X-Message-Number: 25376 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:37:38 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Comments on Patternism References: <> Robert Ettinger writes in part, "The patternist claims that the 'person' is defined by his material configuration, and if several configurations differ significantly only in location, all of them 'are' the 'same' person, in different 'instantiations,' and if one is destroyed he nevertheless 'should' be considered to have survived, so long as at least one duplicate remains. "Again, this is just an assertion or definition or expression of personal preference. It is not a logical conclusion from agreed premises. It requires, but does not justify, a radical change in viewpoint." I am in basic agreement with the above--yes, it *is* an expression of personal preference, what I choose to consider important. It does require a radical change of viewpoint, and in and of itself it does not justify that change (is scientifically unprovable). Part of the justification, however, is in the good consequences I see that follow (the non-finality of death in particular), coupled with the property, as I maintain, that this alternative view of a person, strange though it will seem to many, is at least defensible on logical grounds and can be said to fit the observable facts of experience. "As a practical matter, Mike's view is probably mostly harmless, although some may be seduced into passivity or complacency if they take it seriously. But there will be some of those latter." Yes, and I worry about such people, who may conclude that cryonics is not important if they can expect to return to consciousness eventually anyway. I remain a strong advocate of cryonics and have even devoted my career to it (even though I have a Ph.D. in computer science and could have chosen another, more lucrative occupation). I think it is a better choice than alternatives of destruction, for reasons elaborated elsewhere, that are somewhat subtle but seem very real to me, and I wish I could convince others to consider it. "Also, I think Mike overestimates the likelihood of the multiverse being factual." Time will tell, as they say. (I *think* it will in this case, though it cannot be considered self-evident.) "Plenty of the leading thinkers disagree, and believe hidden variables will be found. One hint is in the existence of phenomenological quantons such as phonons and several others. They act like quantons, but result primarily from classical wave phenomena. I have never seen an explanation of a mechanism for interference between quantons in different 'universes.'" If you looked hard enough I actually think you could find it. "Any mechanism that involves waves seems to imply the existence of some substrate, something that can wave, a form of hidden variables." Again, it's interesting that many-worlds (implying the multiverse, though a multiverse could also exist without the Everett many-worlds scenario) has waves as the substrate of reality, with particles (including atoms) as virtual effects only. Best to all, Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25376