X-Message-Number: 17260
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #17248 - #17253

On 12 Aug 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #17248 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 02:52:02 -0400
> From: James Swayze <>
>
> They have a way sometimes even if subconsciously of judging how
> aggresive to be based on their patient's age and their subjective and
> mainstream idea of an expected life span. In other words they deemed my
> grandmother as too old to be worth the effort. There should be no value
> judgement based on age. A life is just as precious as any other
> regardless of age and life experience....and your life is certainly so
> to all of us.

Fred Hale was born in 1890,and had cataract operations
last year...he reads daily newspapers now.
He had a throat operation this year,which restored needed
functionality in his being able to drink easily.

Age-bracket-triage-minded medical people would have
zeroed-out his treatment eligibility years ago.
This mentality of directing treatment toward ensuring
a limited lifespan is something the "too old" will
have to deal with until it goes away.But it seems to
be part of a lot of healthcare planning.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #17249 From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: the uniqueness of Dr. Jerry Lemler
>
>
> Dr. Lemler is a family man who is going to have his whole family
> suspended(only if necessary and not all at the same time! lol).
> I like how for him cryonics is a family affair.
>
> I realize Dr. Lemler is fairly new to cryonics.

I don't know how long he was a member before he became
the Medical Director.I trust his enthusiasm is stable enough
that he will not burn out.Are all past presidents of Alcor
still affiliated with it except for the one at Kryos?
(I don't think they have suspended any,though I know at
least one vice president is now [neuro] suspended...if
Jerry Leaf [below,Perry article] was also VP that makes two).

> -------------------------------------
> Message #17250 From: 
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:14:50 EDT
>
> Linda has always been a good friend (Fred too), and I fervently hope she
> does not have to be frozen or vitrified until at least 2020, if ever.

Certainly it's always best to remain "animated"!
Fred and Linda each have a parent in suspension,
and if suspension is in their own futures I'm sure
they'll enter it more confidently if by then it looks
more certain that it will be reversible,for their
parents as well as themselves.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #17251 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Scott Badger <>
>
> How can I insure that my current plans for survival can not be altered,
> even by me? It's not possible is it?  Hopefully, I'll be able to
> surround myself with supportive friends/cryonicists who prevent me from
> doing anything that contradicts my current plans for cryopreservation.
> Perhaps this feature will be one of Venturewille's most valuable benefits.

This also has the potential to present
a threat to Ventureville in some circumstances.
"Old Uncle Joe is trying to get his assets away
from this crazy body-freezing cult,but he lives
in their colony and they won't let him leave
let alone give him back his money!" I can see
the lawsuits now.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17253 Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:59:08 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
>
> Now, on to Louis Epstein, #17243:
> >Have no other doctors worked closely with Alcor?
> >Wasn't Jerry Leaf a doctor?
>
> Alcor has had other MD's but never as president. (Jerry Leaf was not an MD
> but an instructor of thoracic surgery. Also Jerry was vice president, I
> think, but never president.)

But Jerry Lemler (not president yet) was
credited with having given Alcor a "professionalism"
that it had never had before.What has he done
that no other has done?

> > > Message #17237 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:50:40 -0700
> > > From: Mike Perry <>
> > > ...
> > > > >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?? :-)
>
> I don't have the original atoms I had ten years ago, and you don't have
> yours either.

But our current sets of atoms are the organic
successors to the ones we had then.Not at all
the same thing as discarding a former body for
a new one and calling the new body the same
person as the old.

Even in my wildest fantasies of having a wizardress
of unfathomable power as a lover,I permit nothing
to be done to me that would have me having a
"former body".Nor would I ever use a matter-transporter
that did not transmit and reconstitute the atoms,
rather than reconstituting their pattern and
disintegrating the person who stepped in.

> > > ...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.
>
> Absolutely. It could go either way. Hopefully I and others will have the
> right to choose which option appears to offer the best prospects. But the
> right to choose should not require unanimous agreement or the assent of
> "experts" for which the chances of being wrong are significant.

You seem to have chosen freezing,
future technology could show different
prospects.See also Scott Badger's note
about trying to make sure options are
restricted once a choice to freeze is
made.

> >If something is demoted from requirement to option,its likelihood is
> >severely weakened.By not being taken necessarily,courses of action are
> >questioned.
>
> If some question a certain course of action that need not preclude others
> from taking it--unless you are contemplating totalitarianism.

See the studies of Dutch euthanasia...
legalization has led to railroading of
those who would not choose it themselves.
"It's perfectly legal for him to die,and
rationally I think he should..."

Its not being legal is protection.

> >...
> > > > >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.
> >
> >If reason leads us to conclude we have no reason...acting as if we do is
> >not reasonable.
>
> The absence of deep free will far from implies that we have no reason.

I think not.It reveals our reason as an
illusion,and particularly the idea that
we make decisions is discredited completely.
If we have no choices,we have no choices.

> > > 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.
>

> Well, the God label is just a label, and my attachment to it is not unlimited.

Obviously more limited than mine.

> > > 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.
>
> Perhaps you are using "necessary" in a different sense than I intended, as
> in "necessary versus contingent," whereas I am thinking of "necessary" as
> "needed for something". A being has to exist in the first place for its
> life to have purpose, wouldn't you say?

But my point is that our existence is not
sufficient to give itself purpose,as it
is necessary for a God to exist for us to
exist.

> > > >>[I am an atheist but] "with a concept of divinity" ...
> >
> >Are you a pantheist,perhaps of the Lovelock-Gaia variety?
>
> This issue is more fully discussed in my book (considerably) than is
> possible here. My position can be rationalized as a kind of pantheism but
> I'm resistant to that, because it doesn't fit well with the usual,
> pantheist ideas of God-as-all-that-is, which are not strongly oriented
> toward personal immortality. (I also don't think pantheism itself fits with
> the traditional idea of a God.)

It is,however,a recognized theological concept.
(I am more a theist than a deist or pantheist).
The "Gaia" notion similarly tries not to identify
itself as pantheism,but boils down to it.

> Instead my concept of divinity involves two ideas that both depend on
> eliminating death and becoming immortal. First: each person, in developing
> over time, will become increasingly godlike and perfected

A point of commonality with Mormonism....which
sees our Creator as a very exalted onetime man.

> (though never reaching final perfection, thus always allowing
> more progress to be made and good reasons to continue living). Second:
> increasingly I think all will form a harmonious whole, a "One composed of
> many."

A point of commonality with the Gaia hypothesis.

> > > > >3. Natural (non-theistic) explanations of natural phenomena.
> >...
> >But a transcendent Ultimate is absolutely required for the
> >material to be explained.
>
> Well, once again I'll have to ask if the transcendent Ultimate is, or would
> have to be, a conscious being as we understand it--it certainly doesn't
> seem so.
>
> >So you don't get the concept of God being "outside time"?
>
> To me, sentience requires embedding in time--I see no way around it. A God
> outside of time would not square with traditional theism as is offered, for
> example, in various scriptures such as the Bible, where God speaks, hears
> and answers prayers, and the like.

Transcendence is transcendence.
God is beyond our concepts of sentience,
not beneath them.That God is eternal does
not insulate him from communication with
the bound-by-time.Time is *within* God,
not an external measure of God...nothing
is external to God.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17260