X-Message-Number: 17253
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 20:59:08 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Dates, God(s), and so forth

A very minor point, but I thought Thomas Donaldson's tumor came in around 
1987-88 (right?) rather than 10 years earlier. At least he's still going 
strong; let's hope Linda Chamberlain fares as well.

Now, on to Louis Epstein, #17243:


>How about fixing an insistence
>on adopting new ideas?

Not all old ideas are bad, or new ones either. One must strike a balance 
between too much rigidity and too much flexibility in resisting or adopting 
new ideas.


>Have no other doctors worked closely with Alcor?
>Wasn't Jerry Leaf a doctor?

Alcor has had other MD's but never as president. (Jerry Leaf was not an MD 
but an instructor of thoracic surgery. Also Jerry was vice president, I 
think, but never president.)

> > Message #17237 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:50:40 -0700
> > From: Mike Perry <>
> >
> > ...
> > >So if we both buy copies of a book,I can take yours since it's the same
> > >thing as mine?
> >
> > You can exchange your copy for mine, if you want. But clearly there will be
> > a difference between me-with-the-book and me-without, that (by definition)
> > would carry over to instantiations of me.
>
>If property makes someone a different
>person,that clearly differentiates someone
>revivified from the original,since at present
>one can't continue to own things when in
>cryostasis.

You are confusing two ideas here. Unfortunately, the limitations of English 
(mine at least) make it hard to attach convenient labels that would clarify 
the issue. But we think of ourselves as being the "same" person as we were 
at an earlier time, yet clearly we are not exactly the same since we 
accumulate new experiences and/or undergo other changes. In this second 
sense, my experiences such as whether I have a book or not will make a 
difference, yet still leave me the same person (first sense) as I was 
before the possibility of having the book came up. If people can't own 
things in cryostasis it doesn't mean they would not be the same persons 
(first sense again) upon reanimation.

>...> > >With sufficient information "I" could be straightforwardly 
>reanimated (not
> > > >"just" a copy, but the real, original me, to the level that is important
> > > >to me), from the information alone, even if the original material is 
> lost.
> > >
> > >A sufficiently accurate copy of me made in such a fashion
> > >would believe very strongly that it was not the "real,original me".
> >
> > Well (not meaning to disturb you but) this small mental hangup could
> > probably be treated easily, under the right circumstances. I think this
> > (maintaining the hangup) may be an example of where your desires are
> > different from your needs :-)
>
>Now do you see why I have to remain
>"on the outside" so that I can be the
>one who makes sure any replications of
>you understand that lacking your original
>atoms would make them not you??
>:-)

I don't have the original atoms I had ten years ago, and you don't have 
yours either.

> > ...Senescence could well obliterate structure that
> > freezing would still leave inferable, despite the fact that one is still
> > "alive."
>
>Freezing could well obliterate structure that senescence would
>still leave inferable,thanks to the fact that one is still alive.

Absolutely. It could go either way. Hopefully I and others will have the 
right to choose which option appears to offer the best prospects. But the 
right to choose should not require unanimous agreement or the assent of 
"experts" for which the chances of being wrong are significant.

>If something is demoted from requirement to
>option,its likelihood is severely weakened.
>By not being taken necessarily,courses of
>action are questioned.

If some question a certain course of action that need not preclude others 
from taking it--unless you are contemplating totalitarianism.

>...
> > > >Effectively, we *can* be held responsible, even in the absence of free
> > > >will, simply by a mutual agreement among others around us 
> ("society") who
> > > >will enforce such an agreement for their own protection.
> > >
> > >Still nonsense,as these actions would be as totally predetermined as
> > >all others...the agreement would not be a consequence of the parties,
> > >but of particle physics.
> >
> > So? In practical terms, I don't see it matters much. It's only when you
> > insist on a deeper significance than is warranted that you run into 
> trouble.
>
>What fails on the highest level of
>significance,thus fails on any level.

Not here. If I feel hunger and decide to eat, I will get just as full and 
the food taste as just good whether my actions in some overall sense are 
predetermined or not.

>If reason leads us to conclude we have
>no reason...acting as if we do is not
>reasonable.

The absence of deep free will far from implies that we have no reason.

>I believe that moral laws,like physical laws,
>are there for us to discover.

This is what I like to think too.

> > If so, then maybe our disagreement on this isn't so great, only I
> > would not label an "infinitely first cause" as "God" to avoid
> > confusion with other concepts that don't seem tenable.
>
>While I consider the IFC the rightful
>referent of the God label,with the
>adulterated misconceptions of the
>various religions to be set aside.

Well, the God label is just a label, and my attachment to it is not unlimited.

> > To me, the existence of any sentient being is necessary (and I hope
> > sufficient) to give that being's existence purpose.
>
>To me,that's ridiculous.
>Only God's existence is necessary,
>and gives all existence purpose.

Perhaps you are using "necessary" in a different sense than I intended, as 
in "necessary versus contingent," whereas I am thinking of "necessary" as 
"needed for something". A being has to exist in the first place for its 
life to have purpose, wouldn't you say?

>I have always rejected religion,
>and never questioned the existence
>of God,or seen how anyone could
>sensibly do so.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your attitudes about God and religion, 
and I can see how you may not think much of organized religion; it does 
have its shortcomings. But many people may wonder how you can be so 
strongly pro-God but also sure that all existing religions are more-or-less 
phony.

> > >>[I am an atheist but] "with a concept of divinity" ...
>
>Are you a pantheist,perhaps of the
>Lovelock-Gaia variety?

This issue is more fully discussed in my book (considerably) than is 
possible here. My position can be rationalized as a kind of pantheism but 
I'm resistant to that, because it doesn't fit well with the usual, 
pantheist ideas of God-as-all-that-is, which are not strongly oriented 
toward personal immortality. (I also don't think pantheism itself fits with 
the traditional idea of a God.) Instead my concept of divinity involves two 
ideas that both depend on eliminating death and becoming immortal. First: 
each person, in developing over time, will become increasingly godlike and 
perfected (though never reaching final perfection, thus always allowing 
more progress to be made and good reasons to continue living). Second: 
increasingly I think all will form a harmonious whole, a "One composed of 
many."

> > Rabies provides a good example of why I question the existence of an
> > all-knowing, all-powerful, omnibenevolent being. (And there are plenty
> > of others.)
>
>That existence has hazards causes
>one to believe it is the result
>of nothing?

No, certainly not. But it doesn't inspire my confidence that it is the 
result of the deliberate actions of a being who is transcendently wise, 
powerful, and loving.

> > > >3. Natural (non-theistic) explanations of natural phenomena.
>...
>But a transcendent Ultimate is
>absolutely required for the
>material to be explained.

Well, once again I'll have to ask if the transcendent Ultimate is, or would 
have to be, a conscious being as we understand it--it certainly doesn't 
seem so.

>So you don't get the concept of God
>being "outside time"?

To me, sentience requires embedding in time--I see no way around it. A God 
outside of time would not square with traditional theism as is offered, for 
example, in various scriptures such as the Bible, where God speaks, hears 
and answers prayers, and the like.

> > > >5. The possibility of salvation through science.
> > >
> > >Meaning what?
> >
> > The attainment of a happy, eternal existence.
>
>"With God,all things are possible."

Well, you've heard the old arguments: "if God could do anything, he could 
make an ocean so wide he couldn't swim across," and the like. What I meant 
here was that we could secure our immortal future through our own efforts, 
rather than having to depend on outside help, including God as 
traditionally understood.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17253