The results of the process is effectively a copy of the old brain and personality, but with permanent brain damage in several regions—this manifests effectively as an extreme form of cerebral palsy, partial amnesia (retrograde and anteretrograde), bipolar disthymia, and a partial frontal lobotomy—in short, you’ll get something that has recognizable facets of the original, but it’s an utter mess.
It seems unlikely that any of those damages except retrograde amnesia can be TRULY permanent in a post-resurrection society. The bigger problem in most people’s eyes (afaik) is that what you get back might have only a tiny overlap with the original and the resurrection might be more of a ‘creating a new human being which shares something with the original’ and less of a resurrection of the old person.
But to answer your questions if we assume that somehow things end up the way you are describing.
Q1: 1.0 if 1.0 is possible otherwise whatever they can do, I don’t mind waiting while I am frozen.
Q2: I think this is at least partially addressed in the cryonics contact (That is what I was told on #lesswrong recently) so there are no ethical problems.
Q3 As far as I know cryonics operates under a last in, first out paradigm for obvious reasons.
I understand the rational that “first in” will be more damaged, and require more advanced technology to fix.
But then, the “first in” will probably have more permanent damage that no technology will be able to undo, so is it really rational to use imperfect technology that will damage a “last in” brain that could have been restored fully, and then using perfect technology to restore a “first in” brain that will be damaged anyway ?
The answer doesn’t seem obvious to me, it seems like a real dilemma.
It depends on the technology and the actual risks, but yes it makes more sense to start with the best preserved, because after everything has been cleared up you will have less completely messed up people and also because the technology will most probably improve faster if at the beginning you start using it on better preserved people, because there are less factors to worry about.
It seems unlikely that any of those damages except retrograde amnesia can be TRULY permanent in a post-resurrection society. The bigger problem in most people’s eyes (afaik) is that what you get back might have only a tiny overlap with the original and the resurrection might be more of a ‘creating a new human being which shares something with the original’ and less of a resurrection of the old person.
This is a good point, and a few others have touched on it as well. To me, retrograde amnesia isn’t the only thing that risks permanent damage—there’s also the set of basic emotional reactions and sensory preferences that we call “personality”.
If someone remembered everyone that you remembered, but hated everything that you loved, would you really call that person “you”?
EDIT: It would be useful to me to know why this just got downvoted.
If someone remembered everyone that you remembered, but hated everything that you loved, would you really call that person “you”?
Not sure about “everything”, but people turn from love to hate quite often, yet no one questions that they are still the same person. Reminds me of the movie The Vow.
I have no clear definition of what constitutes the same person, once you don’t take into account inhabiting the same body.
It seems unlikely that any of those damages except retrograde amnesia can be TRULY permanent in a post-resurrection society. The bigger problem in most people’s eyes (afaik) is that what you get back might have only a tiny overlap with the original and the resurrection might be more of a ‘creating a new human being which shares something with the original’ and less of a resurrection of the old person.
But to answer your questions if we assume that somehow things end up the way you are describing.
Q1: 1.0 if 1.0 is possible otherwise whatever they can do, I don’t mind waiting while I am frozen.
Q2: I think this is at least partially addressed in the cryonics contact (That is what I was told on #lesswrong recently) so there are no ethical problems.
Q3 As far as I know cryonics operates under a last in, first out paradigm for obvious reasons.
Is “last in, first out” really that obvious ?
I understand the rational that “first in” will be more damaged, and require more advanced technology to fix.
But then, the “first in” will probably have more permanent damage that no technology will be able to undo, so is it really rational to use imperfect technology that will damage a “last in” brain that could have been restored fully, and then using perfect technology to restore a “first in” brain that will be damaged anyway ?
The answer doesn’t seem obvious to me, it seems like a real dilemma.
It depends on the technology and the actual risks, but yes it makes more sense to start with the best preserved, because after everything has been cleared up you will have less completely messed up people and also because the technology will most probably improve faster if at the beginning you start using it on better preserved people, because there are less factors to worry about.
This is a good point, and a few others have touched on it as well. To me, retrograde amnesia isn’t the only thing that risks permanent damage—there’s also the set of basic emotional reactions and sensory preferences that we call “personality”.
If someone remembered everyone that you remembered, but hated everything that you loved, would you really call that person “you”?
EDIT: It would be useful to me to know why this just got downvoted.
If the only shared characteristic that we have is memories then probably not.
Not sure about “everything”, but people turn from love to hate quite often, yet no one questions that they are still the same person. Reminds me of the movie The Vow.
I have no clear definition of what constitutes the same person, once you don’t take into account inhabiting the same body.
Personally, I don’t think anyone does, but it does seem to be pretty deep at the bottom of this hypothetical.
EDIT: It would be useful to me to know why this just got downvoted.