<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Robert Bradbury wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Brett, I am going to make an argument that may be somewhat<BR>> in
contrast to the perspective you seem to be operating from.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Brett]</FONT><BR>> > Why shouldn't I be
uncomfortable? I don't think of myself as</DIV>
<DIV>> > merely what other people perceive me to be. What
evidence</DIV>
<DIV>> > is there that I or any homo sapiens can survive the
complete</DIV>
<DIV>> > disassembly of their brain?<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Robert]</FONT><BR>> I don't know -- I doubt we
have the theoretical knowledge at</DIV>
<DIV>> this point to make good arguments pro or con. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm pretty confident myself. I think existing
theoretical knowledge</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>IS good enough at this point to make very good
arguments for the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>con. Whether those arguments are persuasive would,
like most </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>arguments, depend on the willingness of the persons
listening to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>be persuaded. Recall the intro I put at the top of
the Smalley, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Drexler and the monster in Lake Michigan thread.
True-believers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>can find ways to believe in the monster in the lake
or in santa</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>claus or God, or cryonics,
or nanosanta </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>indefinately.
Intelligence</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>does not remove the capacity for </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>rationalisation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What is really missing is a reason for a
person </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>to go to the trouble</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of trying, as I think its one of Adrian's sig
lines puts it, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>it is very</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>hard to </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>argue a
person out of a position that they did not argue</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>themselves </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>into in
the first place. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>W</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>hy would anyone
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>bother? Where is the pay-off? </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>True-believers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>don't like to pay one for the service of
dis-illusioning </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>them. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jehovah's Witnesses will come to you
uninvited and talk to you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>effectively forever about what they believe but try
and get one of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>them to bet US$1000 dollars with you if they are
wrong and see</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>how quickly they move on muttering "wicked,
wicked".</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> There are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>easier pickings for them. They just </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>want to talk about what they</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>want to talk about and to sell you </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>the Watch Tower if you'll buy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it and to get you to join them if </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>they can. But essentially they</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>are playing a numbers game. They may be "nice"
people. Puppies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>are "nice" too. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PT Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute.
Unfortunately</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>when one removes the dummy from a baby and doesn't
replace it</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>with something else one doesn't get smiles so much
as tears. And</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it doesn't matter whether the removal is done
with good </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>intentions</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>or not. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>One rarely gets gratitude for the service of
dis-illusioning. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Brett]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the
self can survive</DIV>
<DIV>> > the disassembly of the brain in which one currently
experiences</DIV>
<DIV>> > it) from religious systems that believe the same
thing? Isn't it a</DIV>
<DIV>> > case of pick your belief-poison?<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Robert]</FONT><BR>> I would like to
correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*<BR>> strictly require the
disassembly of the brain. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think you are making a distinction without an
important difference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a
purported potential</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>procedure </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>does
require anything. Its not a person. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its also, so far as I know, true that cryonicists,
the more committed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>one's, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>don't make
explicit in the common literature about the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>purported </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>potential
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>procedure of cryonics that it will require the
brain</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>being </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>disassembled
at </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>some point. I worked that part out for
myself.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But go </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>ahead
and show </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>me if you can, how Robert
Bradbury's</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>superior </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>perception
of cryonics </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>can do both an end-run
around</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>entropy and </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>extract
sufficient information </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>on personal
neuronal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>structures to produce </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>even a very good *copy* of </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the
original self. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> One is involved in very complex biochemical processes as
to</DIV>
<DIV>> how one reanimates a brain. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence
that brains have</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics
"preservation"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>procedure </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>that I
don't? If so please share. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Those may involve in turn the amount of damage
that were</DIV>
<DIV>> present or took place when a brain was suspended.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As I say, I think they must, for the purported
potential procedure of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cryonics to work. (Even given the other purported
potential enabling</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>nanotechnology). I think you do well
to replace "may" with "may not"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>above. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get<BR>>
back your original atoms in their original structural form.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please
show me if </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you can, if you really think you can. Hell don't
just show me show</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a lot of people and really differentiate cryonics
from religion. How in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>your </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>superior
perception </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>of </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>cryonics to mine is it even possible </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>principle to get </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>back the </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>original </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>atoms? I'm stating that it isn't. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> In my personal opinion (as per my discussions with Harvey)<BR>> you
have a *really* difficult time proving that your "self"<BR>> today is the
same as your "self" yesterday.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've been enjoying reading some of Harvey's recent
exchanges with</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you, he is really making you work to hold your
"beliefs". I think that's</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a very healthy thing regardless but I think Harvey
is doing you more</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>of a service than you are doing
him<FONT>. </FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But only a dimwit would fall for the sophists trap
of trying to prove</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>they exist. (And Harvey is no dimwit. Nor
obviously are you). If </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>there is one </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>thing
that everyone </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>must have to be involved
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>in </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>any</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>discussion - including discussions about science,
and logic,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and rationality </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>-
it's oneself. One needs to be oneself (and that's </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT>a material substrate)
BEFORE </FONT><FONT>one </FONT><FONT>learns </FONT>language and
acquires</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the tools </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>of logic
and can practice </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the scientific </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>method. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If your looking for a premise or an axiom or a
first cause for you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>its you. You are the centre of your perceptual
universe. Robert</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ettinger knows that and is now, apparently, writing
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>a work of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"philosophy" :-) entitled the Youniverse. You
can even order</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a copy in advance. His pitch is quite good really.
I'm thinking</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of buying one myself, because I respect Robert
Ettingers </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>commitment AND see SOME merit in his thoughts,
even though</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think he is wrong in some areas. Like that
cryonics will work.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>I do not know if a homo sapiens can
survive the complete<BR>> dissassembly of their brain. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> I would assume based on previous experience that at least</DIV>
<DIV>> the first couple of times we are going to get this
wrong. </DIV>
<DIV>> However I do have a reasonable confidence in physics that</DIV>
<DIV>> *if* it is necessary and a brain disassembly is required
that</DIV>
<DIV>> a reasonably accurate brain reassembly may be
executed. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That's your understanding of physics. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>If you insist on </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>anthropomorphising physics, I suggest that
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>you </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>think of
"her"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(or him) </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>as </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>fickle and entirely self centred.
She "physics" </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>doesn't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>care about </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>you at
all. She </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>does even care that you don't
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>understand</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>her. You </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>understand
her more or less well because its more or less</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>useful to </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>you to do so while you are alive. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But physics isn't a she of course and doesn't
have a point of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>view any more than science has a point of view or
rationality or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>logic has a point of view. </FONT> <FONT
face=Arial size=2>They are things you can use to serve</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you as opposed to beliefs which are things which
hurt you but </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>make you feel warm and fuzzy and social to profess
because</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in a world of monkeys banannas can seem like the
only useful</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>currency. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> It may however take some time for humanity to make this</DIV>
<DIV>> process work on a reliable basis.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Or, it may simply, never ever happen - because it
would violate</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>contingency. Essentially you are your living brain.
Most of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>atoms will have changed in your brain in your life
but the neurons</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and their "connections" have never undergone
anything like</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the wholesale dis-connection
all-at-once, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>that cryonics
processes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>or dying involves. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's a "bitch" but there it is. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stem cells and cybernetics Robert. Stem cells and
cybernetics.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You need to move your self off your substrate
in stages while you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>are alive, (ie. no 12 hr plus EEG
flatlines) - </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>just like how you grew</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>or you are gone my friend - you </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>will be a fondly </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>remembered</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ex-parrot. Dead as Franklin. Dead </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>as Newton. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dead as Pascal.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brett Paatsch</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>