X-Message-Number: 25364 Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:00:29 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #25354 - #25359 For Bob Ettinger: I was not confusing definitions with statements of fact. I was (I hope) clearly making and discussing ONE of MANY definitions of continuity. Even with a little acquaintance with math, you should (and probably do) know how not only our postulates but our definitions can affect just what we're thinking, and so our actions. For that matter, definitions are critical in lots of ways. And incidentally, in the story, it is the thoughts of Tupac Amaru after his awakening/reawakening which are interesting here. Tupac Amaru is the name of someone, formerly an Indian thousands of years ago, who was reanimated by a movement which believed in reanimating everyone possible EVEN IF WE COULD ONLY REANIMATE A FRAGMENT. That movement even had an opposition, the Normalists. Resurrectionists were the group that believed in reanimating everyone possible. Do I ever claim in that story that Tupac Amaru had been truly reanimated? Certainly at the end of the story Tupac Amaru decided that he had been, and felt glad of that and glad to live in the society into which he had been reanimated. Decide what you wish about what really happened. AS for the problem at hand, I do think that RBR and even you have been pretty lose with definitions and facts, particularly of our continuity. Continuity is far more complex question than any easy assumptions about it will resolve. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25364