From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 23:35:11 MDT
> From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
> The calculation need not be particularly rigorous. If significant information
> is stored structurally and if significant structural damage is a property of
> current cryonic techniques then it is given that there will likely be too
> much loss of significant information.
The calculation is not that simple. Three things I am confident of:
1. Personhood is encoded in the structure of the brain.
2. Cryonic preservation (both freezing and vitrification) significantly
damages the brain (as seen by analysis and simple unrecoverability with
current technology)
3. Personhood is coded redundantly since the brain can suffer significant
damage and retain personhood (as evidenced by recovery from severe trauma,
stroke, tumors and leisons).
What I am not confident of is: Does the brain have sufficient redundancy
to outweigh the damage done by cryonic preservation?
Since there is no way to increase the redundancy of the brain (with the
marginal exception of diaries, videos, etc.) then the only thing to do to
increase confidence is decrease damage. But even if the damage were
exactly quantifiable, there is currently no way to know what is too much.
Perhaps a complete theory of memory will help determine limits to
damage, but there is a great deal more to personhood than simply long
term memory. I think nothing short of complete understanding of the brain
at the level of uploading could give us certainty one way or the
other...and then what is the dewar for?
steve van sickle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 23:47:00 MDT