[ExI] Cryonics and reanimation/simulation

[John Grigg]

David Lubkin wrote:
It recalls the story of the axe. First the handle was replaced, then
the head, but it retains continuity as the axe.

Is there a point in the extent of repairs needed that you'd consider
John-2 to be a different person, in the sense that the perfect copy
is?
>>>

I am more familiar with the story of the man who due to a neurological
disease, has over time a larger and larger percentage of his native
neurons replaced with artificial ones.  At what point does he stop
truly being himself?  Can this really even be quantified?  I just
don't know.

I have read some chilling science fiction stories about such
scenarios, but they are simply speculation.  I wonder whether such a
person would encounter "posthuman shock" as the process progressed,
but I have a (disturbing, I must admit) hunch they will probably
adjust fairly well and not suddenly feel alien to themselves.

Samantha Atkins wrote:
Me too.  I care more about the quality of the running instance, its
completeness and performance, than I care about platform.  I would
personally be delighted to be reanimated into a really good future
upload space with options to create one or more bodies of my choice
(human, android, defies description, whatever) to run around in
physical space when I so desired.    But that's me.  :)
>>>

Samantha, I'm going to be saying to you (the *you* who was scanned and
simulated in an android form) in the year 2100 (while in my reanimated
meat body)
that it's not really *you* but a near perfect copy/identical twin of
the original Samantha Atkins!  And this will be the source of
never-ending argument during our close to immortal lives!  I will
consider David Lubkin an authentic original (high resale value on
eBay!) unless he does a destructive scan to another substrate.  ; )

Samantha Atkins wrote:
I disagree with the notion of "just a copy".  But I don't want to
reopen the never ending continuity of identity debate at this time. :)
>>>

-Why not???  Evil laughter fading off into the night....

David Lubkin wrote:
For revival -- I tend to be a cautious and skeptical adopter of new
tech. My inclination is to come back in a meat body first and then
hear about the alternatives, rather than going straight to upload or
non-meat. I sure don't want to start in an upload and then find out
it's running on Windows 2055.
>>>

A smart plan.  I remember Paul Moller saying in an interview that he
was determined to not have the software for his flying cars be based
on Microsoft, or the airborne machines might end up regularly smashing
through people's roofs! lol  It could be even worse when it came to
uploads...

Mike Dougherty wrote:
Right, the old axe wasn't that sharp.
>>>

Well..., I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, either!

John  : )


On 5/20/10, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Damien Broderick
> <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:
>
>> On 5/20/2010 8:52 PM, David Lubkin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I view a perfect (or at least near-perfect) copy of me by scanning and
>>>> simulation as the ultimate in twin brothers, but not actually me.
>>>> It's the whole "self-circuit/continuity" thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It recalls the story of the axe. First the handle was replaced, then
>>> the head, but it retains continuity as the axe.
>>>
>>> Is there a point in the extent of repairs needed that you'd consider
>>> John-2 to be a different person, in the sense that the perfect copy
>>> is?
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't really recall that story. It recalls a story in which a very
>> worn axe head and splintery handle were replaced in one foul (rather than
>> fell) swoop by a gleaming new axe head and handle using the original
>> specs.
>> Terrific for anyone wanting a sturdy new axe, not so much fun for the
>> original axe. Luckily axes haven't got a clue.
>>
>
> Right, the old axe wasn't that sharp.
>