A view on cryonics (was Re: [extropy-chat] Bad Forecasts!)

[Brett Paatsch]

Slawomir Paliwoda wrote:
 
> > So, without referring to how it came to be, but only considering how it
> > is experienced, what is the measurable difference between being the
> > original versus being the copy?
> >
> > - Jef
> 
> I answered this question in my reply to John K. Clark:
> 
> > 1) Prove to me that you are the original and not the copy.
> 
> Suppose the location of any mind in the future is recorded using 4
> parameters (x,y,z,t). At the moment of creation, my clone's mind will
> necessarily occupy a different location than my original mind. 
>Therefore, I will be able to prove my originality by presenting a log
> detailing  locations of my mind in space and time, which will show 
>different values for  x, y, z, and t from the values of someone who
> claims to be me. As long as I can show that the set of space-time
> position parameters for any two minds never share the same exact
> values, I will always be able to prove identity of any mind.

I think you and I are in agreement Slawomir. I think you system is
cogent and has better explanatory power and utility in that it suggests
ways by which progress may be made. 

I suspect that this recommendation will be unnecessary, that you will 
probably do it anyway, but I think you should write down in one place
your own view of cryonics defining your key terms "identity" "mind"
"person" etc (because these words are slippery and will be slippery
again - Descartes for instance assumed a mind body split but had in
mind a different use of the word "mind".)  When you first brought
it up I couldn't immediately see that it was necessary and it had 
connotations of ghost in the machine. That clearly is not what you
meant. 

I'd also suggest you keep the questions that you have been asked
in a sort of FAQ.  

Now about your above comment. I want to get clarification.

The time parameter is clear necessary and I agree. Your x, y, z
 3D spatial parameters are point spaces I presume? Even though
the mind is not a point. It may have some conceptual spacial 
midpoint. The centre point of an inflated balloon actually has no
balloon there. But the balloon boundaries like a brain's boundary
delimit the balloon. 
 
That is, it is not each atoms that it is relevant to track they can come
and go (and indeed each atom could have an identity and trajectory
of its own in and out of the personal identity but thats the identity of
an atom not the identity of the "person"). Dito synapses. 

You cannot say exactly how large the mind is spatially (volumetrically)
can you?  Nor do I think you need to at this stage. Though we can 
upper limit it as the size of the brain. And lower limit it as greater than
zero. ie The mind process will always by spatial definition run in some
positive volume of space. 

There may be some parts of what we understand to be the brain 
which are actually superfluous spatially to the region in which
the mind process works. As we discover what these are we may 
scientifically reduce the space of the mind-process but never below
zero. 

Agreed? Or is some of the above a misunderstanding of your
position. 

Brett Paatsch