X-Message-Number: 17317
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 00:16:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #17280 - #17290

On 16 Aug 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #17280 From: "Bryan Hall" <>
> Subject: Alzheimer's researchers revive "dead" brain cells
>
> The memory and learning problems experienced by Alzheimer's patients might
> one day be reversible by re-awakening key brain cells scientists thought
> had died, say US researchers.

Possibly a step toward falsifying
the Donaldson Doctrine.

> ----------------------------------
> Message #17282 From: 
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:23:45 EDT
>
> Having been some day off line, I have that problem. Neverthless I stick
> to the one subject, one message idea.
> I think the solution, if there is more than four answers/day is to be
> more selective.
>
> Yvan Bozzonetti

That is not a solution to the problem
of how to respond completely and comprehensively
despite limits,but a surrender to it.

> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #17283 From: "George Smith" <>
> Subject: Relevance and self worth
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:41:22 -0700
>
> In message #17273 Louis Epstein wrote:
>
> "Compared to God, our existences are irrelevant.  WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE IN
> MIND, let's extend them as long as we can."
>
> I could not disagree more.

But if God disagrees with you,
your opinion is irrelevant.

> The importance of Big Ghosts (like God or media icons like professional
> wrestlers) versus embodied ghosts (like the human mind or functional
> software) comes from making the fundamental error of deciding that there is
> some objective measure and comparison which needs to be imposed.  Which is
> WORTH MORE is the implicit question.

A universe in which there are no
overarching objective standards
more important than anyone's opinion
is a universe in which nothing has
any real value,and in which there
is no good reason to exist.

> God is totally irrelevant to whether or not I choose to extend my life.
> This is NOT a question of Him or me.  This is NOT a fight to the finish.
>
> But if it ever is, God will have to go.  ("There's not enough room in this
> town for the TWO of us, Pardner!").

God makes ALL the decisions.
What you want,compared to God,
is of no consequence.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17286 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:35:50 -0400
> From: Wesley Eddy <>
>
> The word 'anarchy' tends to carry with it quite a bit of negative imagery,
> so it's not wise to just haphazardly toss it around and use it to label
> things which are decidedly very ordered and controlled.

Indeed.Anarchists are responsible for
bomb-throwing nuts and other rioters...
their ethos is to tear down structure
and promote disorder.

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Message #17288 From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: A real American hero..., Mr. Rogers!
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:38:45
>
> Jerry lemler wrote:
> Well, Cryonet junkies, it's none other than the irrepressible Fred Rogers.
> You've never heard of him, have you?  No, he's not one of our members,
> though I'd certainly welcome him into the fold.  But his face is known to
> millions of folks throughout the world,
> (end)
>
> I have very fond memories of watching his show as a child.  And also when I
> was basically grown up... lol!  In his low-key way he taught me a lot of
> lessons about life.  My friends would make fun of him, but I knew Fred
> Rogers was a great example for kids and adults.

I presume it is since-grown-up viewers of his
show who are behind the obvious parody now
at http://badronaldmusic.com/letsbeginvideo.ram
(if you have,or can borrow,a computer with
RealPlayer).

I never watched the show myself,apart from
fragments.(I did see some of the Eddie Murphy
parodies on SNL!)

> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Message #17289 From: "john grigg" <>
> Subject: cryonics and religion have something to do with one another
>
> I will be curious to see if a Mormon signed up for cryonics will be able to
> get a temple recommend.  This "pass" is given to a member who has been
> interviewed and found worthy(doesn't drink, pays tithing, faithful to mate,
> honors the sabbath, active in church, honest in personal dealings, free of
> serious grudges, etc.) by his local leaders to attend the temple.

Do you expect ward bishops and
stake presidents to make a point of
asking "Are you signed up for cryonics,
Brother so-and-so?" before signing
the recommends?

> The temple is where many of the most esteemed rituals of the faith are
> performed.  Marriage for the span of eternity is one of the ordinances
> done. For Mormon young people marriage there, and not in an outside civil
> ceremony, is usually of the keenest importance.

I presume whether or not someone was
sealed for eternity would have bearing
on whether the LDS considered the marriage
to last through the cryonic suspension of
either or both parties.

> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #17290 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:35:57 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
>
> >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.

Ah,but your disagreement is irrelevant.:-)

> I think in fact that our existences form a very important part of
> reality as a whole,

Only from our parochial perspective.

> which is not subsumed or rendered insignificant by some other vast
> mentality.

Relative to the infinite,anything finite
is insignificant.

> >Bodily existence has to be continuous and non-migratory!
>
> I feel so much relief at not being bound to that principle!

It's in the nature of principles that those
who are bound by them don't get to say whether
or not they are bound by them.In any case,
if one day I meet a successor-entity-to-you
created by one of the means where we disagree
over whether it would still be you,I will
disagree with it over whether it is really you,
unless it has decided that it is not really you.

> >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?
>
> 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).

Is Gale still with Alcor?
I know the Chamberlains and Mondragon
and Bridge are and Darwin is not.

> >"Right-to-die" is closely connected to "duty to die"...let one in the
> >door and the other will follow.Maintaining an uncompromising 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.

Well,that's where the evidence
is most pointed.

> 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.

But typically those who are
pressured to drop dead are
fading physically and mentally.
If the presumption can be made
that "if he were of sound mind
he'd want to die rather than go
on living in his condition" becomes
respectable,staying alive is not
much of a legal right any more.

> >What is comforting about realizing that one is completely helpless?
> >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.

But if you are intellectually certain
that the higher truth is that you
are only imagining yourself to have
any choices...how can you attach
importance to illusory choice?

> >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.

To me,"the multiverse" is something that
by nature must have a cause,and God must
necessarily be that cause.

> >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!

While I,as you might gather,
am disturbed and worried by it.

> > > 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.

Nonsense.It is too limited and too
"caused".

(Are you referring to a series of
universal oscillations,a Many-Worlds
collection,or what?)

> 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.

No.You look at the "multiverse" and ask
"Why?",and "God" is a sufficient answer;
"Because!" is a nonsensical answer.

I'll say again that atheism reminds me
of Flatlanders,sure that the infinity
of their plane means there are no other
dimensions.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17317