X-Message-Number: 21287
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:29:44 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #21263 - #21283

For Mr Kluytmans:

Oh dear, we may once more be in strong disagreement. You make a  
distinction between "information" and "person", and on it base
a conclusion that the "information" should have no rights and
cannot be a person.

One way we can think of preserving ourselves past the time
at which our medicine gives out would be to keep our information
on hand. I will add that for many practical reasons this idea
may not be implemented for a LOOOONG time, but ignoring that,
such a practise would help our survival if our body (and so
our brain) were even totally destroyed.

Now rights (and responsibilities) come not from any objective
physical facts but from social arrangements between those who
participate in them. If I keep the information needed to make
a duplicate of myself as of a given date (which I will likely
renew often) then IF this method is to work as a means of 
preservation, that information will have to have rights. Sure,
if you want to live in a society in which your information
has no rights, you can do so --- but you may have abolished
one way to survive for much longer.

The main right this information has is that it will be turned
into a living human being (or if you prefer to be a living
superhuman being, into that) when and if you and your body
have somehow become totally destroyed. (Perhaps your spaceship 
malfunctioned and dove into the Sun). Although similar things
have happened today to real cryonicists, I am not proposing
such duplication now because it's clearly impractical. But
when and if it becomes possible, it may well be used often
by lots of people.

So explain your attitude to the information which totally
describes a person.

          Best wishes and long long life for all,

               Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21287