X-Message-Number: 17229
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 03:35:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to Aug 5-7 Cryonets
CryoNet - Sun 5 Aug 2001
------------------------
#17197: Re: Ed Reifman -teeth [WalkerBill]
>> Dentistry is 'overkilled' with excellent filler materials. The true
>> breakthroughs, i.e., growing a tooth/treating periodontal disease from
>> assembler nanotech is perhaps decades away. (Yes, I wish it were sooner)
> Could you mention an "excellent filler material", please? My quick
>search of dental literature came up with plastics that are only intended to
>last 3 years according to their makers, and good old amalgam, which is a
>total thermal expansion mismatch... obviously I missed the good ones. I
>would note also that the teeth are supposed to repair themselves somewhat
>by remineralization, something that could happen with "fillings" based on
>calcium flouride phosphate/protein, but not with plastic.
Once and only once,years ago,
my dentist,rather than drilling
and filling,etched and sealed a
tooth.Has this proven a dead end,
or are the specific circumstances
under which it's the best thing to
do rare?
Beyond this,what is doable about
teeth *wearing* as opposed to decaying?
Can enamel be "topped up"?
#17199: Free will and responsibility [Robert Ettinger]
>Louis Epstein writes, in part:
<< If the hypothesis that we have no free will,since all our actions are
predetermined by the laws of physics applying to our atomic components,
is correct,then we can not logically be held responsible for the inevitable
occurrences.Any concept of our being able to make decisions,
in such a framework,is nonsensical. >>
>It is a never-ending source of amazement that bright people can make the
>simplest and grossest mistakes--and that, no matter what you say or how
>clearly you say it, someone will misunderstand it.
>1. We have "fee will" at the conscious level. That is all that is
>possible, and all that is necessary.
If consciousness leads us to the conclusion
that all our actions are completely beyond
our control,the logical moral basis for
regarding actions as more blame- or praise-
worthy than others collapses.Obviously,our
reactions to the actions of others would be
similarly predetermined.
#17202: Duplicates, Free Will [Mike Perry]
#17196: Jul 19-22 Cryonet Responses [Louis Epstein]
>...individual identity implicitly requires uniqueness,
Not in my view. It's the bits that count, not the atoms.
"What atoms are these?"
is not a question answered by their
arrangement.
>>alternate-universe analogues of an individual may be interchangeable
>>like copies of a book,but they are still not each other.
>In the ways that count to me, they can be considered "each other," that
>is to say, multiple instantiations of a single entity.
I don't see it that way.
>The book analogy is a good one.
So if we both buy copies of a book,
I can take yours since it's the same
thing as mine?
>>In the case under discussion I think you WOULD be "creating a fantasy
>>individual" to the extent that a biographer is making an estimate of a
>>subject.You can't know what's inside someone's head!
>Whatever you put in would actually have occurred somewhere (in one or
>another parallel universe), thus you would restore this material without
>having to "know" what it was beforehand.
Every possible combination could occur in some
parallel universe,so from that standpoint the
details are meaningless and no effort to approximate
the frozen person is necessary.
>> >Now, granted, I don't think this is as good as bringing someone back
>> >from a good cryosuspension (or other adequate preservation) with
>> >memories intact.That's why I remain a staunch advocate of biostasis. But
>> >nevertheless it supports the conclusion that death is not an absolute,
>> >something I find essential.
>
>>A duplicate is nonetheless not an original.
>>You may make a copy of someone who has died
>>without bringing the dead person back to life.
>This again is a point of disagreement. But I think you'll find this
>disagreement among many immortalists too. Some of us would have no
>problem with our original material being completely replaced (say with
>similar atoms) before reanimation, others would. To me, nanites working on my
>frozen remains would mainly have the task of ascertaining information.
>With sufficient information "I" could be straightforwardly reanimated (not
>"just" a copy, but the real, original me, to the level that is important
>to me), from the information alone, even if the original material is lost.
A sufficiently accurate copy of me made in such a fashion
would believe very strongly that it was not the "real,original me".
>>How can we tell if people frozen today are more revivable than James
>>Bedford?It's now in the 35th year since he was frozen.Of course,this
>>discussion is taking place mainly among people who are thinking maybe
>>they'll be frozen 35 years from now and revived 35 years later,
>...
>>But I'd rather be around in 2071 by having gotten to age 110 the
>>old-fashioned way.
>Well, suppose the choice is as follows. At 75 your brain and mind will
>be essentially intact and unimpaired. At 110, however, though remarkably
>enough "you" will still be alive, you will also be a human vegetable,
>your mind in a dim, twilight state of near-unconsciousness, most of your
>identity-critical elements now obliterated. Under those assumptions,
>would you choose a premortem cryopreservation at 75, or wait till nature
>took its course? (To simplify the argument I'm assuming you have only
>these alternatives to choose from.) For me, the choice of a premortem
>suspension would be self-evident.
If the science of 2071 could repair me from
being frozen/vitrified,surely it would be
easier for it to repair me from being senescent
but animated.And I would have forfeited all
possibility of experiencing the years 2036-71
in any condition.
>Whether it is correct or not, I have the right to this opinion, and feel
>strongly that I--and others too of course--should also have the right to
>choose accordingly.
I think that the toleration of people choosing
accordingly would be a threat to the ability of
others to choose otherwise.
>>If the hypothesis that we have no free will,since all our actions are
>>predetermined by the laws of physics applying to our atomic components,
>>is correct,then we can not logically be held responsible for the
>>inevitable occurrences.Any concept of our being able to make decisions,
>>in such a framework,is nonsensical.
>Effectively, we *can* be held responsible, even in the absence of free
>will, simply by a mutual agreement among others around us ("society") who
>will enforce such an agreement for their own protection.
Still nonsense,as these actions would be
as totally predetermined as all others...
the agreement would not be a consequence of
the parties,but of particle physics.
#17203: Temperatures: Introducing the Cryo Scale [Appraisco]
[David C. Johnson]
>Louis Epstein:
>Just to be sure I have all of this right, let me attempt to reiterate.
>Since my first
>TEMPERATURE Scale post, Robert Ettinger posts recognizing the
>CENTIGRADE Scale as another name for the
>CELSIUS Scale where Ben Best posts with the
>KELVIN Scale and now you bring up the
>RANKINE Scale though we are most comfortable with the good ole
>FAHRENHEIT Scale where we probably could develop the
>CRYO Scale--just to keep things uniform and simple. : )
Well,given that statement and the
message subject,would you please
explain the Cryo scale and why it's
better?
>Thanks, Louis, for pointing out Dr. Strehler's website in a post several
>weeks ago as part of your tracking the deaths of important people (note:
>Katharine Graham, 1917 - 2001) as it gave me the idea and interest for my
>LN2 experiments with fire flies. Next up is Lichens--an interesting
>symbiotic arrangement of algae and fungus--where I will be attempting
>successful suspended animation of these eukaryotic "plants."
Does this series of experiments have
the same college-girl-in-bikini factor
as the firefly investigation?
CryoNet - Mon 6 Aug 2001
------------------------
#17206: IQ versus common sense [Doug Skrecky]
> I used to be a member of Mensa, an organisation where even the village
>idiot has to have an IQ in the top 2% to join. People on welfare showed
>up at meetings. People who were apparently mentally ill showed up. One
>even boasted about how crazy "it" was. In short lots of people showed up
>who could not add two plus two and reliably get an answer of four. I am
>no longer a member of Mensa.
I'm a member of Intertel,a top-1%-IQ group that
I joined primarily because it wasn't Mensa,with
the attendant reputation...was disillusioned to
see that it is mostly Mensans,and meetings also
attract oddballs.
>If the entire population suddenly was gifted with 10 extra common sense
>points, our society would be transformed overnight.
> Bums in the street would vanish, because begging is a harder way to
>acquire funds, than working a job.
Are you sure?
(A certain Sherlock Holmes mystery
comes to mind,not sure how factual).
#17207: Scientific American, Ideas are important, PROACT [RUDIHOFFMA]
>Anyone questioning the importance of ideas and ideologies to directly impact
>the "real" world of science and research need look no further than the
>*RIDICULOUS* and *SHORT SIGHTED* recent US House action "banning" cloning
>and stem cell research.
>This is a bill I did not know was coming for vote. I would gladly have
>emailed and written my representatives to express strongly my opinion and
>ideology. Like many/most of you, I am "pro-science, pro-research, pro-free
>market, etc. and think that government banning of research will simply make
>it more difficult for ethical research to be done. While driving other
>research "underground" and out of the country.
>WHERE were the urgent emails from "pro tech" groups encouraging me and
>making it easy for me to write my representatives?
Note that this has only passed the House...
perhaps insistent lobbying action can bottle
it up in the Senate.(More likely it will be
watered down a little to allow stem cell
leeway,but that might still not endure a
conference committee).
Does anybody know how quickly it's expected
to be voted on?
#17208: CO2 versus LN2 [Appraisco]
>"What are the radiation-resistance properties of extant dewars and cryostats?"
>I believe cell culture dewars (like mine) have layers of reflective surface
>celephane-like layers or at least mirror-like coatings on the exterior
>surface of the inner wall of the vacuum chamber/envelope. However, I believe
>this is intended more as a means to reduce radiant heat reaching the LN2
>than to specifically prevent subatomic particle damage to the specimens. We
>get that type of damage continuously but have very active cellular repair
>proteins constantly fixing "busted" organic cellular molecules such as DNA
>(forget inorganic cellular molecules which are tiny and cheap). In short,
>I do not believe such ionizing radiation is significant over a few hundreds
>years (outer space would be a much different story). It might be "ruinous"
>over several hundred thousand years.
Of course there is no repair going on
inside frozen bodies.I know a sheet of
foil will stop a significant fraction of
radiation and believe the walls of the
containers are more substantial than that.
Of course,nobody expects cryostasis to
endure for "several hundred thousand years",
but many here seem to think it will last for
less than "a few hundreds"...just how long
are existing providers preparing for,should
it prove necessary?If the 21st and 22nd
centuries don't produce nano-heaven but don't
see the end of civilization either,will
accumulated damage wreak a toll once reanimation
technology finally arrives?
CryoNet - Tue 7 Aug 2001
------------------------
#17210: CO2 versus LN2 [Doug Skrecky]
>I will let the readers decide for themselves about the probable condition
>of Trygve's grandpa. I will just mention that for less that the cost of
>setting up a dry ice storage containment facility independantly, Trygve
>could have stored his father's corpse in liquid nitrogen at CI.
He was of course planning a more elaborate facility
when his obsession with not getting a visa got him
chucked out of the country.While whole bodies might
have more luck than bone marrow cell samples,I doubt
that reanimation technology will be perfected while
there's much cell structure there to work on.
#17211: First human cloning project proposed despite U.S. short sightedness
[James Swayze]
>First human clone bid planned
[story snipped]
>Bravisimo! It has to begin somewhere. Damn the luddites, full speed ahead!
I am rather baffled by the "clonophobia" recently fanned...
may it crumble!!
#17212: World end in 122 years? [Thomas Nord]
>A Comet will come close to earth then. On its way till then, it will pass
>other planets as may affect its route, for better or worse for us.
>There are more ones to find. Its a matter of money to find them and steer
>them away. I would feel better if the money is fixed before my big cold.
Not only a comet,but there's someone in the
guestbook at http://chrisnelson.net/ who says
the world will end Friday the 13th of February 2123!
(Chris has a great list of failed doomsday predictions
and links to others).
#17213: Re: IQ versus common sense [Mark Plus]
>I suspect the cultural belief about the "wisdom of the elders" is only
>partially true, a generalization that would have seemed more plausible in
>the past than today. In premodern situations, old people were genuinely
>scarce, hence their advice was more valued. Also, because the material
>and social environment changed slowly, if at all, whatever a person learned
>in youth would probably still be relevant in old age. This certainly
>would have been the case for primitive technical skills like farming,
>blacksmithing and similar activities. It was probably also true when it
>came to political or legal judgments.
Once we are past the passing inflation of technology to
the physical limits,longevity will be a valuable stabilizing
glue for human societies.
>Today, however, we are surrounded by a much larger population of people
>living to advanced ages, and, frankly, I'm not impressed by what I'm
>seeing. I have to wonder if we can do better as a society than leaving the
>development of prudence and good judgment to whatever haphazard processes
>operating now.
What are you proposing?
Some radical alteration in values education?
>Failure to solve this problem will have literally life-or-death
>consequences if we succeed in attaining radical life extension, for
>I don't think it would be good to have a bunch of really old people
>with youthful physiologies running about if they remain prudentially
>retarded.
Certainly the current circumstance of violent crime
being the province of under-50s almost exclusively
will not hold if people continue to remain in youthful
shape.
I note that the latest NY Times Magazine has a quote
from William Osler addressing Johns Hopkins in 1905
approvingly referring to a Trollope novel where men
of 60 would go to an institution for a year of
contemplative study and then get chloroformed,saying
it would be a good thing to make public policy...and
claiming that nearly all valuable creative work was
done by those aged 25 to 40.
Obviously,those of us who want to last along with
the cosmos need to prove this even wronger than it
is now thought to be...perhaps we will come to regard
works not honed and polished for a century as rough
and immature.
#17214: Atheism [Mike Perry]
Louis Epstein, #17209:
>>And the likelihood is that most atheists,who after all believe there
>>ISN'T a fundamental underlying reason for existing,will remain unswayed.
>I think there probably *is* a "fundamental underlying reason for
>existing" (to live one's hopefully immortal life, and enjoy the
>benefits--why not? Or am I misconstruing the meaning here?).
I think so.My point is that believing in an unexplained
universe leaves the universe unjustified.If there is
no underlying answer to the basic WHY? of existence,
existence is incomplete.
Atheism lends itself as least as readily to the
"natural death" concept as to immortalism.
>And quite possibly there is an "underlying first cause or principle."
>But to me this does not equate to a vast, thinking being who responds to
>prayers and does other things that the traditional God is said to do.
Nor does the Infinitely First Cause have
to be a particularly "personal" God,certainly
not one who writes books or plays ethnic
favorites.But only its existence can
give any existence purpose.
>So this is why I am an atheist,
Valid reason for being secular,but not for atheism.
>one, however, "with a concept of divinity," as I explain in my book.
So are you more closely agnostic?
>A good case for atheism can, I think, be based around the following:
>1. The failure to scientifically verify paranormal effects.
If they were within scientific explanation,
how would they be paranormal?
>2. The problem of evil.
Seen how?
Does the best teacher give his students
only tests where they know all the answers?
>3. Natural (non-theistic) explanations of natural phenomena.
But God is the explanation for why there
are explanations.
Atheism reminds me powerfully of Flatlanders.
"Our plane extends infinitely in all directions at every angle;
therefore,there are no more dimensions!"
>4. An ontological argument (a "perfect" being would be changeless, thus
>arguably insentient).
No more so than an object always in the same
location never moves(think of a spinning top!)
I often say,"the only things that really matter
matter because they can never change."
>5. The possibility of salvation through science.
Meaning what?
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17229