X-Message-Number: 2721
From: 
Date: Tue, 03 May 94 18:50:50 EDT
Subject: CRYONICS Plato

Heather Johnson mentions a possible "non-material" component in existence.

She mentions Plato,  and seems to have  in mind something similar to Plato's
"ideals, forms, and ideas."  For example, a triangle (in the abstract) is a
non-material thing. An isomorphism is a non-material thing (a relationship),
and indeed some of those who subscribe to the "information paradigm" think
the program is the person. Hans Moravec seems to be a radical of this sort. 

However, a relationship counts for nothing in the real world unless material
objects exist to embody them.  If "you" are merely a pattern or potential
pattern, whether or not realized in flesh--which appears to be Moravec's
position--then we are led to absurdities, or at the very least to  useless
conclusions. 

Without wishing to offend Ms. Johnson, Plato is one of my least favorite
philosophers, and in fact it is a mystery to me how  his  reputation can
endure. As far as I can see, he merely pontificated his opinions, scarcely
bothering to justify them with evidence or with any logic worthy of the name.

As usual, however, we must leave the door open at least a crack.  For
example, what about the laws of physics? "Laws" would seem to be
abstractions,  needing material objects on which to act or through which to
manifest themselves. But the trend in theoretical physics (and a natural
thought) seems to be toward putting laws, matter, and even "empty" space (or
spacetime) on the same footing, inextricably entwined in each other. 

Although final conclusions are certainly premature, most people in cryonics
would VERY STRONGLY caution against anyone taking comfort, or finding excuses
for complacency, in misty maybes. 

Finally, yes, some of us do prefer Bohm's ideas, or some form of determinism,
over the Copenhagen interpretation. The main reason (in my case, at least) is
simply that "randomness" in any fundamental sense does not appear to be a
meaningful concept. The Copenhagen implication of ORDERED randomness is even
worse.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2721