X-Message-Number: 11473
From: 
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 17:49:31 EST
Subject: information, selfishness etc.

Mike Perry (#11463), expressing skepticism about conservation of information,
mentions the Fugitive Photons, which make elusive quarry in the hunt for
perfect information. It's hard to catch photons from behind.

Well, for one thing, who knows, maybe we could view them with tachyons--the
theories are imperfect and incomplete.

For another, there is the still obscure question of "quantum entanglement."
Perhaps every particle has at some time interacted with every other--through
gravitational effects if nothing else--and hence much can be inferred about
the photons we can't catch through examination of entangled particles which we
can catch.

Beyond that, for cryonics purposes, we don't need perfect information. As a
crude example, consider again the jigsaw puzzle analogy. If the pieces have
been scrambled, then in order to reassemble them, do we need to figure out the
trajectories that were followed by each piece during the scrambling, and then
reverse those trajectories? No, we merely notice the possible fits, and do it
in jig time.

Or consider again the case of a bit of memory in question. Often one can check
against external information (or against other bits of internal information)
and rule it in or out. The cross-linkages are so numerous and powerful that it
is hard to imagine any important information being irretrievable. 

Garry Wright (#11468) believes that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't
allow conservation of information. A full discussion is not feasible here, but
as a hint I point out that, in a closed system obeying the laws of classical
mechanics, the Second Law applies, but nevertheless there is in principle no
required limit to the possible accuracy of observations or of predictions and
postdictions.

Mr. Wright also says several other things that invite comment:

>I also agree with Leon Dean, Message #11454, that there is no reason other
than selfishness for cryonics.<

All motivation is "selfishness" in some sense. What motivates you is what YOU
want, and therefore you do it to please yourself. Wriggle and squirm as you
may, you cannot gainsay that fact.

>I think that this superior intelligence [an upgraded person] will not be the
same person, apart from sharing some memories. Sir Arthur C Clarke says that
we change throughout our lives anyway, and I agree with him totally.  You
would have to actually be religious and believe in a supernatural unchanging
soul, to think that an upgraded version of yourself would be the same person.<

One problem with this view is that it is manifestly not believed by those who
profess it, since they generally continue to live and to protect their lives
and to plan for the future. At an absolute minimum, it seems to me, any
sensible person must admit that these questions have not been definitively
answered, and therefore we should behave as though we do, in fact, persist
over time despite change.

>The relatively new theory of memetics suggests that the very concept of
self is an illusion<

Self cannot be an illusion (although some of its consequences or apparent
implications might be). Indeed, the existence of the self is the one thing
about which we have incontrovertible, first-hand knowledge. 

>experiments, also described in Penrose's book, that demonstrate that we do
not actually possess free will.<

We possess free will at the conscious level. That is all that is possible, and
all that is necessary.

>I just think that it [cryonics] is pointless<

Pointless? Trying to extend and improve life is not pointless, as we can see
in most people (in areas they understand) by both the talk and the walk. 

>and the efforts of these intelligent people could be better utilised in
trying to create the next level of intelligence, rather than trying to
preserve the current one beyond its usefullness<

Usefulness? To whom, and by what criterion? If you think there is something
more useful to you than yourself, you will have to twist yourself into a
pretzel to explain why.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11473