X-Message-Number: 3643 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 1995 18:26:06 -0600 (CST) From: Ken Wolfe <> Subject: CRYONICS > Subject: identity, Cryonics marketing Charles Platt in message 3621 writes: Overall, I assume that no one is going to reject cryonics for the sole reason that a revived person might not have the same "identity" as before. Therefore, the "identity" issue is not critical when it comes to promoting cryonics, and therefore I don't see this discussion as being directly relevant to the work that needs to be done, in public relations or on the technical side. (end quote) I agree that it will be a long time before we have enough knowledge to seriously tackle the identity problem. However, I would like to suggest one way it could be relevant to cryonics right now: as a part of a cryopreservation agreement. If a method for destructively scanning a cryopreserved brain and duplicating it is developed before there is any method of repairing the brain itself, it becomes a question whether to perform the duplication now or wait for a "true" revival technique to be developed. The cryonicist could specify in his/her cryopreservation agreement guidelines for making this decision. There might be good reasons for NOT doing this, since it gets into the tricky area of guessing whether the patient's decisions would have changed basis knowledge that came to light only after they were put in suspension. If it turns out that our current understanding of the physical basis of identity is fundamentally flawed, interpreting the patient's stated desires becomes very tricky. In message 3624, Steven Harris writes: I've long argued that the average person doesn't sign up for cryonics not because of a belief that it won't work, but out of a fear that it will. The people who do sign up are people who are already alienated from society for one reason or another, and who it doesn't matter as much to, if they get a little more left out. It's probably no coincidence that cryonicists are people who like to go to sea on their own boats, who like to go driving across the country alone, etc. If you have a constant need for people underfoot in your life all the time, you probably are not going to sign up, knowing that most of them will be gone forever when and if you wake up. If you find a large part of your *identity* in other people (something that is a basic psychological outlook and part of one type of common personality, and also gender influenced), then cryonics horrifies you instinctively! And permanently! Even _couples_ who sign up for cryonics are more likely to be what Kurt Vonnegut in _Cat's Cradle_ calls "duprass- es" -- sets of people who are perfectly tied up in each other, like two halves of a hermit, but not too much in everybody else. (end quote) I think you hit upon something that should have been obvious to me, but I just hadn't thought of before. I'm not sure I would agree with your use of the word 'alienated' to describe most cryonicists, but speaking for myself I certainly have no "constant need for people underfoot." I would like to suggest a litmust test for identifying these personality types: ask the question "which would you choose, a world where you can never have any privacy even for a moment, or being the last person on Earth." Personally, I would take the latter choice. In message 3630 Thomas Donaldson writes: Given that you remain the unique copy, at all times, then I think it would be impossible to argue that you weren't a true continuation --- no matter how long you existed as records in a computer, or whatever. (end quote) As I stated above, I don't think there will be enough knowledge to do justice to this issue for some time to come. For now, all I can do is concede your point but still state my squeamishness (for I must confess that is what it is) at the thought of my brain being destroyed and then duplicated. I think the source of my worry is the fact that this process happens when I am (obviously) not conscious, so I have no guarantee that it will actually be my consciousness that is revived. If, on the other hand, my neurons were replaced with equivalent synthetic neurons in small groups while I was conscious, there would no longer be any issue. Again, it might be worthwhile for cryonicists to state their feelings on this issue as part of their suspension agreement. In message 3632 Bob Ettinger writes: It is extremely doubtful that "people who are used to thinking about the long term future" form especially likely recruits. Maybe slightly more likely--not much. After all, the speculative physicists who write books about eschatology are not in cryonics to any noticeable extent. Most people have compartmented minds, and they engage in speculation or even "serious" long term planning just for fun or profit or career advancement; they almost never take it seriously on a PERSONAL level. I don't know of any group that warrants special attention except--just possibly--physicians. All others lose in numbers whatever small advantage they offer in predisposition or in strategic value. (end quote) Your point about most people having compartmented minds is unfortunately true. Just being part of an extropian-oriented organization does not make one amenable to the idea of cryonics. I still feel that the main obstacle is the mental block surrounding death's perceived inevitability that has been drilled into our collective culture for five thousand years or so. Perhaps most people will only be able to overcome that block once there has been significant, concrete progress in longevity techniques. As soon as I heard about the idea of cryonics I immediately thought it was a great idea, so I'm afraid I have no insight into overcoming that block since if I ever had it I appear to have tossed it away a long time ago. Maybe there's a cryonicist gene possessed by everyone on CryoNet that's recessive in most people (insert smiley here :-) . Ken Wolfe | Fax: I hate fax machines Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada | Compu$erve: | GEnie: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3643