[ExI] Cryonics is getting weird

samantha sjatkins at mac.com
Tue May 18 08:12:06 UTC 2010


spike wrote:
>  
>
> A missive from our long time absent friend Brent Allsop, who is having
> trouble posting to ExI-chat.  Brent I checked your membership and it shows
> everything is fine.  Do check your end; perhaps the server is filtering us
> for some reason, or ask someone who actually knows something about internet
> protocols, such as our highly esteemed john at ziaspace.com.  You checked your
> filter, ja? to insure that some yahoo or concerned mo-bot didn't
> surreptitiously arrange to send all ExI-chat outgoing mail to the spam
> bucket?  Brent, we wondered where the heck you have been for the past long
> time.
>
> Here's Brent:
>
>
> ===============================
>
>
> Spike,
>
> Thank you so much, everyone, for making such a big deal about all this, and
> for collecting these survey results.
>
> This is all very difficult for me.  I first saw this story in the paper the
> other morning, and have been crying ever since.  This is very relevent to
> me, because this kind of family behavior is precisely what my entire
> religious mo-bot family seems to be communicating to me, they will end up
> doing.  (Not that any of them think about any of this much, or are willing
> to talk about it at all.  It seems more like they are afraid to think about
> it deeply, and they just mostly have ignorant knee jerk reactions and
> comments - mostly based on money and fear - nothing more - it seems to me.)
>
> Thankfully, my oldest son (now 24), and a few hints from my daughter (now
> 22), who were raised as mo-bots, seem to be coming around.
> Finally, neither of them by into traditional Mormonism any more.  And my son
> recently indicated he even supports my desire to be preserved, and is even
> considering it himself - especially if I want him to be signed up.  (one of
> the happiest days of my life when I found this out, along with realizing he
> is finally for sure deprogramming himself and escaping the mo-bot cult
> thinking - something I've been desperately working on their entire lives -
> never give up! )
>
> I pointed the article out to another family member, and they were visibly
> troubled by the entire idea, and obviously didn't want to think about it.
> They, in some knee jerk quick comment way, (about all I could get out of
> them in any kind of intelligent discussion kind of way) that they condoned
> the terrible rotting behavior of these siblings.  Then it was back in the
> sand with their head, and refusal to even think or talk about it any
> further.  I think they at least learned enough, thanks to what Alcor
> succeeded at doing, that these siblings completely failed at what they were
> attempting - so I imagine them knowing this has had an effect on whether
> they might think about trying something like this in my or my son's case -
> should they have the chance.
>
> I'm very surprised that there are so many people here that think there is
> such a low threshold for 'information theoretical death'.
Your brain is effectively a sophisticated bio computer.  After death (if 
not before under some unfortunate conditions) all the neurons and 
synapses, all the bits of your biocomputer and their interconnections, 
die and start to deteriorate.  If something does not stop the 
deterioration very shortly after your heart stops beating all that 
complex information loses its coherence rapidly to biological decay and 
rot.   There is no escaping that this is so.  Why look what happens to a 
person from say Alzheimer's or from some brain injury.    There is no 
use pretending it is otherwise.

>   Is there such a
> clear line as this? 
Yes.

>  If one believes in cryonics, you obviously don't see a
> clear line between life and death,
False or only half true in a sense.  What medically is considered dead 
is not irretrievable death.  That only occurs after the brain has 
deteriorated to much to every be revived with the memories, personality, 
knowledge and so on of the person intact.  That is true death.  Once the 
brain state is no longer coherent it is not retrievable.  Kaput.  At 
least this side of time travel to go back and retrieve their brain state 
before this point.

>  I have a hard time understanding how even
> death could ever be information theoretically complete - in any kind of hard
> line way.
The line is above.

>   No matter what is saved, that is always better than nothing.

Nope, not if the goal is the true reanimation of that person.

>   Any
> and all information or memory has value.

There is none in a decayed brain that has been dead a year with no 
effective preservation technology applied.
 
>   Even having a grave, or some kind
> of memorial item, that helps keep one in the memories of survivors, is
> surely a great help,

Not for reanimation of that person it isn't.   Being remembered is not 
at all the same thing as living again.
>  in addition to yet another way to communicate, clearly,
> how much one wants to live and to save as much as possible of all loved
> ones, even if it isn't much at all.  A frozen dead for a long time head is
> better than nothing, I think.
>   
Not really.  It is a travesty of what could have been a real possibility 
of future life.

If the brain is effectively mush or rotted away then all the finely 
interrelated informational contents that made you you is gone, kaput.  
No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

> To me, most of doing the right thing, is knowing and valuing what ALL
> concerned parties want.

If I am taking your meaning correctly then I disagree. There is only one 
party whose wishes must be respected in death even if it is a transition 
via cryogenics to eventual reanimation. That is the person involved.  If 
we don't own our own being in this and get to say what we wish and have 
it followed to the letter as much as humanly possible, then do we have 
any freedom or self-determination at all?   Personally I would write it 
in my will that anyone that attempted to thwart my clearly expressed 
wish in this matter is immediately disowned from any inheritance 
whatsoever. 
>   To me, the goal should be to get, as much as
> possible, what everyone wants.  

What for in something as personal and singular as your demise?
> And you can't do this without knowing what
> everyone wants.  That is one of the main reasons I created canonizer.com,
> because I want so desperately to know, concisely and quantitatively, as much
> as possible, what everyone wants, just like this.

Now that you know that, what do you want and what will you insist on 
having as your right?

>   That is why I am so glad
> that Spike is at least in a temporary, non rigorous or non definitive way
> especially if someone latter changes their mind, collecting this data.  I
> would give so much if more people than just me were interested in rigorously
> 'canonizing' this kind of data in a topic that would contain much more
> definitive, detailed, quantitative and concise survey information.
>   

I am not sure a survey is all that helpful in this area but I am 
probably missing something.

> Another thing that is troubling to me, is the operantly hate for the
> siblings, and the apparent desire to destroy what the siblings want.
>   
The siblings effectively reneged on the person's express wishes 
concerning their own death.  They denied effectively their dying wish.  
This is rather contemptible.   Certainly people that act like that 
deserve no particular sympathy in the matter.

> Very true that not rewarding such terrible behavior is far more important in
> this case.
So you call their behavior "terrible" but don't think people should look 
at them with anger and contempt for doing it?

>   But I would think that getting the siblings what they want at
> least deserves a mention, since we seem to be collecting all pro and con
> arguments.

What in the hell for in such a case?
>   I believe that some day true justice might be possible.
What would that look like after they had already robbed the decease of 
any chance for future life?
>   So,
> rather than just throwing the money away, part of me would hope I could get
> it to them, if it could be done in some way that it doesn't promote more of
> the same terrible behavior.
>   

They get money the deceased wanted to go to possible more life for 
denying the deceased the opportunity?  That would be horrifically unjust.

> Then after everyone is resurected, maybe they would have to be my slave for
> a million years to make a restitution for what they did to me, and to pay us
> back for the refund they got?
Sorry Charlie.  Nothing to resurrect you from in such a case.   Perhaps 
you are thinking of religious magic rather than science.

>   Everyone so hating what everyone that is
> different wants, and everyone trying to destroy what everyone else wants, is
> what is killing us all.

That is a bit sloppy formulation.  Justice is treating people on the 
basis of how they act.   Justice in the case of reprehensible behavior 
is treating the party that engaged in the behavior with the appropriate 
level of opprobrium.

>   I think we need to always be aware of what everyone
> wants, and work to get as much of all of it as possible.

Well that is sweet sort of but just because somebody *wants* something 
doesn't mean that they are entitled to it or what they want is 
reasonable or that it is exactly as valid as anyone else wants.  All 
wants are not created equal.    If what they want is to deny another 
their dying wish, their wish for what happens when they die or what 
someone "wants" is to impose their will on another usurping their right 
to self-determination, then that *want* is contemptible and deserves 
neither respect or consideration.

>   If you at least
> know what everyone wants, and value it at least a little, there is a much
> better chance that you might find some creative way to achieve more of it.
>   
I don't value a *want* just because it is a *want*, no.   A want as such 
may be totally irrational and even, as in this case, vicious.
> If it isn't clear, I'm definitely in the number 4 - never give up -
> anything, no matter how small, and no matter how poorly preserved, is better
> than nothing - quad.  And I think we should add the benefit to the siblings,
> getting the refund, as a pro for the refund quads, if we can do so
> indicating that it is much more important not to reward such terrible
> behavior in this case.
>   

You just rewarded it.  You cannot both reward it and not reward it.

- samantha




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list