X-Message-Number: 16989 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:56:06 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Simulation, Conscious Ducks, Survival Options, Trygve > >Message #16971 >From: >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:33:54 EDT >Subject: Re: CryoNet #16958 Simulation >... >Here, "world" is not simply Earth, it is the observable Universe. That >space-time reduces in last analysis to quantum mechanics (QM) and this one is >ruled by the so called ON2 mathematical field. For example, in ON2 the >square of a quantity L is not L x L, it is : L ( L +1 ), a property >discovered in QM before the invention of ON2. ... All the observable >Universe may be so produced by the nothingness gauge. What is a good, basic reference (if any) on this fascinating-looking stuff, of which I confess almost total ignorance (book preferred)? >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message #16976 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:42:57 -0700 >From: Olaf Henny <> >Subject: Constructive Thinking Without Consciousness? >... >Quote: >Quack thinking mom rescues her brood >By Mark Wilson, Staff Reporter >... >I say, that this duck supplied us with a good example for >constructive thinking, which must account for consciousness, >even if you refuse to accept the fear of the fly as such evidence. Some years ago I saw some amazing home movie footage a relative had taken of a duck playing with a dog; they were almost like two children "horsing" around. Of course, a die-hard could always maintain that no amount of behavior that looks like consciousness in some animal is the "real" thing, but that borders on solipsism. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message #16977 >Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:24:43 +0000 >Subject: Re: It is perfectly reasonable to reject cryonics (not!) >From: "" <> > >... >Fact: your only alternatives are: > >a) hoping that you'll survive until death, disease and aging are eliminated. >... >b) religion and other superstitions that promise life after death, ... >c) a meek, defeatist acceptance of death (the humanist way). ... >d)...there is no d! You've run out of options. Actually, I'd add an alternative, perhaps call it "b+" since it's related to "b": "afterlife based on pattern survival." If a copy of you or other suitable construct reappears, or recurs, you survive. Furthermore, I think that such a construct will inevitably recur (whether you consider it "you" or not), based on the nature of reality as it seems to be (a randomizing multiverse). I realize these are highly controversial positions that many do not accept. But I don't consider this afterlife possibility a "superstition" along the lines of beliefs in the paranormal or animistic beliefs about mystical beings who will resurrect us. It's something quite different. I also feel that the quality of one's afterlife will depend on the choices one makes in this life, and that choosing biostasis, given that one's life as usually understood must end, is the better alternative. All these points are covered in my book. > > So when you make a cryonics pitch, most people will > > try to > > find something to say that will shut you up. > >And you reply: got anything better, you walking corpse? That should get >their attention. For some, though, and I think quite a few, this is actually a big turnoff, despite its apparent effectiveness. My alternative, that "it's better to be signed up though death, as I see it, is not an absolute" hasn't taken the world by storm either, thus far, but I think it deserves a hearing. >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message #16979 >From: "Trygve Bauge" <> >Subject: Bauge fires back at Rick Potvins bogus attack! >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:48:28 +0200 I'm sorry about the attacking and counterattacking here. I think Trygve means well, and that his position actually is not so different from that of his severe critics such as Rick Potvin. But the nature and volume of his postings has caused alienation, misunderstanding, frustration, and condemnation. Here is my take on what seems to be the main issue, what to do in cases where someone cannot get a good suspension. I think material containing information about a person is worth preserving even in cases where it is obviously compromised, as after long burial. But in such cases a cell sample may be as good as anything more--supplemented, as feasible, with other items such as documents, photos, tapes--call them *records* to distinguish from biological remains. There are certain, rather involved reasons why I think this could be especially important, as I argue in my book. It would, in my view, lead to genuine betterment in an afterlife that I see eventually coming into being in any case. But I doubt if many of those who call in for some deceased and possibly long-buried relative will care to study these arguments or be much inspired by them, especially in their current state of grief. Often it happens that interest in saving or preserving remains of the deceased declines to almost nil after the grief has passed. The reason for initially wanting the preservation, then, was not well-founded and did not reflect a careful, informed, rational choice. So an organization offering to "do what we can for now," could easily open itself to charges of preying on grief-stricken people and fostering false hopes, even if its motives are entirely honorable. I raised the issue of whether a cell sample may be essentially as good as the whole body. Unless it is specially treated, the brain liquefies shortly after death. As I understand it, the treatment for burial is normally only cosmetic and is not sufficient to prevent this decomposition. This would be grounds for accepting cell-sample storage plus records as essentially the best that can be done if the person has been deceased very long and not specially maintained. This could be handled much more inexpensively than a whole-body preservation. I think it is by far the best option to advocate, in the usual cases where a relative of a deceased and long buried person is determined to do something beyond records only. (And even here you must be very careful.) Otherwise you may end up with an expensive freezing operation whose full up-front cost is unaffordable, so the relative elects to make payments. Eventually, after the grief has passed, the payments may be be discontinued, and the body reburied. Something ventured, nothing gained, and the organization handling it (assuming there is one that would allow this sort of thing) does not look good. More generally, it is not good if the maintenance depends on the continuing financial contributions of relatives, especially those who are not cryonicists themselves. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16989