X-Message-Number: 16504 Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:57:34 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Reply to Epstein #16482 >A computer program can't be a person. Prove it. >We can't be sure that living with dementia >means losing memories permanently. And we can't be sure the memories are still there. Faced with oncoming dementia, not yet to serious proportions but likely unavoidable, for me the conservative approach would be to opt out by cryopreservation, before the situation did get bad. >... >The universe is not the highest >order of infinity.Occam requires >that there BE an explanation, >refusal to explain is not an >explanation. Does the existence of a "God" provide a truly "final" explanation that just saying the multiverse exists does not? >... >At the "rock bottom",you find God. At the "rock bottom" you find "What You Find At the Rock Bottom". If your term for this is "GOD" rather than "WYFARB," is there really a difference? > > Or our universe may > > be just one in an infinite multiverse with diverse physical laws. The > > infinite multiverse, if it exists, may have no further explanation. > >It has to have one. Why? You could just label it (the multiverse) "God" (or "Wyfarb":). >... >God is the highest order of infinity, >the ultiverse/multiverse/universe is >infinitesimal in comparison. I see little in the way of experimental evidence for something on the scale you are referring to. What does it mean to be greater than the multiverse? > > >But there has to be an answer to > > >"why are there laws of physics?" that > > >isn't just a ducking of the question. > > > > As above, no, there does not *have* to be an answer to that question. > >Yes,there does. >I think you can guess what I call it. Is there an answer to why there are laws of mathematics, why the digits of pi are what they are and so on? Were they "designed" and could they have been different from what they are? >... > >However,you can NOT prevent your >absolute obligation to conform your >values to God's!! Give me an example of a value of God's, and tell me how you know this. >...no organization is particularly >directed by the Divine,and no claim that >one particular organization is an exception >to this rule is credible. A lot of people disagree with this. How do you *know* they're all wrong, yet you also "know" there's a God? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message #16468 Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 22:54:00 -0700 > > From: Mike Perry <> > > Subject: Re: CryoNet #16444 - #16455 > > > > >From: Deathist Lurker Girl <> > > > > > >So that means I can't be taken seriously? > > > > Depends on circumstances. I remember some years ago, someone was in > > the position of trying to convince others to sign up with a cryonics > > organization, yet was not signed up himself (either with that or any > > other group). For me that's a turnoff. > >Well,consider this... >does everyone who sells Rolls-Royces >for a living have the quarter-million >dollars handy it takes to buy one these >days? A different issue, to my thinking. Cryonics is relatively inexpensive to have arrangements for, for persons in reasonable good health and not too old. This person was in far better shape than James Swayze to be signed up, yet had less in the way of arrangements, and also made no appeal for help, as far as I know. >...> >From: Louis Epstein <> > > > > > >On 6 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote: > > > > > >The issue is not choosing cryopreservation. > > >The issue is ACCELERATING cryopreservation > > >when one is still capable of postponing it. > > > > > >Remember...the goal of cryonics is not getting > > >INTO cryopreservation but getting OUT of it. > > > > You really misunderstand here. All you're trying to do is get to the > > future, say 100 years from now, with your mind and memories intact. Which > > course of action has the best chance of accomplishing that, letting > > Alzheimer's disease take its toll, then what's left of you being frozen, > > or getting cryopreserved early in the course of the illness, when you're > > still mentally intact? > >See the above discussion with >Max More about whether this is >really true. Indeed, I'll grant that Alzheimer's *could be* less of a threat than it seems. I hope so. But the point I'm making here applies more generally, to any brain-threatening, terminal condition that may come up. It's hard to rule out all of them. >Someone electing to refuse nutrition >when diagnosed with Alzheimer's >so as to get frozen as quickly as >possible is I think acting in a >fashion one might credit to the >disease,not in reasonable avoidance >of it! You are entitled to your opinions, but it would be wrong to interfere with someone who disagrees with you and chooses the above. > > There is a fair amount of evidence, though no conclusive > > proof yet, that good cryopreservation does preserve identity-critical > > structures that would be lost in such a case as this, if the disease runs > > its course. With these structures intact, there is further evidence that > > the mind can be restored to function someday, when technology has > advanced. > > So can you see how it's a rational choice to choose cryopreservation when > > you're still in good shape, before a disease robs you of your identity? > >No.I think that the damage done to the structures >by cryopreservation,for which no means of reversal >is known,is greater than the damage done by the >disease,for which reversal may be found in the >much nearer term. Again, it's your right to think that, but some others disagree, and are entitled to a different choice than you would make for yourself. > > >No,in the case of those who jump the gun,they're gambling that if they > > >hurry to the electric chair ahead of schedule,they have a better chance > > >that the juice won't fry them completely. > > > > And they could well be right, in this special circumstance. They certainly > > should have the right to choose. > >We disagree.(It certainly doesn't work >on death row). It is not hard to imagine a scenario where it would, say, if you were writing a novel. > > > > > I venture to assert that people with brain cancer or other terminal > > > > ailments try everything possible to halt/reverse it, and only when > > > > their attempts fail do they consider cryopreservation. > > > > > >But by seeking death by dehydration,etc.,they are attempting to make > > >sure that their attempts fail. > > > > Not at all. > >I stipulate that brain tumors do not >grow at liquid-nitrogen temperatures. >Be that as it may,rendering oneself >unable to fight is not winning a >battle. No. But in this case it also renders your opponent unable to fight, which allows time for reinforcements to arrive and save you. > > > > If the odds of dying by doing nothing are greater than the odds of > > > > dying by being cryosuspended, then cryosuspension is the rational > choice. > > > > > >But those who seek to get cryosuspended before they have to are not > > >just choosing to be cryosuspended,they are choosing to forego a portion > > >of their otherwise-guaranteed conscious lives. > > > > Only a tiny portion, in return for the chance of a much greater amount of > > consciousness. Like being willing to bet a dollar on something you think > > will pay off in millions, and having some evidence to back you up. If > > you're down to your last dollar, with no significant prospect of earning > > more, is this such an irrational choice? > >Do you think poor people are >wise to buy lottery tickets? No. But the odds are stacked in favor of the house. If the odds were better, it would make sense. I think the odds are better here. >... > > >...I consider the existence of an Infinitely First Cause of existence > > >necessary for there to be any existence... > > > > >(Pay close attention to that word "Infinitely" above...it completely > > >negates the tired old then-who-created-God riposte). > > Well, someone could raise the issue of whether any cause could really be > > "first." But to me the existence of a First Cause does not carry the > > necessary implication that the First Cause is a sentient being. To me the > > multiverse, the totality of all universes, makes the best candidate for a > > First Cause. Everything comes from it and it is always there. > >That's ducking the question. >"It just is" is NOT an explanation, >but a refusal to explain. > >If "it is always there",the IFC/God >is WHY it is always there, >and there HAS to be a why. >"Sentient being" or not, >"None of the Above" is not >a candidate. I don't follow you here. It seems that in your view God is "just always there"--is that really an explanation? Or if it is, is it still anything nontrivial? What is outside the multiverse? > > Yet as a whole it is also mindless, as far as we know. You could call this > > God, which would make you a pantheist of sorts, but to me it's the wrong > > choice of terminology. Traditionally God was held to be a personal being > > with consciousness and ability to communicate and understand. > >I am disinclined to believe that God >communicates with language-as-we-know-it. To me that calls into question whether the "God" you believe in is enough like my idea of "God" to qualify as such. > > I don't think that kind of being exists, which is why I consider myself > > an atheist, though "with a concept of divinity" because I think "we are > > becoming God." This in turn is happening through our efforts to become > > immortal and bring about the highest happiness all around. Some may protest > > that we are hardly doing all that (though a few like cryonicists are making > > a start by trying to become immortal) but I see our constructive efforts > > gaining momentum as time passes and more scientific progress is made. > >We are increasing our capabilities, >and may we ever continue to do so. >But we are still finite and will >remain finite.And can never become >the Infinitely First Cause of >That-Which-Is. But again, is the IFC of TWI really something to call God? Is it sentient? Capable of hearing and answering prayers? >(Strong-Anthropists notwithstanding). > > > Naturally, I hope that > > good will prevail in all this, but it's all up to us. > >But that we exist,and that "good" exists, >is God's doing. I'd say it's the multiverse's doing. Again, what is outside the multiverse? >... > > >..> Adherents can't just believe whatever they like, though a rigid > list of > > > > dogmas is not enforced. > > > > > >I said "whatever ELSE they like",meaning that certain core beliefs > > >about cryonics were all that united the Venturists. > > > > There's more than just that. Cryonics is a means to an end. Venturists > > believe they ought to be immortal, and ought to form a harmonious > > community, to work for what is good and right, forever. Quite a lot, > really. > >OK...a "Supervitalist" church that I could conceive of as >sponsoring cryonics would agree with that sort of thing, >but also cultivate a dogmatic hostility toward death that >the right-to-die attitude is completely opposed to. You could have an organization like this; the Society for Venturism is more respecting of freedom of choice, even when we disagree with the choices made. > > > > Cryonic Interment, Inc. kept frozen bodies in a crypt in a cemetery for > > > > awhile. They were "out of sight, out of mind" and ultimately all were > > > > thawed and lost, with much legal recrimination. But associating > ourselves > > > > with cemeteries would bring us under cemetery rules and > regulations, which > > > > weren't intended to apply to bodies or parts stored in liquid nitrogen. > > > > > >Well,the commercial-cemetery model is not exactly the same as the > > >churchyard-cemetery model,and it sounds like Cryonic Interment didn't > > >even have their own land.But what are the main problems with the > > >regulations? > > > > The regulations pertain to how "dead bodies" are stored, such as in > graves, > > in mausoleums, etc., and how they are prepared, usually by embalming. (Or > > you can go the cremation route.) Ours are not embalmed, are stored above > > ground, and are not hermetically sealed, which already breaks the rules. I > > don't have all these rules at my fingertips, and can look into this > further > > if you want, but you can see how there would be problems. > >How is the sealing of dewars/cryostats different >from that in a mausoleum/crypt? I'm not expert in mausoleums and crypts but I've heard that unembalmed bodies stored above ground must be in hermetically sealed containers if stored more than a few days. You cannot do that with liquid nitrogen; it has to have a place to go as it evaporates and expands over 700 times in volume. (Or if you had a tremendously strong vessel that could contain the evaporating liquid, your contents would warm up to ambient temperature and defeat your purpose.) >Couldn't a cryonics facility potentially save >on insulation by being underground,though a >mausoleum usually isn't underground? Possibly, and also offer more protection, but still it would be difficult and expensive to set up such a facility--not that it's an inherently bad idea though. >Seems to me that preparation for cryostasis >should qualify as a form of embalming,after >all,it preserves the bodies even more effectively >with proper maintenance!! The logic is there, but try telling that to a cemetery board. You'd have to get laws rewritten, which isn't easy. >...> > and for sake of argument genetically enhanced for beauty and > > > attractiveness (just stacking the deck here for argument sake-not > > >suggesting it would be necessary) and then along comes a sweet looking > > >extropian gal that says she's just gotta have you--you will turn her > > >down? And let's add to this scenario that uploading is not yet an option. > > > > I don't feel a *need* for the attentions you are referring to, so why > > should I have such a need in the future? > >It isn't a need,I'm sure. >But can you not see the >possibility of a desire? "Desire" and "need" (the way I meant it here) are pretty closely related. With due respects, I really do intend to remain celibate in an immortal future, as I envision it, though I'll grant that it's hard to imagine being more than human, and our attempts to do so may prove more than naive. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16504