X-Message-Number: 17165
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:50:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: July 8-10 catchup

(I had no responses for the July 8 Cryonet).

CryoNet - Mon 9 Jul 2001
------------------------

    #16921: longevity alone will improve us [Thomas Donaldson]

>Mike Perry raises an interesting issue in his post. What will happen to WAR?
>I personally do not think that it will require any fundamental change in
>our structure (other than VASTLY INCREASED EXPECTATION OF LIFESPAN) to
>change the rate at which we perform wars.

>1. We will know far more people more intimately than we do now. This
>   includes people of different races and nationalities. This will act
>   against random killing of those of the other side. Even if we don't
>   know someone, we may someday meet them and find them helpful.

This is not necessarily true.Some people are inclined to
get around and meet new people,some are inclined to stay
among those they are most comfortable with.And in any case
it is likely to "sink in" only over time,not as soon as some
major anti-aging breakthrough takes hold.

>Simply by living much longer, and expecting much longer life, our
>psychology will change. In one sense it is the very same kind of
>brain as before, but our notion of what is a reasonable time to do
>something, and our acquaintance with many other people, will change
>our attitudes.

Only experience dealing with the changed conditions
is likely to do that.People aren't inclined to turn
over new leaves overnight on a theory.

    #16924: Re: Simulation [Lee Corbin]

>I think that (A) we are living in a simulation, and (B) we are
>living in an original 2001 reality are both true.  When we ask
>is *this* a simulation, we should perceive that "this" can
>point to both places equally.

On the contrary,we should dismiss
that position as laughable.Identical
separate entities are not each other.

>On the other hand, if the following is factual:

>    At 20,000 A.D. the Earth civilization ran 10^90 simulations
>    of 2001, each with a different cast of President/Vice-President

>then EACH of the following has probability 10^90 to 1 of
>being a simulation:

>  (i)   the world where Pres: Bill Gates, Vice Pres: Madonna
> (ii)   the world where Pres: Bill Clinton, Vice Pres: Sam Erwin
>(iii)   the world where Pres: G. W. Bush, Vice Pres: Dick Chaney
> (iv)   the world where Pres: Pat Buchanan, Vice Pres: Ralph Nader
>  (v)   the world where Pres: Margaret Thatcher, Vice Pres: The D.L.G.

  ...
>and we are in simulation (iii),

Actually,the V.P. in our universe
spells his name "Cheney".

>and so we are most likely living in a simulation.

Not at all.
That the situation we are living in might one
day be simulated does not in any way make
our universe that simulation,any more than
a coin that gets counterfeited becomes
counterfeit.

>HOWEVER, since the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics)
>is almost surely true, each of the above cases really takes place *also*
>on an original Earth somewhere in the multiverse.  (One would hope that
>case (i) occupies only a very thin slice in the multiverse!)

The MWI is just a very thin slice of the
Time Wave Theory I cooked up in high school.

But the notion of fungible identity is
simple nonsense.

    #16928: objective way to pick a moral system [david pizer]

>Suppose our universe were about to vaporize tomorrow and you had one
>chance to go to another universe - a one-way trip.  There are two
>available.  In both of them you will be an animal that obeys the
>following rules, but you don't know which animal in the whole selection
>of animals that live in these universes you will be:

>In universe A, same as universe B, except animals eat plants only.

>In universe B, animals eat plants and the other animals.  Some animals are
>stronger than others but you don't know what type of animal you will be -
>at the end of the transporter trip you might be assembled as a weaker one
>or a stronger one, it will all be a random decision.  All the animals that
>you might randomly become have at least as much intelligence as you do now.
>In both universes, there is biological immortality and no disease (sort
>of how things might be here in a hundred years, or so).
>Which universe would you want to be sent to.

>It should be obvious that you will be safer in Universe A, since in B
>there is a chance you may get eaten.

A choice driven by self-interest...
on insufficient data.

How do we know that Universe A
is not populated by animal-eating
vegetables?

Obviously Universe B sounds like
a better place than Universe A to
be a vegetable,but if survival of
vegetables in Universe A has been
driven by evolution to make them
more aggressive...

>It is making a thought-choice like this that gives a subject a tiny
>sense of what objective morality should be like.

It's still a selfishness-related
proposition.You're pitching the
person a chance to be in an uneaten
class,on the theory that there is
such a class.If you're out to expand
that class further,is it even more
"objectively moral" to live on a
diet of salt water?

Without being autotrophic,we MUST
kill to eat,however we handle the
details.


CryoNet - Tue 10 Jul 2001
-------------------------

    #16933: My Take On Spielberg's A.I. [Scott Badger]

>I'm also sick and tired of this repeated theme about some non-human
>entity whose only desire is to become more human, be it Data from Star
>Trek, Bicentennial Man, or the aliens in Dark City..  Aren t we humans
>just great!  Much preferable to rational, logical beings. We have that
>undefinable and intangible essence called  spirit , that makes us the
>envy of all the robots and aliens.

>What anthropocentric drivel.

While also annoyed by the recurrence of this
theme in fiction,it annoys me for the opposite
reason...that it's not anthropocentric enough
to dismiss the possibility that other entities
can possibly acquire human status.

And I also consider it threatening to humans
that our status can be aspired to by non-humans.

    #16940: Viatmin C [Mgdarwin]

>  4) Reasons why you think it is likely to occur, especially in people who
>  do not supplement with iron but who do supplement with other antioxidant
>  substances.

>As I actually said in my original post I think that C may be perfectly fine
>in large doses _if_ other antioxidants are being consumed in supranormal
>amounts as well. I have observed the supplementation habits of hundreds of
>people over the years and noncompliance, great variability in nutrients and
>amounts taken, and other wild cards makes me concerned that many people who
>take large doses of C, in part because of its high visibility, are not taking
>adequate amounts of other antioxidant vitamins.

There is certainly plenty of advocacy
of supplementation with Vitamins C and E
in the proportion 500mg C/400IU E (whether
in multiples or just that amount).Do you
have an opinion on this?

Vitamin E is said to defer prostate cancer
(a project now being tested in a large study
of men with family histories of prostate
cancer).My father recently had surgery for
prostate cancer...he has high blood pressure,
for which Vitamin E is not indicated,but I
do not.I usually take a C and E every day.

In case readers haven't heard...Poul Anderson,
the eminent science fiction writer whose more
recent works include 1989's BOAT OF A MILLION
YEARS,about pioneer immortals,is dying of
prostate cancer now,under hospice care at home.

On that sad note,I'll close for now.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17165