X-Message-Number: 5583 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:22:52 -0800 From: (Dwight G. Jones) Subject: Re: CryoNet #5565 - #5575 References: <> Robert Ettinger wrote: > > Of course there are many instances of "altruism" or other kinds of short term > sacrifice promoting longer term self interest; this does not change the fact > that self interest--feelings in your head--constitutes the only basis of > value that is physically possible (given certain reasonable assumptions about > the nature of reality). Sociobiology shows that "self interest" can be DNA based, not simply --feelings in your head--, and of course sociobiology describes the strategy of the genes. Note that such a strategy is not a human strategy, nor the strategy of the cryonics movement. While it is trivially true that we are trying to get our own genes into subsequent lives, which is the evolutionary strategy, we are attaching certain human-centric conditions. For example, going through mitosis and ending up with half a loaf (a child with half your genes and half your mate's)statistically satisfies the genetic evolutionary model, but it doesn't satify our model. The Church of Man doesn't want sperm cells (gammetes), we need your whole complement. I mention this here because "self interest" has to be extensively qualified, as to which strategy we're actually adopting. > > I said that life decisions should be based on probability calculations (not > always explicit, but frequently difficult, involving internal and external > feedbacks) concerning the effects of present actions on future > feel-good/feel-bad. He responds that we collectively can take a thousand > years if necessary to study our options, and that our phenotype will not > change in this period; these statements are wrong or irrelevant or both. Many > of our problems, whether individual or collective, will require quick action; > and it is easy to envision changes in the phenotype compatible with survival > as individuals. (Genetic engineering has ALREADY produced geno/pheno changes > in living individual mammals.) At some point you are going to lose your present identity following this route, wherein you posit radical adaptations within the near future. You'd be grasping at straws to stay alive. If you're going to take that course, then it's easier to believe that your DNA clones of the future are indeed you, if you're prepared to identify a radically altered android as yourself. > > Concerning the need for logic and evidence, Mr. Jones responds that the > Church of Man "takes the view that your clone is you, if only because two > pieces of chemistry with 6 billion identical parts (DNA) cannot be anything > but identical." Leaving aside the question of identical quantum states, he > apparently believes that a pair of identical twins constitute just one > person. That is indeed the belief, and it is what I urge you to consider very carefully. I am not asking you to adopt the old adage that Life is a continuum, a revolving wheel, ashes to ashes like Eastern philosophies. That's the statistical strategy of the genes and we want to maintain our IDENTITY, not our memories, which have such putative value in cryonics. Identical twins are a living experiment that can teach us just about everything we must know about our identities. They are a miraculous printout of cloning that we can try to understand. I am not of the paranormal persuasion in the least, but twins do have some aspects about them that are awesome. > > Actually, it's a bit puzzling that Mr. Jones seems to approve of cryonics, > but just as a means of preserving DNA. You don't need cryonics to preserve > DNA. You can dry it, sure, but some larger samples on slides are also inexpensive to maintain. If the brain is redundant enough, there may be some aspects of it that are retainable. There is no policy against neuro or whole body either, just practical constraints. On the other hand, shouldn't the cronics people keep some dried DNA of their patients as well? It costs just about nothing and promises to hang in there a long time in almost any circumstances. Don't you owe your patients that option if you are their keeper? Let me mention that I appreciate your attention to my points, and feel privileged to discuss these matters with someone I have respected for decades. Dwight Jones Church of Man Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5583