To maintain consistency in my views on the definition of humanity, I’ve recently begun arguing that children should not be considered human until around the age of 5. It tends to elicit a laugh and some interesting discussions thereafter, as I present it semi-seriously.
For the cryonics vs. embryo comparison, it would likely be down to the desires of the people involved and the future costs. A suspended consciousness has the potential for many more people who care about it directly as opposed to a hypothetical consciousness which has yet to influence anyone outside its parents, and is typically cared about in the abstract. The cost of reviving a cryonically frozen consciousness is currently unpayable, so it can’t really be compared with the cost of generating a whole human from scratch (natural birth).
For the ability to do a real world comparison, I would use the cost of birthing consciousness against the cost of bringing someone back from general anesthesia, which is very close to, and perhaps exactly, suspended consciousness. In that comparison, reviving the anesthetized patient has significantly lower costs and has many more people directly preferring it to occur.
This model also applies different values to different levels of consciousness and amount of experience contained within the mind due to the costs involved in obtaining and verifying it.
To maintain consistency in my views on the definition of humanity, I’ve recently
begun arguing that children should not be considered human until around the
age of 5.
I’m intrigued. What specific inconsistency drives you to this? I’m imagining you put a high value on something in order to publicly (even if jokingly) say such a thing, and I’m wondering what that something is.
What sets humanity apart from animals is our conscious mind and ability to reason. Children do not yet possess that full capability, though they typically have the potential for it with the appropriate time and effort. I adjust my values accordingly.
Thought experiment to judge the value/cost model:
Imagine if the revival of a cryonically preserved consciousness required, once thawed, sustaining the mind in an expensive machine which played back its memories at a cost of X per minute of life experience. Without this procedure, the mind would be that of a newborn, and with it, they are fully restored.
Further assume that you are alive at the time of this revival, rather than the person who is preserved.
How much X would you pay, if you were able, to revive a loved one? A stranger? At what point does the cost of X exceed the cost of birthing a whole new person to take their place, should you so desire?
Under this model, cryonics is a choice of very low maintenance costs to preserve the mind until such time as X swings in favor of restoring the preserved person, hopefully with the collective action of those whose preferences are inclined toward paying a higher X (cryonics advocacy groups like Alcor).
To maintain consistency in my views on the definition of humanity, I’ve recently begun arguing that children should not be considered human until around the age of 5. It tends to elicit a laugh and some interesting discussions thereafter, as I present it semi-seriously.
For the cryonics vs. embryo comparison, it would likely be down to the desires of the people involved and the future costs. A suspended consciousness has the potential for many more people who care about it directly as opposed to a hypothetical consciousness which has yet to influence anyone outside its parents, and is typically cared about in the abstract. The cost of reviving a cryonically frozen consciousness is currently unpayable, so it can’t really be compared with the cost of generating a whole human from scratch (natural birth).
For the ability to do a real world comparison, I would use the cost of birthing consciousness against the cost of bringing someone back from general anesthesia, which is very close to, and perhaps exactly, suspended consciousness. In that comparison, reviving the anesthetized patient has significantly lower costs and has many more people directly preferring it to occur.
This model also applies different values to different levels of consciousness and amount of experience contained within the mind due to the costs involved in obtaining and verifying it.
I’m intrigued. What specific inconsistency drives you to this? I’m imagining you put a high value on something in order to publicly (even if jokingly) say such a thing, and I’m wondering what that something is.
What sets humanity apart from animals is our conscious mind and ability to reason. Children do not yet possess that full capability, though they typically have the potential for it with the appropriate time and effort. I adjust my values accordingly.
One real world test: Ashley X
Thought experiment to judge the value/cost model:
Imagine if the revival of a cryonically preserved consciousness required, once thawed, sustaining the mind in an expensive machine which played back its memories at a cost of X per minute of life experience. Without this procedure, the mind would be that of a newborn, and with it, they are fully restored.
Further assume that you are alive at the time of this revival, rather than the person who is preserved.
How much X would you pay, if you were able, to revive a loved one? A stranger? At what point does the cost of X exceed the cost of birthing a whole new person to take their place, should you so desire?
Under this model, cryonics is a choice of very low maintenance costs to preserve the mind until such time as X swings in favor of restoring the preserved person, hopefully with the collective action of those whose preferences are inclined toward paying a higher X (cryonics advocacy groups like Alcor).