X-Message-Number: 17290
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:35:57 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Replies to Louis Epstein #17273

>Compared to God,our existences are irrelevant.
>
>WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE IN MIND,
>let's extend them as long as we can.

I agree that we should extend our existences, but disagree that there is a 
God compared to whom they are irrelevant. I think in fact that our 
existences form a very important part of reality as a whole, which is not 
subsumed or rendered insignificant by some other vast mentality.



>Bodily existence has to be continuous
>and non-migratory!

I feel so much relief at not being bound to that principle!


>How many presidents has Alcor had?
>Chamberlain,Chamberlain.McDaniels,
>Darwin,Mondragon,Bridge,Chamberlain,
>Chamberlain...has there been anyone
>else in there who slips my mind?
>
>(In any case,unlike the VPs,none
>in suspension...while ACS seems to
>have suspended most of its early
>leaders).

There's one you missed. Laurence Gale falls between Allen McDaniels and 
Mike Darwin, that is, 1977-82. As far as I know, all past presidents are 
still alive (unsure about McDaniels).




>"Right-to-die" is closely connected to
>"duty to die"...let one in the door and
>the other will follow.Maintaining an
>uncomparomising stand against death
>protects life.

I don't share the view that "right to ..." is so closely connected to "duty 
to ..." that allowing it will inevitably or usually result in denial of 
"right not to ... ." I don't see general trends pointing in this direction 
at all, and I even question claims that it is developing in connection with 
euthanasia in the Netherlands. I am sure that, with euthanasia legalized, 
there will be cases of people being pressured, subtly or maybe more openly, 
to avail themselves of it and rid the world of their presence. But anybody 
so pressured could stand firm on his/her legal rights and not submit.

> >
> > To me it doesn't cause a problem if on some deep level my actions are
> > predetermined. (Actually it's comforting, for I don't have to worry about
> > uncaused effects or the possibility that unseen, animistic forces are
> > pulling the strings.)
>
>What is comforting about realizing
>that one is completely helpless?

I don't feel at all helpless. I can do what I choose, or attempt it, 
without *feeling* mental or volitional restraint. That "I choose" itself 
may be an illusion on some deep level is no cause for worry because it 
eludes my awareness.

>To me it robs existence of meaning.


It doesn't do that for me because again I can't sense the "restraint", if 
you call it that.


>As long as there's a God,there's a
>cause for all effects.


But invoking this, basically an animistic position, is contrary to the 
scientific viewpoint on cause and effect. To me the multiverse is the cause 
for all effects, but this is entirely consistent with a scientific 
worldview, an advantage, as I see it, over the God hypothesis.


>I of course oppose the idea of
>artificial intelligence...and it
>seems to me that this notion
>opens the doors to ascribing
>intelligence to a lot of software.
>

I think it does indeed, and (pardon me but) I am excited about the prospects!


> > And what evidence do we have that there *must be* a vast being behind
> > all that is?
>
>For it to be otherwise is both
>impossible and ridiculous.


Well, you've enunciated your position without explaining it. My feeling, 
contrary to yours, is that the multiverse idea explains everything, yet the 
multiverse is perfectly mindless. But it could surely account for all we 
see. It could constitute its own explanation for everything, its own 
infinitely first cause. As a whole it is outside of time, you might say, 
inasmuch as time seems to be internalized to its "constituents," individual 
universes. These in turn are so vastly proliferated that all possible 
worlds and happenings are occurring within, which could account for why 
*we* and other life-forms happen to be in this one particular universe. 
(And note how well it accounts for the problem of evil, "all things dull 
and ugly," right alongside "all things bright and beautiful"! The 
multiverse doesn't care, of course, but neither is it malicious.) You don't 
need to assume any conscious Designer, which would be as vast in its own 
way as the multiverse, maybe more so, in addition to being intelligent. 
Ockham's razor quite arguably favors the multiverse over a God.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17290