X-Message-Number: 4147
From: 
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 13:28:49 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS responses

There were some good and partly-good responses to my Goedel remarks (#4135).

Kevin Walker (#4138) said this topic is largely irrelevant to cryonics. There
is enough truth in this so that I will desist after today (absent an
irresistible impulse).

Eli Brandt (#4139) had some good comments, but did not seem to address the
portion of my remarks that, following Smullyan, DID use logic language (or
something that looked like it) and still came out gibberish.

Peter Merel's cute example (#4140) was no different really, and no better,
than the barber or the Cretan, as far as I can see.

As to Peter's question about the statement "Every person contains a self
circuit that cannot be uploaded into a computer"--yes, I am sure it is
meaningful, although of uncertain truth. As to the statement "Every person
posseses an immortal soul that survives after death"--the meaningfulness of
this is problematic, depending on agreement on the meaning of "soul." Nothing
mysterious here, and nothing contradictory.

Incidentally, about Peter's habitual sign-off: "Accept everything. Reject
nothing." Does this mean ideas, or information, or what?

Mac Tonnies (#4142) refers to some possibly potentially interesting stuff
about "consciousness...as a physical dimension, at right angles to the
fourth..." But I haven't the vaguest idea what this means.

John Clark (#4145) is probably right that challenging Goedel in the way I did
would not help bring me or cryonics any respect. A negative reaction wouldn't
be deserved, perhaps, since everything I said was factual or clearly labeled
opinion from a limited background; but reactions need not be logical. On some
of his other points:

Requiring in-principle verifiability does NOT result in the possibility of a
proposition that is true but not meaningful. If it isn't meaningful it isn't
a proposition, and therefore the question of truth does not arise.

Mr. Clark suggests that, if we accept the requirement of in-principle
verifiability for a sentence to have the status of a proposition, then some
sentences will be left in limbo--for example if verification would take
forever or if the possibility of verification is not clear. This is true, but
I don't know of any better criterion. Does anyone?

R.C.W. Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4147