X-Message-Number: 10981
From: "Timur Rozenfeld" <>
Subject: Standards, etc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 07:52:08 -0700

> When I proposed to an Objectivist study group a few years ago that signing
up for cryonics was a
> rational outcome of their stated standard of life, I discovered the SAME
ARGUMENTS given by
> anyone else rejecting cryonics.
> This wasn't a scientific sample.
> Neither did their "reasoning" make sense to me.
> Still doesn't.
> HOW one defines "life" or any other chosen goal still seems arbitrary to

If defining life and any other goals are arbitrary, then we are all "right"
in our selected goals and there is not much point in trying to convince
people of cryonics, if their arbitrary standard of life is no better or
worse than yours. Implicit in your statement is that cryonics is the *right*
option for human beings who choose life. When you are dead, there are not
many good definitions for life...

I happen to agree that it is illogical to reject cryonics if one takes life
as the standard.

As for self-esteem, I don't really understand what problems you have with
it. Many people probably fear cryonics out of religious reasons and because
they just don't believe it will work...

> If you cease to identify with your experiences (actions, emotions,
thoughts, etc.), then this
> enables the free and emotionally unfettered use of and understanding of
same in direct
> proportion.

I don't understand what you mean by the above.

> I personally think the "experiencer" is a mental illusion and can be very
successfully lived
> WITHOUT.  In fact FAR more successfully!

You talk about illusion. But before you identify something is illusion, you
must have identified something as reality. Illusion means non-real, so you
first have to know the real. We experience things every second of our lives
yet you claim that is an illusion. By what means have you arrived at this

Timur Rozenfeld

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10981