[extropy-chat] Re: cryonics (was: Science and Fools)

[Damien Broderick]

At 11:37 AM 3/17/2005 +1100, Brett wrote:

>I don't know if Damien would be willing to have the question of identity
>(including *his* identity, amongst other things) decided by a judging
>organisation even if he could have as much input as he wished into the
>expertise and composition of that judging organisation.
>...
>
>Would you accept judgement without the uploading being explicitly
>included in the terms of reference? Would Damien accept judgement
>on questions that might include the issue of identity if that judgement
>presumes to apply to his notion of identity too?  In both cases a
>higher degree of confidence seems required in the judges.

Sorry not to have replied to various questions raised on this thread. I was 
away in Florida at the annual academic conference run by the International 
Association for the Fantastic in the Arts, centered on the theme of 
transrealism (I wrote the book on that topic), where to my surprise and 
delight I picked up the Distinguished Scholarship Award for 2005. Cool fun.

As for whether cryonics is cool fun or a waste of money my family could be 
spending after I die (or "die")--well, I'm less concerned about the 
technical issues. That's simply a gamble, and maybe one worth taking *if I 
can truly be recovered*.

For me, the doubt arises from the issue of continuous identity, as we've 
discussed here in numerous debates and which I summarized in THE SPIKE. If 
you have teeny little brushes and a really accurate way to copy the Mona 
Lisa paint fleck by paint fleck, is the copy actually the Mona Lisa? Well, 
no. It's pretty much exactly the same, but exhibit A is the painting that's 
hundreds of years old and exhibit B is a fabrication that closely resembles 
it.

It's too tedious, however, to rehearse this argument when it's been 
presented before quite exhaustively.

Damien Broderick