X-Message-Number: 16428
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:12:48 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Reply to #16417 

On 4 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #16417 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:43:01 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #16405, 7, 8
> >From: Olaf Henny <>
> >Subject: Questions to Mike Perry and Louis Epstein:
> >...
> >And to Mike:
> >Forgive me if this is too personal, but does anybody in this
> >sawdust dry atmosphere of Cryonet ever consider *SEX*.
> I'm sure they do. Personally, I live a celibate lifestyle and sex is not
> so important. But I support the right to choose here as elsewhere.

Of course,celibacy is everyone's default.
But should opportunities present themselves
having a human body is useful!
> >I am unabashed to state, that to me it is one of the greatest
> >pleasures in life and one of the primary reasons to enjoy and
> >extend life.  For that I need a biological body with a healthy
> >endocrine system and the sensuous feel of touch on my skin.  I
> >cannot consider a solely cerebral existence in a computer or
> >artificial body as equivalent to the life I have now.
> On the other hand, "don't knock it till you''ve tried it"--or at least know 
> more about it. You have certain notions of what it would be like existing 
> in an artificial device. Machines are cold and emotionless, right?--and you 
> don't want that. What devices of the future may be like, though, is another 
> matter. And, despite certain rumblings to the contrary, I don't see people 
> being forced into choosing or not choosing the options that will become 
> available.

Well,you have said you hope to see the
extinction of Homo sapiens in a century
or so,and predict a lemming-like rush to
dehumanization.And I don't consider a
machine competent to judge a machine.

Will something be created that will cause
me to reconsider my views?...I do not
think it possible,and plan accordingly.

> >Yes I have heard of direct stimulation of the pleasure centres of the 
> >brain etc., but I have yet find any ersatz product, which equals the 
> >original, be it whipped topping, saccharin/cyclamate, fake fur or fake 
> >leather.
> In 100 or 200 years though, it may be different. Also, I think when you 
> focus solely on fidelity of imitation you may find that no imitation is as 
> good as the real thing. But you also have to consider whether the 
> "imitation" is not actually better in its own right.

This is a matter of perspective.
You are never going to convince
someone who considers the fact of
being an imitation to constitute in
and of itself a major disadvantage.

> As one case in point, the clock started out as an imitation sundial and
> was arguably inferior but now has far surpassed its "original." The
> same could be said of many other inventions.

Such as...?

> >From: Louis Epstein <>
> >Subject: Strehler;Modification;Religion;Death
> >
> > >
> > > From: Thomas Donaldson <>
> > >
> > > ...
> > > But clearly we won't want to carry ALL our memories around with us
> > > ALL THE TIME. So we might choose to have many different memories,
> > > to be used when we need them. ...
> >...
> >
> >I might be interested in ways a brain can increase capacity,
> >but not in the form of anything removable.
> I have to say too that I am not keen on the "removable memory" idea. 
> Memories should be conveniently accessible at all times--within the limits 
> of practicality. But if you are going to be literally immortal, your 
> memories must grow without limit (to avoid the "eternal return" problem of 
> revisiting the same mental states over and over) and thus long seek times 
> seem unavoidable.

Someone,I think on Cryonet,said there were ways
theoretically designed to place a terabyte-RAM
computer in the size of a grain of salt.While
emphatically uninterested in seeking that as a
new body type,and completely disbelieving that
my identity could be validly possessed by such
an object,I wonder what potential they could
have as data-compressed brain enhancements....
could there be usable interfaces?

> >(With regard to security...is everyone here aware of the British
> >legislation requiring people to hand over encryption keys when
> >the government requests,and forbidding them from revealing that
> >they have done so,both on pain of prison?)
> I didn't know about this!

I read about it yesterday.I think
it's the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act or some such...peraps John
de Rivaz would be more familiar with it?

Been thinking about how to ensure privacy
of communications where it is considered

> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message #16401 From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> > > Subject: Re: CI compared to Religion
> > > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:14:59 +0100
> > >
> > >...
> > > I suspect any cryonics organisation requiring members to file statements
> > > of assets or income and pay a percentage wouldn't get many members.
> >
> >With regard to the occasionally suggested foundation of
> >a cryonics-oriented religion,I suppose this inhibition
> >would be overcome for any who didn't mind that concept to
> >begin with.
> The Society for Venturism, which endorses and promotes cryonics, is legally 
> recognized as a religious organization in the U.S.

I've heard of it,hence my statement that I wasn't
a Venturist in my first Cryonet posting.

> (see the website http://www.venturist.org, especially "About Us").

Just looked...it used to be unreadable with my
text-based browser,and still appears rather incomplete.

In any event,it seems to incline toward atheism,
which I consider a ridiculous position.

> We (I'm a director) haven't yet gotten to the point of asking our
> membership to tithe or file statements of assets or income, however.
> >I do think,however,that such a religion,with a creed of
> >defying death and decay at all costs and forbidding/condemning
> >the slightest lapse in the preservation of one's body,
> >would have to be firmly hostile to the "right to die" notion
> >to have a consistent moral code.(And I certainly couldn't see
> >joining it if it weren't).
> Once again, you have an issue of freedom to choose versus what is "right" 
> in a more general sense. The Venturist organization certainly doesn't 
> advocate euthanasia or suicide as they are usually understood. But it does 
> favor the idea of premortem cryonic suspension in the case of a 
> brain-threatening illness, and also supports freedom of choice more 
> generally, so that it is not hostile to "right to die" legislation. It 
> seems that a great deal hinges on that strange word "right" which can be 
> both an adjective meaning "correct" and a noun referring to something one 
> ought to be entitled to.

Venturism from my reading has appeared to be
a sort of L-Ron-Hubbard-of-cryonics...seeking
the guise of a religion for material advantage
without a sincere belief in something beyond
the believer's ability to shape.

(The things that really matter matter because
they can never change.Ultimate truth exists
completely independent of belief in it.I have
no appreciation for subjectivism).

In seeking to be a religion but not a religion,
so that its believers can believe whatever else
they like,it falls down and simply isn't one
that I can see as such.I'm secular in my outlook,
but strongly theistic,and consider there to be
rules all ought to follow.A religion should say
the same.

> >A religiously based cryonics organization/cryonically-based religion 
> >would see suspension facilities as the proper alternative to cemeteries,
> >much as Hindus use cremation pyres and Zoroastrians leave bodies to 
> >decay in the open.By belonging to a religion and being classed with 
> >cemeteries (even though the eternal hope of revival was part of the
> >religion) they would presumably be tax-exempt.For appearance's sake 
> >the particular units might perhaps best be underground,which might make 
> >sense from an insulation standpoint.
> Generally the idea of associating cryonics with cemeteries has proved to be 
> a "can of worms" (more literally and in more ways than I care to think) and 
> has been avoided since the days of Chatsworth.

What has seriously been done with it?
I think the concept of faith-based obligation
to keep bodies from decaying at all costs is
something that could have its uses.
Of course,it's the opposite of what some
religions teach...but there's always the
Egyptian precedent to improve upon.

> >Meanwhile,Imogene Coca has joined the dead.
> >
> >When will we the living be...as in the title of Pohl's book...
> >"outnumbering the dead"?
> A good question.

Quite a way off,I'm sure.

"Hitler" Hunzvi has died...I have
to say he's one who won't be missed.
There are lots of people who it's
better to outlive than live with

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16428