X-Message-Number: 17243
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #17232 - #17239
On 10 Aug 2001, CryoNet wrote:
> Message #17232 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:07:43 -0400
> From: Thomas Donaldson <>
>
> The fact that various religious people argue against cryonics merely tells
> us that they misunderstand it completely. I include the Pope in this comment,
> too.
Has the Pope actually said anything about cryonics?
> 2. What happens to people when they become old?
>
> There is another way to see it. They respond as they do because they
> have little future life to expect. Someone with such a condition
> clearly will not take up any activities which will take longer than
> their expected future, and would hardly adopt a new ideology on
> their deathbed.
What of various "deathbed conversions"
of whatever kind that one hears about,
then?
> While I personally believe that someone who does not expect to age
> will take on a much LESS conservative attitude, and seek out new
> ideas much more, we have no such person to test this on, right
> now. I will add, however, that even if as people got older (even
> without aging) it does not follow that they must inevitably take
> the conservative approach. After all, if we can fix aging itself,
> fixing any issues like a refusal to adopt new ideas will become
> just as easy.
How about fixing an insistence
on adopting new ideas?
Some might think the roles of
problem and solution are not
filled the way you think they are.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17234 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:42:22 -0600
> From: Linda Chamberlain <>
>
> I strongly recommend Jerry Lemler, MD be elected as the next president and
> CEO of Alcor.
Would he remain medical director as well?
> His medical degree and abilities bring to Alcor a level of
> professionalism that has taken 30 years to attain.
Have no other doctors worked closely with Alcor?
Wasn't Jerry Leaf a doctor?
Just a little puzzled on what makes Lemler unique.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17237 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:50:40 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
>
> #17229: Replies to Aug 5-7 Cryonets [Louis Epstein]
> >
> > #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.
> >
> >So if we both buy copies of a book,I can take yours since it's the same
> >thing as mine?
>
> You can exchange your copy for mine, if you want. But clearly there will be
> a difference between me-with-the-book and me-without, that (by definition)
> would carry over to instantiations of me.
If property makes someone a different
person,that clearly differentiates someone
revivified from the original,since at present
one can't continue to own things when in
cryostasis.
> >...>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".
>
> Well (not meaning to disturb you but) this small mental hangup could
> probably be treated easily, under the right circumstances. I think this
> (maintaining the hangup) may be an example of where your desires are
> different from your needs :-)
Now do you see why I have to remain
"on the outside" so that I can be the
one who makes sure any replications of
you understand that lacking your original
atoms would make them not you??
:-)
> > >...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.
> >
> >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.
>
> How can you be sure? Senescence could well obliterate structure that
> freezing would still leave inferable, despite the fact that one is still
> "alive."
Freezing could well obliterate structure that senescence would
still leave inferable,thanks to the fact that one is still alive.
> > >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.
>
> Why so? Having more options doesn't mean, necessarily, that some options
> will be denied or restricted.
If something is demoted from requirement to
option,its likelihood is severely weakened.
By not being taken necessarily,courses of
action are questioned.
> > >>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.
>
> So? In practical terms, I don't see it matters much. It's only when you
> insist on a deeper significance than is warranted that you run into trouble.
What fails on the highest level of
significance,thus fails on any level.
If reason leads us to conclude we have
no reason...acting as if we do is not
reasonable.
> > #17214: Atheism [Mike Perry]
> >
> >[Louis Epstein:]
> >
> >...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.
>
> This actually sounds reasonable to me too. But I don't see why the
> "underlying answer" *must* take the form of a sentient being, and in fact
> doubt that this is so.
It is a being beside which the
material universe is completely
insignificant,except as an
expression of it.
>
> > >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.
>
> Does this mean that your God might possibly be insentient or not actually a
> conscious, thinking entity as we usually understand it?
Not easily described in such terms,
since far beyond understanding by
the finite...but everything is
subsumed in God.
I believe that moral laws,like physical laws,
are there for us to discover.
> If so, then maybe our disagreement on this isn't so great, only I
> would not label an "infinitely first cause" as "God" to avoid
> confusion with other concepts that don't seem tenable.
While I consider the IFC the rightful
referent of the God label,with the
adulterated misconceptions of the
various religions to be set aside.
> >But only its existence can give any existence purpose.
>
> To me, the existence of any sentient being is necessary (and I hope
> sufficient) to give that being's existence purpose.
To me,that's ridiculous.
Only God's existence is necessary,
and gives all existence purpose.
> > >So this is why I am an atheist,
> >
> >Valid reason for being secular,but not for atheism.
>
> Your notion of "atheism" perhaps differs from mine.
Possible.
I have always rejected religion,
and never questioned the existence
of God,or seen how anyone could
sensibly do so.
> > >one, however, "with a concept of divinity," as I explain in my book.
> >
> >So are you more closely agnostic?
>
> I wouldn't consider myself agnostic because, as a working hypothesis (but
> not an absolute dogma) I assume there is no supreme, conscious entity
> corresponding to traditional ideas of God.
And yet with a concept of divinity?
Are you a pantheist,perhaps of the
Lovelock-Gaia variety?
> > >2. The problem of evil.
> >
> >Seen how?Does the best teacher give his students
> >only tests where they know all the answers?
>
> Rabies provides a good example of why I question the existence of an
> all-knowing, all-powerful, omnibenevolent being. (And there are plenty
> of others.)
That existence has hazards causes
one to believe it is the result
of nothing?
> > >3. Natural (non-theistic) explanations of natural phenomena.
> >
> >But God is the explanation for why there are explanations.
>
> Again, though, this idea of God does not necessarily require that there be
> a supreme, sentient being.
But a transcendent Ultimate is
absolutely required for the
material to be explained.
> > >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!)
>
> To me, a case can be made that being (at least somewhat) aware of the
> passage of time and events as they happen is essential for sentience.
So you don't get the concept of God
being "outside time"?
> If we are to posit a perfect being who already has experienced (in some
> sense) all things, such an entity could would have no awareness of here and
> now (as distinct from there-and-then), and thus could not be sentient. I'm
> not saying this argument is bullet-proof, but I think it can be defended.
But everywhere and everywhen is within God.
> > >5. The possibility of salvation through science.
> >
> >Meaning what?
>
> The attainment of a happy, eternal existence.
"With God,all things are possible."
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17238 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 23:14:57 -0400
> From: James Swayze <>
>
> "President Bush took a brave, although not heroic, step in stem cell
> research" says Mary Ann Liebert, publisher of Genetic Engineering News and
> Cloning & Stem Cells
> Updated: Fri, Aug 10 12:37 AM EDT LARCHMONT, N.Y. (BUSINESS WIRE) -
> "President George W. Bush showed an important understanding of the
> potential benefits of stem cell research," said biomedical publisher,
> Mary Ann Liebert. "Tonight he demonstrated a willingness to support
> research that may be opposed by many of his conservative constituents and
> some religious leaders. The President is to be commended for his efforts
> to address stem cell research in a scientific and morally responsible
> way," Ms. Liebert said. "However, I agree with the
> scientific community and much of the American public who are disappointed
> that federal funding will not be allowed to support research on frozen
> fertilized eggs that will be discarded -- just thrown away."
>
> Mary Ann Liebert is president and CEO of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., which
> publishes the 21 year old Genetic Engineering News (GEN), the first and most
> widely read biotechnology publication in the world (www.genengnews.com).
> Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., also publishes the peer reviewed journal, Cloning &
> Stem Cells, edited by Ian Wilmut, Ph.D. (www.liebertpub.com/clo)
Also of the Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine.
> Well blow me down! Bush seems to have briefly acquired a small bit of slack
> on his puppet strings. Let's hope he finds it comfortable and makes it more
> than a brief interlude. It's a very small beginning but an important one.
I think he has just tried to come up with a
fudge that he thinks will please everyone
and instead will please no one.Right now it
is the conservatives who are complaining,but
as the limited list of approved cell lines
dies out,the researchers will be more and
more frustrated.
Enough of his political patrons wanted some
approval for research that he can't be said
to be acting independently of them.
> --------------------------------------
> Message #17239 From:
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 03:26:15 EDT
>
> "Well, given that statement and the message subject, would you please
> explain the Cryo scale and why it's better?"
>
> OK, I confess. Actually I had mentioned introducing and developing of the
> CRYO Scale just in jest, but just in case, I checked. I found it.
[snip...no new temperature scale covered...
perhaps something that divides the span
between the freezing point of LN2 and body
temp would qualify?]
> QUOTE: Does this series of experiments have the same college-girl-in-bikini
> factor as the firefly investigation? UNQUOTE
>
> It would be difficult to decide where more ageless gratitude lies:
>
> 1. Anton van Leeuwenhoek for discovering the two piece light microscope, or
>
> 2. (Herb) Aristotle for discovering the two piece light bikini
I note that Van Leeuwenhoek was something of
an immortalist pioneer too,perhaps the longest
lived notable of his century(he lived 1632-1723).
And that was without the interest of college
girls in bikinis to motivate his researches.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17243