X-Message-Number: 17134
From: "Gary Tripp" <>
Subject: re: : Infinite Self-Worth
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:54:10 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1174B.40460040
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Mike Perry writes:

>Subject: Infinite Self-Worth

>Eivind Berge, #17103, says

>>It seems to me that assigning an infinite value to yourself would
>>also work just as well as skipping the self-estimation. Both of
>>these would also be equivalent to embracing egoism, which I did
>>long ago.

>In fact, I think people can be assigned an infinite *potential* self-worth, 
>based on ideas and hopes I have about immortality. If things go as they 
>should, their "worth" (however you reasonably define it), though always 
>finite, should go to infinity over infinite time, as they develop and 
>progress to ever higher levels. This should avoid the problem that somehow 
>a person could be rated or feel "worthless". Having a basic sense of 
>self-worth I do not see as a detriment, properly handled, but really a 
>benefit and something essential. People who, like the devout Buddhists, 
>point to their physical housing and say, "there's no person in here," may 
>feel great bliss. But how many of them are signed up? As far as I can tell, 
>they simply are not interested.

Bang On!  The possibilities that attend the prospect of our "reanimation" in a 
future filled with the marvels of nanotechnology are so great that it elevates
the worth of anyone who possesses a sense of awe and wonder. Cryonics
as a possible bridge to this future is a rational gamble with a huge payoff.

However, I speculate that the unique characteristics and beliefs that 
differentiate pre-nanotech individuals would disappear or merge 
in post-nanotech individuals.
Once these super beings have developed a basic philosophical perspective 
then all of the disagreements on fine detail that separate individual views 

would be eliminated as their almost infinite computational capacity will resolve
arguments clearly. Liebniz can be heard to say "gentleman, let us calculate".
Thus there may be as many unique individuals as there are fundamental,
consistent philosophical perspectives up to closure under the operations of
logical inference - perhaps two, three ...  unique individuals (?)
Perhaps, after ruminating for a few seconds all super beings would conclude
that there is only one consistent, general philosophical foundation and 
deduce from this that there is only one optimal method of conducting 
one's affairs in a given situation. There may be only one unique post-nanotech
individual. Perhaps the truth is one but the ignorant have multiplied it. 

/gary



------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1174B.40460040

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17134