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

[Slawomir Paliwoda]

> > My definition of identity is quite precise, I think, because it defines
it
> > as a uniqueness of a mind process in space-time which means that it
focuses
> > exclusively on the set of processes that are mind processes (as opposed
to,
> > say, computer memory retrieval processes). It already assumes to have
all
> > the knowledge needed to differentiate between mind and non-mind
processes. I
> > imagine this knowledge to include all the causal links of the flow of
matter
> > that leads to the emergence of a mind.


> It's a big assumption, y'know.  I who must actually describe this sort of
> "precise" definition to an AI, have not been given nearly enough
> information to do so.


That only means that you haven't yet been able to discover that knowledge,
not
that it doesn't exist. The point is that it is theoretically possible to
objectively verify identity, not that it is impossible to verify it with
present-day technology.

Definition I gave was a definition of identity, not of a mind process. You
might have to describe the definition of mind process to an AI, but
explaining identity to it is unnecessary for it to function. Identity does
not change depending on what AI knows.

Slawomir