Re: Cryonics and information theory

From: S.J. Van Sickle (sjvan@csd.uwm.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 23:35:11 MDT

  • Next message: Spike: "RE: toilet head dunking"

    > 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