X-Message-Number: 14838
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 15:45:08 -0500
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Three dissagreements

Pizer disagrees with Dr. Donaldson on all three postings.

>From: Thomas Donaldson <>
>Subject: Alcor shouldn't ask for new insurance
>Hi everyone!
>With regard to the contract with Kirschner, I strongly agree that Alcor
>should allow Kirschner to rejoin with his previous contract for life
>insurance. Alcor may wish him to provide more information verifying the
>merits of the German company with which he has his insurance, but that
>is quite different from denying its merits because it is not a US



1.	What are all the ramifications if the company does not pay Alcor when
they do the suspension?  

2.	What will then happen to Mr. Kirschner, or anyone who gets frozen and
then Alcor does not get paid?

>From: Thomas Donaldson <>
>Subject: problems are member's responsibility
>Some comments on Dave Pizer's message:

>First, Pizer badly misrepresents my position.

If I did, I did not do it on purpose, and I apologize, these subjects are
too important to play games.  If I did, it was not nearly as bad as you
misrepresent my position in your later messages.

> If you don't live in 
>Arizona, then you may need a team to come to you. And that team may not
>reach you soon enough to give you an optimal suspension. That fact 
>remains true whether or not someone lives in the US or not, though
>in some cases getting the team to come to another country may be 
>much harder.


In foreign, overseas cases it *will be* (not as you suggest "may be") much
harder for Alcor to get to you.  First there is the distance, then the
different laws which Alcor does not understand, then the language barrier,
(it is hard enough to explain to hospital personal and government officials
why they need to do certain things in a hurry who *do* speak English - try
doing it to someone who doesn't speak your language). 

Chances are that, on average, foreign suspensions will take Alcor more than
a few hours longer to arrive, then in domestic suspensions.

And just a couple hours delay could mean the difference in NEVER being able
to restore the person in the future, because in a few extra hours of room
temperature your cells' lysosomes could release enough enzymes to eat up
whatever it is that makes a person the person he/she is.  Even with
nanotechnology, or Nanotechnology, one cannot restore what is not there.

> None of that bears on whether or not some can be allowed
>to become a member, regardless of where they live.

Thomas, GRRRRRRRr, I never said a foreign person should not be "allowed" to
be a member.  

I ONLY said the chances of them getting as good a suspension as a person in
the U.S. are less.  Thomas, are you denying that in any way?

I cannot understand why you would present arguments that might persuade
foreign cryonicists from banning together and starting their own companys,
when you, of all people,  should know that controling time of arrival is
the only critical part of a suspension that cryonics companies have some
control over.  All the other problems, like research to create perfect
techniques and chemicals are out of our immediate financial ability to
control. The thing a cryonics company *can* do to make a major difference
is to arrive on time.  But will probably will not happen overseas.  


>From: Thomas Donaldson <>
>Subject: the relevance of memories
>Hi again!
>I feel that I must answer Dave Pizer's comments about memory.


First, Donaldson, badly mispreresents my position.

All along I have said that memories are important.

I have said, and given evidence, and made the claim: "... that memories are
not the *main* thing involved in defining a person."  I have argued: "..
the thing that perceives the memories is the main part of selfhood."  

What I have argued against is the position that memories could be
transfered to a new and different memory-feeling device (different than the
one your brain now uses) and the new device that feels the old memories
would be the original you. I call that the "memories-only" position.

I do not think there exists any defensible memories-only position that
concludes that memories are the main part of a human without begging the
question.  I do not see how the complete argument can even be logically
written in the basic and complete argument form in English without begging
the question, without the conclusion in the premises.  I have not so far
seen any example contrary.

I might add this suggestion as to why the "memory-only-holders" are having
so hard a time seeing this selfhood concept clearly.  Most of the
"memory-only-holders" are mathematicians and they understand the universe
and people through mathematical principles.

But mathematics is not a good way to have direct knowledge about the
universe and conscious beings in it.  Mathematics may or may not be a good
way for people to have indirect knowledge and to determine *relations*
between objects and how these relations *appear* to them (the perceivers),
but does not give anyone direct knowledge of any physical (let alone
conscious) thing.  I believe trying to understand consciousness in
mathematical terms is what is giving the mathematicians their incorrect
understanding.  If we want to really understand living consciousness and
individualism we are going to have to do it in another way besides in
non-living mathematics.

Dave Pizer 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14838