From: nanowave (nanowave@shaw.ca)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 04:09:32 MDT
Ok, I'll take a stab at this thread...
Driven FromThePack wrote:
>>1. Personhood is essentially stored as information in
>>the brain, and such brain-stored information is
>>sufficient to constitute the person, in and of itself.
First off, might we at least attempt to apply a smattering of E-prime when
we formulate our statements?
"Personhood IS essentially stored...?" well yes, it surely does APPEAR to be
stored in the brain, but applying the term "IS" implies a degree of
certainty that ought to be avoided, if for no other reason than it carries
the aroma of dogmatic arrogance. Ditto for the rest of your statement, which
I would be inclined to agree with were it simply rephrased ... and such
brain-stored information (will probably be) sufficient to (re)constitute the
person, in and of itself.
Terry W. Colvin wrote:
>Not quite... If I could precisely describe the complete "wiring scheme" of
>your brain and store it in a buch of CDs, those CDs wouldn't be you.
Well no, but they might make a dandy blueprint for constructing a fully
functional DrivenFromThePack rendition - complete with original memories,
emotions, and a sincere sounding "hey what the heck happened?" upon
reawakening :-)
>You need more than the information -- you need the brain too.
You surely need something that works as good or better, but not necessarily
THE (as in the bio-original) brain.
>And even though I could right now specify the connections between
>a million neurons (e.g. a cube of 1000x1000x1000 with all neighbours
connected) no
>one could make such a neuronal circuit.
No one?? - as in today, next year, or did you mean for all time? Also when
you say "no one" do you mean no standard legacy human? Or does that go for
enhanced humans as well? What about a super-intelligent AI? Or a combination
thereof?
So what you really need is to
>recover the brain with little damage.
>
>[...]
Sorry, that doesn't compute. As far as I'm aware, the brain does not derive
it's magnificent performance from the blindingly fast switching of a handful
of circuits, unlike the machine I'm composing this reply on, but from its
reliance upon massively parallel processing. From that simple fact I might
deduce that my memory of say - losing my virginity, is not precariously
balanced upon the proper functioning of one or even a dozen neurological
circuits. Exactly how much of me is required to feel like my old self may
prove to be a rather abstract notion considering I purposefully try to live
my life as though every single day I awaken as a new person.
>>5. After assessing recent and distant history of the
>>human race, we may conclude that as time advances,
>>with a reasonably high probability, we will see the
>>increasing sophistication and power of information
>>retrieval apparatuses,
>[...]
Agreed.
>
>> That is a question I
>>cannot answer; however, if it does, then I know the
>>payoff for me is huge (the biggest payoff possible),
>>so therefore, after considering all information
>>available to me (sweep of history, etc) I have signed
>>a contract for cryopreservation.
Congratulations! Smart move.
>But you ommit here the "information loss" (i.e. brain damage) associated
>with the freezing process. Evidence indicates that this is considerable
>with current or forseeable techniques. We can't even freeze a kidney, let
>alone a brain...
I would be very interested in seeing evidence for any of that. First off,
brain damage does not necessarily imply "information loss" unless you
subscribe to the limiting belief that damage = total destruction. For
example, let's say you had some really juicy information on your hard
drive - maybe definitive proof that Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11, but
you don't really like America so when you notice a lot of black cars
cruising around your neighborhood, you decide you'd better destroy the
evidence. Not content with simply deleting the files, you take your computer
outside and drive your SUV over it a few of times. Next you take it back in
the house and plug it in just to make sure it won't boot up. Yup, its brain
has been severely damaged all right. You smile triumphantly as you toss the
twisted mass of metal and plastic into your trash bin. But a funny thing
happens. The following day isn't garbage day, but your can is mysteriously
empty. On the cover of the next TIME magazine you read that Dubya has just
dropped a small tactical nuke on a glittering little palace north of
Baghdad. And you thought you had destroyed the information.
As for your statement that we can't even freeze a kidney... - say what? I
can freeze a kidney any time, and if I thaw it out and fry it, it will
probably taste very similar to one that is cooked fresh. Thus I suppose some
types of information, namely the chemistry that determines its flavor,
easily survives the freezing process - even without the application of
cryoprotectants. But I'm teasing here because you seem to have missed an
important consideration regarding cryonics - sure, freezing causes damage
(though not necessarily information loss) but even that's no biggie unless
you are overly obsessed with:
1. Thawing the brain out BEFORE extracting its information.
2. Making the original neurons "live again" instead of simply substituting
new (probably better) biological or nanological ones.
>And once the information is lost, even developing a thawing
>process that is
>100% efficient and looses no information at all, you'll still have a badly
>damaged brain. Remember that your brain will be frozen after you die, and
>unlike other tissues which can survive for significant periods (hours or
>more) with no oxigen, brain damage becomes irreversible after a couple of
>minutes.
"irreversible" using TODAY's tools, but then if I were frozen right now and
someone revived me using TODAY's tools I would probably strangle them for
having taken such a foolish risk with my life. You apparently assume that if
you can't make a brain work properly once ischemia sets in, then the
important information must be lost. In all probability there is a window of
several hours, possibly even days before information theoretic death occurs.
>
>Science is based on evidence. Evidence indicates that freezing your brain
>will destroy it, if it's not already too badly damaged even before the
>procedure starts (do they guarantee they'll start freezing within a minute
>of your heart stopping?).
Does a hospital guarantee that a surgeon will split open your chest within a
minute of your heart stopping?
Science may be based on evidence, but humans are based on evolution which
tends to favor those who are effective at balancing their emotions with
their ability to reason - especially in life threatening situations that
require imagination and a degree of optimism.
>Although examples of great success like skin, corneas, sperm or
>embryos are
>given to show that it's possible to preserve complex tissues or
>organs this
>way, the reality is that these examples come from the best laboratory
>results, obtained among lots of failures.
These examples should be taken as nothing more and nothing less than proof
that important biological information can and routinely does survive the
freezing process.
>So you don't see cryogenic
>depositories of skin or corneas for transplants, and the only reason sperm
>and embryos fare well is that only a few cells need to survive the process
>in these cases.
>
>My conclusion is thus that cryopreservation of human brains is not science
>but misguided faith and quackery.
Every time someone did something that advanced the human race - something
that had never been tried before and thus had not been "proven", someone
else stood on the sidelines and voiced a similar objection.
>
>Ludwig Krippahl
May you make it to the Singularity long before you need Cryonics.
Russell Evermore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:27 MST