I stand to be corrected on this but I beleive that the strongest instict
in man is self preservtion followed by survival of the species.
Sex is the vehicle in which species survival is secured.
Now assuming that Cryonics one day is successful and that humans need
never die, will the instinct for species survival become redundant as
the human race would automatically survive without any struggle in this
new world of immortality?
It may then follow on from this that the sex drive eventually fades with it too!
A future life without sex may not appeal to many!
But no doubt, medicine at that time will still be able to ensure that we enjoy going to bed by taking our pills!! :
Not so much a ‘morning after’ pill but a ‘night before’ pill!!
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject:
I recommend reading Charles Stross’ Accelerando.
Once you are an entirely digitized entity, you could alter your
volitions at will. I suspect some of us will want to create variant
branches of ourselves that could take different roles in life. Some
would be sent out to explore the universe. Some would be responsible for
the care of others, and some would have no other purpose in life than
pure hedonistic abandon
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:06 am Post subject:
lunarsolarpower – you are now getting into the transhumanist idea of “uploading” which has one major flaw:
Which one of the copies is the real you? If they’re all you then do you perceive things from all of their perspectives at once?
If you could scan your brain and upload it all into a supercomputer
running a neural net simulation right now and done so but I pulled out a
gun and pointed it at you would you care about me pulling the trigger?
A copy of you is not you and until we can figure out what creates
subjective awareness and actually transfer that to another medium
uploading as a means of personal survival is pure fantasy.
With regards to sex drive – I would argue that sex has over the past few
decades become more and more a recreational rather than a reproductive
thing. If sex becomes obsolete at some point then something else which
satisfies a great need will replace it. Currently sex is one of our
greatest drives because the species needs to reproduce. But another need
will replace it and become equally satisfying, and when that happens we
will not care. Perhaps eating or taking anti-aging pills (personal
survival) will become the new sex. Maybe we’ll all have to cover up our
food and medical equipment to prevent offending others!
You’re not dead till you’re warm and dead
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:43 am Post subject:
When I discuss the possibilities of any future revival with Cryonics I
am careful not to mix up the possiblities with science fiction.
Sci fi can conjure up anything but real life is another thing
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject:
Well if you want to postulate a strictly biological reanimation scenario, then I suspect that very few people would want to give up the benefits derived from their sex drive. That is unless someone developed a superior system of course.
That’s why I liked Accelerando is because he did explore how society could deal with multiple copies of an individual. For example, if two separate copies had each been living their own life for 30 years and they both arrived at the same location, they could simply spend a period of time assimilating the experiences of each other and coalesce into a single person once again.
Also, with regard to your brain scan/murder scenario, of course I would not want to be shot. However if nanomolecular dendrites slowly infiltrated my brain and gradually my consciousness grew to stem more from the digital than the biological until “I” had left the flesh, then by all means dispose of the body. This of course is seriously far-out science fiction, but it doesn’t seem beyond some form of possibility given what we know of our universe and consciousness.
I see now that I did not understand the sense in which Animation was asking the question.
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:28 am Post subject:
I think that the certainty with which you make these statements is unwarranted. These are philosophical questions about our subjective definitions of “self”, and the conclusions that you reach regarding yourself, while absolutely valid, are not universal.
A year ago I would have agreed with you, but today I now personally think that the question of which member of a set of identical duplicates (at least identical at the time of duplication) is spurious. I see it as equivalent to asking whether the copy of FireFox running on my laptop is “more real” than the copy on my desktop computer. They’re all equally valid.
Would I be bothered if, after successfully uploading me, you pointed a gun at my head? Of course! You’re endangering me! Likewise, if you threatened to delete a conscious digital upload of me I’d take issue just as vigorously for the exact same reason.
I don’t think that the existence of multiple iterations of me devalues “me”. However, I will concede that the loss of a single instance of me is much less of a tragedy if other instances persist, if only because less of the pattern that defines me is permanently lost.
This issue is similar to the question of whether or not uploading is desirable if the process is destructive to the original. I admit that I am more comfortable with the idea of being uploaded through gradual augmentation, with unbroken continuity of thought as I transition from meat to a synthetic form, but this preference isn’t rational. Call it “vestigial organic bias” if you will.
Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject:
From the view point of species, sex is a tool not only for reproduction, but also for the improvement of species’s adaptability(by chaging genes to make new individuals).
Even though human has developed the so-called civilization and the focus of evolution has moved from genes to intelligence(ex:experience, personality, knowldge, …etc.), the basic concept or working principle of evolution will not change. That means…
 No matter what kind of mudium will be used to contain your mind(the basic unit of evolution), the construction of container will waste our usable resource gotten from universe.
 No matter how advance we are, in the future, we still have to improve, change, or tune our species to adapt the universe.
 According to , you are not allow to copy yourself too much, because you have to share the disk space with other evolution unit.
 According to , mutation is necessary. Thus new members are still required.
 According to  and , the best way to generate new executable units will be making new units by referring to multiple well-performed units.
I don’t know how will we call step  in the future, but nowadays we call it SEX.
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: Change the universe to suit humans– vs. changing humans.
You forgot about changing the universe. And by God, we can do that if we really put our minds to it right now. I’ll start.
Just a reminder to the reductionist cryo faction– man is not a machine. And a machine can’t be a man. Life begets life. Human Cognition begets Human Cognition. Man is more than an animal. It’s okay and scientific to view the cognitive phase space as occupied by God– that doesn’t detract from the cryonics mission. Transhumanism isn’t the only cryonics contextual philosophy– Transuniversalism– changing the universe is a viable counter strategy that’s a LOT nicer, friendly and in tune with Natural Law. Blah blah blah.
I’m the only cryo in the world who thinks this way that I know of, but if what I say resonates with you, let me know. Especially the girls– because like that guy said– sex is a pretty important element in the universe and we ought to do something to enable that on a higher level. On THAT much, we agree.
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:
Personally I view conciousness as something metaphysical with roots in the physical world. We cannot as of yet trace the path from “these neurons here fire” to “concious entity feels this emotion”. The subjective awareness is generated somewhere in the brain, but we don’t know where. I do not believe in some kind of immortal soul or any of that other kind of spiritual nonsense but I do believe that conciousness itself is not purely physical and this is why I insist that my original brain must be repaired with the original matter if possible in order to ensure as much as possible that it’ll be the same conciousness that wakes up as me. I do not actually know in the philosophical sense if my current conciousness is the same as it was yesterday or if the current Gareth is a different entity that just happens to have the same physical brain and body.