit inner Detroit suburb, to a good professional building. 
 
More and more cryonic group have cropped up all over the world and we might be close to get a full-fledged facility in Australia. Meanwhile, most people know about cryonics until it can be portrayed, without explanation, in popular TV and movie culture. In other words - cryonics has become mainstream.
 
It is true we could have done better and every time somebody dies without having properly considered the cryonic alternative I feel a great loss and I often wonder why so few people join us.
 
But . . . 
 
Measured growth isn't such a bad thing. For an organization that has to last for a century or more, a slow and steady approach has its advantages.  Right now there are about 2,000 cryonicists worldwide.  If that figure had been 20,000 then our organizations would have been constantly forced to adjust to its explosively growing numbers. Every growth pain would have been a potential for something to go wrong, and with over two hundred patients in our care that is a terrible risk.
 
I would like to see cryonics gain more acceptance than it has, but for a small radical organization I think we are doing exceptionally well. Few other groups can point to continuous consolidation and steady decade's long growth.
 
If this continues for the next century, then cryonics is in safe hands.  Or at least survivable hands.
 
Long life,
 
Marta 		 	   		  
--_ceb1eedc-2791-4520-9e3d-960865c323cf_

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33408

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

Message #33409
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 04:02:55 EST
Subject: Passive and active euthanasia

Marta Sandberg wrote about the distinction between passive and  active 
euthanasia. The critical factor in determining this difference in a  
medico-legal context is the Rule of Double Effect, which more properly should be  
called the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), since it's origin is in the 13th  
century theology of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas derived this intellectual gem  when 
he was wrestling with the problem of when it is permissible  to take action 
for a good end, whilst knowing that it will cause evil.  The use of the 
words "good" and "evil" here are apropos, since Aquinas' doctrine  is also the 
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church's objection to  abortion 
has been a major driver for its attention to this area of "moral  
philosophy," and it has been a well supported career for Catholic theologians  for 
decades.  
In essence what DDE states is that it in situations where  an action has 
both good effects and evil effects, the action is  permissible only if it is 
not morally wrong in itself, and if it does not  require that one directly 
intend the evil result.  
The classical definition of DDE sets out four requirements that  must be 
met if the action is to be moral: first, that the action contemplated be  (in 
itself) either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that  the evil 
result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not  be a direct 
causal result of the evil result; and fourth, that the good  result be 
"proportionate to" the evil result. Supporters of the principle  argue that, in 
situations of "double effect," where all these conditions are  met, the 
action under consideration is morally permissible despite the evil  result. 
I could write pages and pages of discussion over "problems" and  
shortcomings in these four justifying elements, but why bother? Here's the  practical 
bottom line. It is perfectly permissible for a person to, with the  
patient's consent, sedate a patient to the point of unconsciousness,  disconnect 
life support and allow him to die. It is equally permissible to  do the same 
absent sedation, and in fact it is *both morally and legally  preferably* to 
do the second, rather than the first. It is morally better,  because 
suffering the full consequences of a choice to end life, even in the  face of 
terminal illness (but especially if it is not present) is a moral  good in the 
view of the Catholic Church. In fact, Mother Teresa, who I consider  a monster, 
saw the suffering and dying of the terminally ill people she took  from the 
streets as a high moral good, and her facilities typically do not offer  
pain management. To understand this position, it is important to understand 
that  Mother Teresa did not want to abolish the suffering and dying poor, but 
rather  to comfort them, and bring them to Jesus Christ.  Penn & Teller do a 
 lovely job of highlighting this on one of their *Bullshit* episodes, and 
the  atheist philosopher Christopher Hitchens similarly (and accurately) 
indicts her  for the same thing: 
_http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/09/penn-and-teller-on-mother-theresa.html_ 
(http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/09/penn-and-teller-on-mother-theresa.html)  
It is legally preferable to let a patient die in pain, and  with no 
diminution in native consciousness, because it is safer (carries less  risk of 
being confused or equated with murder) and because it ensures that  volition is 
preserved until the biological limits imposed by the dying  process. The l
atter is considered advantageous because it answers any doubts or  concerns 
that might arise in the event the patient changes, or might have chosen  to 
change his mind, about ending his life by "passive means." 
This moral contortionism has now become the ethical and legal  basis upon 
which medical decisions are made regarding terminating life support -  or 
engaging in many other "conflicted" behaviors. 
So, if you want to know what's right and what's wrong,  you must run the 
proposed action through the DDE sieve, and see what comes  out.  
It is thus OK to give sufficient morphine to cause respiratory  arrest (and 
thus death), if that is what is what is required to relieve  terrible pain 
in a dying patient. It is not OK to do this in a patient who is  not 
dying... Nor is it OK to do this in a dying patient who is NOT in terrible  agony, 
but who nevertheless wants his life to end. It is OK to stop mechanical  
ventilation, or LVAD support if you require these to stay alive, but it is NOT  
OK to stop your own breathing or circulation if you do not require a 
machine to  provide one. 
It is all "Alice in Wonderland" reasoning, devoid of any  REAL assessment 
of the moral consequences of an action, or of the value  system from which 
those morals are derived. Of course, the unspoken truth is  that the moral 
system is that of the Roman Catholic Church, and more generally,  of 
Christianity. Since such a moral system has little basis in reality, it will  
frequently yield mad and non-sensical outcomes. 
Mike Darwin


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33409

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

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