101 replies to this topic

[cyborgdreamer]

Theoretically, yes, we can create a duplicate of me as I sit here typing. I am trillions of potential people. Clones could be made from my skin cells, my heart cells, my kidney cells, etc., so I am hundreds of trillions more potential people.

I'm also a non-potential person, an actual, currently active, living, breathing, thinking, emoting person, sitting at this keyboard and typing rather slowly (60-90 WPM, hardly becoming of a self-proclaimed computer geek).

The cryonically preserved person is also trillions of potential people that could be made by copying the person, as well as hundreds of trillions of potential people that could be made from the cells of the preserved person's body. But, uh, not one currently active, living, breathing, thinking, emoting person.

I don't see why you equate people who might never exist with people who existed in the past. Your potential clones have never cared about their existence so you aren't morally obligated to create them. However, a cryonics patient used to be a thinking, feeling concsious being with a deep desire to survive. Thus, we are morally obligated to save them. Human rights don't die with the neural firings.

As for the duplication arguement, based on my tentative assumptions on the nature of consciousness, I think that all duplicates who share your experiances and brain activity would be 'you'. Therefore, it's not a question of whether arbitrarily many Cyborgdreamers have a right to exist; rather, it's a question of whether I should be present in arbitrarily many instances. I have an intense desire for one Cyborgdreamer to exist but I don't particularly want there to be several. Therefore, if I was cryonically frozen, there would only be a moral obligation to revive me once.

[Shannon Vyff]

This video has some of the construction of CI's, but yeah a fire would be very bad...

http://www.transhuma...759:Video:15514


On topic, to answer the question that I'm certain would never happen--I'd save the orphan. She'd be screaming, the preserved patients wouldn't be feeling any pain. Oh and I would totally adopt her!

[cyborgdreamer]

I can't, however, ignore when someone, anyone, is suffering.

It's not a question of "how many lives will be saved in the long run", but more of "this girl is about to suffer an agony beyond words. I can stop that. Will I ignore it and walk by?"

Personally, I don't see how any amount of suffering could compare to human death. Suffering is finite but death lasts forever.

[cyborgdreamer]

We aren't talking about "suffering of the girl" vs "death of the patients". We're talking about "suffering and death of the girl" versus "death of the patients".

Clearly, the girl gets the worse end of the deal than any of the 100 patients involved, so I would save her.

If it were a choice between having one person undergo suffering and death or having another person die painlessly, I'd choose the latter. However, we're talking about one painful death versus 100 painless deaths (if you believe they would all be revived). Therefore, you are essentially valuing one person's suffering to be worse then 99 deaths.

[JediMasterLucia]

You have a choice of running into a burning building and saving a ten-year-old orphan child crying for help, or you could shut the child behind a fire door, enabling you to prevent the loss of 100 cryonic patients. Do you save one person, or 100 "people"?

I try to save them both...
This is a strange question, which I can not answer..

[eternaltraveler]

Therefore, you are essentially valuing one person's suffering to be worse then 99 deaths.

Yes.

Yes, I am.

I believe that was the message of my original post.

I really don't like the logical conclusion of where this idea will take you.

[jaydfox]

To be fair, you have to take into consideration one's view of the potentiality of the cryonics patients versus currently living people. Rephrased as one girl's agonizing death versus the death of 100 people who would die painlessly in their sleep, it becomes a totally different situation for some people. Others might not see a big distinction. It might seem callous to you for someone to choose to save the girl, it may even seem like a dangerous line of thought to which it leads, if you don't see a big distinction.

[eternaltraveler]

I really don't like the logical conclusion of where this idea will take you.

What is the logical conclusion of where this idea will take me?

Not a cryonics facility, I hope? Because I think I just proved that I should be kept the hell away from those

the fact that you view suffering as not just a little worse than death, but at least 100 times worse, and considering most people suffer quite a bit before they die means the logical conclusion is that people are better off dead according to your viewpoint. If you kill 100 people painlessly, chances are you have eliminated the chances of quite a few of them suffering horrendously.

The logical conclusion is that the extinction of all life capable of suffering is a noble goal.

Now, hopefully, you just haven't thought this through fully.

[eternaltraveler]

To be fair, you have to take into consideration one's view of the potentiality of the cryonics patients versus currently living people. Rephrased as one girl's agonizing death versus the death of 100 people who would die painlessly in their sleep, it becomes a totally different situation for some people. Others might not see a big distinction. It might seem callous to you for someone to choose to save the girl, it may even seem like a dangerous line of thought to which it leads, if you don't see a big distinction.

of course. That is the crux of the original question, and some people are going to think the 100 cryonics patients have about a 0% chance of ever coming back. Myself based on what I know think I can make an educated guess that they have a 10-20% chance of coming back (more recently suspended people would be higher as the technology is improving). Therefore choosing the girl over them would have the effect of killing 10-20 people.

However Hudzon has stated that he thinks the cryonics patients will be successfully treated, but since they wouldn't suffer when they died it's ok.

[Shannon Vyff]

It is sad as Elrond pointed out, that some of the cryonicists might someday be revived, and therefore would not be. Yes, they do not suffer or know about it, they are already dead--Yes, the girl would be scared, suffering and in pain.

I'd add to my above comment that I would raise the girl as a cryonicist, and try to get an equal amount of people signed up in the future , to assuage my own guilt, in case it worked and those people came back someday...

I'd be happier till I died, at my 'natural time' 'the first time', having raised the girl. I'd be guilty about the other's that died, but not knowing if they'd ever come back--or if I would, my guilt would not be as high as if I'd let the girl died--plus I'd still be a cryonicist and encourage others to sign for the chance.

[eternaltraveler]

First, even if you view my actions in the most evil way possible, I'm not killing a 100 people to alleviate their suffering, I'm "killing" them because it would mean saving someone else from it.

That's every bit as bad. It means you would be willing to kill lots and lots of people to save a few from suffering. How barbaric.

It is nothing less than justification for genocide. Various groups of people have animosity toward each other such that greater than 1 in 100 of them is likely to suffer greatly, and die a terrible death. Is this justification for complete elimination of one of the groups? Please enlighten me to the difference.

You view suffering, a transient phenomena, as worse than death, a permanent phenomena. Which is absurd.

[eternaltraveler]

Yes, they do not suffer or know about it, they are already dead

if you think they will be revived then they are absolutely not already dead. If you don't think they will be revived that is another matter.

[eternaltraveler]

I am quite certain that there are certain degrees of agony that would make even the most hardcore immortalist wish for death.

Wish for death while it was happening, absolutely. But if I could make the choice in advance I would choose to suffer and live through it, rather than die painlessly.

However much she would suffer you still view killing 100 people as better. How many people dying painlessly would be trump the one dying in pain? 101? 1000? a million?

I'm thankful you have not followed your idea through to it's conclusions, and instead are relying on an emotional, not logical argument.

[eternaltraveler]

Perhaps. One of the assumptions I made when making the decision was that I would have to act quickly or else they would both die, hence not giving me much time to ponder on the moral aspects of the situation. When in doubt, make the gut choice...

in that case I have no fundamental problem with your position. Humans make emotional decisions in trying contexts they haven't planned for in advance.

[Shannon Vyff]

Yes, they do not suffer or know about it, they are already dead

if you think they will be revived then they are absolutely not already dead. If you don't think they will be revived that is another matter.

You do not have to think that they will, or think that they won't--I contend that it simply is not known. I'm a cryonicist, but I have no idea if it will work. In this scenario they were just regular cryonics patients--and currently we don't know.

Also all cryonicist that are currently preserved are legally dead, if if they are revived they still would have been dead at one time. Even if you used a scenario in which you knew for certain that each of the 100 cryonicaly suspended patients will be fully conscious and sentient again someday, they still at that time will have no knowledge of their impending demise, nor will they feel any pain upon being burned.

[cyborgdreamer]

You cannot go and makes such arbitrary statements as "suffering is better or worse than death". Unlike death, which is a constant, there are various degrees of suffering. Some of which are very much permanent and in every possible way.

You keep implying that there is a rational or even a moral answer that would apply to any situation of "suffering or death", yet you are forgetting that each of us has their own limits, as well as a different level of tolerance for suffering. Burning alive may seem like transient or superfluous to you, but that may not be the case with other people.

That's true. In fact, death isn't a constant either because different people value it differently. There's a lot of room on the continuum between suicidal people and ardent immortalists. So, if you had all of the information, the logical solution would be to compare how much the girl negatively values burning to death with the combined negative value the surviving cryonicists assign to death in stasis. Of course, this is hopelessly impractical but you could probably tell something about how the girl was feeling. What if she knew about cryonics was willing to sacrifice herself for those 100 people? Would that influence your decision?

[bgwowk]

Also all cryonicist that are currently preserved are legally dead, if if they are revived they still would have been dead at one time.

If a missing person is declared legally dead, and then later found alive, we do not say that they were dead at one time. We say that we were wrong. So it is with cryonics.

Even if you used a scenario in which you knew for certain that each of the 100 cryonicaly suspended patients will be fully conscious and sentient again someday, they still at that time will have no knowledge of their impending demise, nor will they feel any pain upon being burned.

Agreed. Another way to put forth the dilemma is in the form of 100 patients unconscious in a coma, with an unknown prognosis. The legal label "dead" should not affect the decision, unless of course legal consequences of the decision are a concern.

[Shannon Vyff]

[/quote]

What if she knew about cryonics was willing to sacrifice herself for those 100 people?
[/quote]


In the scenario they are regular cryonics patients, what is there to 'know'? I'd not sacrifice myself to save 100 cryonics patients, that should be the question here I suppose.

How many would choose to die in the fire themselves in order for the 100 cryonics patients to continue being preserved in the hopes of eventual renewal?

[Shannon Vyff]

Also all cryonicist that are currently preserved are legally dead, if if they are revived they still would have been dead at one time.

If a missing person is declared legally dead, and then later found alive, we do not say that they were dead at one time. We say that we were wrong. So it is with cryonics.

Even if you used a scenario in which you knew for certain that each of the 100 cryonicaly suspended patients will be fully conscious and sentient again someday, they still at that time will have no knowledge of their impending demise, nor will they feel any pain upon being burned.

Agreed. Another way to put forth the dilemma is in the form of 100 patients unconscious in a coma, with an unknown prognosis. The legal label "dead" should not affect the decision, unless of course legal consequences of the decision are a concern.

On the first point, if a missing person is declared legally dead, then found alive later--they have to pay back any life insurance their family had collected, they could be charged depending on the circumstances for fraud. For legal purposes, if a cryonics patient has died then later is alive again, a court would declare that they were once legally dead--there would be radically different interpretation that what we have now, but for instance that patient would not have to pay back life insurance their family collected amongst other things.

On the second point, 100 patients in a coma have something gravely wrong with them, with as you say an unknown prognosis--I'd still save the healthy young orphan girl. Also considering legal consequences now, one could be changed under a Good Samaritan law with manslaughter for not attempting to save the living girl, per this original scenario with the legally dead cryonics patients.

[eternaltraveler]

but for instance that patient would not have to pay back life insurance their family collected amongst other things.

there is no legal precedent on which to base this statement. Best to make sure the contract you sign with your insurance provider does not give them recourse to reclaim their money should you be later revived.

Of course at that point you're alive, and can probably expect to have an unlimited lifespan ahead of you. Plenty of time to pay back such trifles should the legal system of that time require it.

[bgwowk]

On the first point, if a missing person is declared legally dead, then found alive later--they have to pay back any life insurance their family had collected, they could be charged depending on the circumstances for fraud. For legal purposes, if a cryonics patient has died then later is alive again, a court would declare that they were once legally dead--there would be radically different interpretation that what we have now, but for instance that patient would not have to pay back life insurance their family collected amongst other things.

Actually life insurance typically does not have to be repaid in missing person cases unless there was fraud or mutual mistake of fact. In other words, if the life insurance company and beneficiary agree to a good faith settlement in missing person case, the settlement is typically upheld if the missing person reappears. So we hope it will be with cryonics. All parties know what they are getting into. From the insurance company's point of view, until such time as there are elective cryopreservations, the actuarial statistics and practical circumstances are the same for cryonics as for any other life insurance policy. If future law were to side with life insurance companies in reclaiming death benefits upon cryonic reanimation, then surely it would have to side with families in massive malpractice suits against hospitals and health insurance companies for not cryopreserving other legally dead patients.

In both cases, missing person or cryonics, that the person was legally dead is a matter of fact. The part that was mistaken is the belief that they were *really* dead.

On the second point, 100 patients in a coma have something gravely wrong with them, with as you say an unknown prognosis--I'd still save the healthy young orphan girl. Also considering legal consequences now, one could be charged under a Good Samaritan law with manslaughter for not attempting to save the living girl, per this original scenario with the legally dead cryonics patients.

Indeed. That was my point. The label of legal death has legal consequences, but the label of "death" does not properly frame the ethical question. For the ethical question, the label "unconscious with distant, uncertain prospects for recovery" is most appropriate, even if the final decision is the same. In less extreme scenarios, affixing the label "dead" to cryonics patients can lead to very unethical outcomes.

[JonesGuy]

On Mr. Fox's issue with a cryopatient capable of being copied inumerous times:
- maybe we shouldn't be reviving them, if the revivifyiing process is crude enough to allow multiple copies to be made with the data collected?

Multiple copies can only be made if you're willing to have some imprecision in the copy. Some "wiggle room" in the data. At sufficiently precise information-collection, it should only be possible to have ONE copy of that information at all (because transferring the information would remove the information from it's storage device). At this level of data collection, it's only possible to have one 'copy' of the person at a time.

That said, I suspect that consciousness and continuity are much more macro phenomenon than quantum precision. You really could get a fully conscious person by using a blueprint derived from a frozen body.

[cyborgdreamer]

What if she knew about cryonics was willing to sacrifice herself for those 100 people?

In the scenario they are regular cryonics patients, what is there to 'know'?

What I meant was that the girl would have to know what cryonics was in order to make an informed decision.

I'd not sacrifice myself to save 100 cryonics patients, that should be the question here I suppose.

How many would choose to die in the fire themselves in order for the 100 cryonics patients to continue being preserved in the hopes of eventual renewal?

In all honesty, I probably wouldn't sacrifice myself either, but maybe the child is more altruistic than me. My point is that her value system should be at least as important as your own in this kind of decision.