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