X-Message-Number: 8069
From:  (Mike C.)
Subject: CRYONICS Me And My Government. (Re: Mike Perry: Cryonet #8043-#8058)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:03:59 -0400

>Message #8064
>Date:  Sun, 13 Apr 97 15:34:42 
>From: Mike Perry <>
>Subject: Re: Cryonet #8043-#8058
>
>Mike C., you said (#8043) you were interested in cryonics, 
>and also (#8048), [if you]"Follow me, you will be led ... ." Are 
>you signed up? 

I am still trying to change benificiary of my life insurance policy.

>
>You also say (#8048), "Tell me who you are; 
>I want to know you." What's your last name?

I do not like names, 
but the United States of America calls me Scott Painter.
People ignored my name at bottom of posts and called me Mike.
I tired of telling them they were wrong and changed my name.
Is that all you want to know(!)?

>
>
>Olaf Henny, #8052, wrote:
>
>>*********************  MIKE PERRY WROTE 
>
>>I am not so much concerned about the threat from religion 
>>as I am from our secular governments, who, out of 
>>concern for the viability of pension and old age security 
>>unds, already start prohibiting (here in Canada) such 
>>potentially life extending hormones as DHEA.
>
>Governments could be a greater threat than religion. 
>"Secular" governments often (though not always) take their 
>cues from organized religion, especially on matters of life 
>and death. Once again, though, the threat from govern-
>ments is a serious one. Thanks, Olaf, for pointing this out.

It's about time people started fearing their governments!

>
>Once again, I'll concede that governments are a big prob-
>lem--and thank you again for pointing this out. What ever 
>happened to the laissez-faire idea? A "right of individual 
>self-determination" 

It's called statelessness now.
It is supposed to give everyone the right to abuse you.

>
>(I use this for want of a better term. 
>Does anybody have one?) 

Yes, sovereignty or monarchy.

>
>should be recognized as a principle of law. 
>Is there some way we can organize to push for such recognition? 
I'm starting to like you more.

United Nations: 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 
Article 21: 
Section 3: 
"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government"(.)

United States of America:
Declaration of Independence:
"to assume among the powers of the earth,
 the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of nature entitle them"...
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed."

>
>This would seem to be what the U.S. 
>Libertarian party has been doing for many years already--
>clearly without the success we would like.

It is hard to secede.

>Bob Ettinger, #8053, wrote:
>
>>Change & survival: there was a mention that Derek Parfit 
>>believes that, if he were gradually changed into Greta 
>>Garbo, at the end he would not have survived. This is not 
>>obvious to me (nor is any other conclusion).
>
>This shows our difference in points of view. To me, under 
>the circumstances described (assuming no hidden retention 
>of information, etc.), Derek Parfit is gone, deceased, just as 
>surely if he was dissolved in acid. And Greta Garbo is 
>alive, assuming it's a faithful copy, even if she *was* 
>dissolved in acid!
>
>>If I am successfully reanimated after cryostasis, I 
>>anticipate eventually becoming transhuman, and probably 
>>being indifferent to retention of my ancient memories, 
>>which I might even purposely jettison as junk, retaining 
>>them only in an external file if at all.
>
>Again, Bob, we have a difference in points of view. To me, 
>retention of my ancient memories is essential to "my" 
>continuing survival. I'm hopeful about this, even if these 
>memories will be "vastly outmoded," in part by compari-
>son with how we currently treat archeological and paleon-
>tological information. Dinosaur remains are highly valued.
>
>>Until we know much more--about the self circuit, about 
>>objective and subjective time, about the construction of 
>>spacetime, about whatever underlies quantum mechanics-
>>-it is just guesswork.
>
>I think this is not just a matter of "more knowledge"--that 
>may or may not be important--but one's point of view is 
>important, and in particular, what one values and does not 
>value.
>
>>And how about "organization" as a category? If my self 
>>circuit requires a particular anatomy/physiology, it may 
>>be possible only in meat. If he [John Clark] claims (as he 
>>does) that meat can be emulated in other media, he is 
>>disregarding the fact that the ORGANIZATION of matter 
>>of a self circuit in meat is very different from the 
>>organization in (say) a silicon emulation, or a tinker-toy, 
>>or a Turing tape. If he then responds yes, but only the 
>>isomorphism is important, not the specific organization, 
>>not the kind of atoms or their relationships--then he is 
>>back to dogmatism.
>
>To me, having the "right" isomorphism would be sufficient 
>(we must be sure of getting it right of course, and that may 
>be nontrivial). This may be "dogmatism"--I think of it as 
>point of view.  
>
>>He [John Clark, #8045] also says (in re the possibility that 
>>we do not "really" survive from hour to hour): "If I have 
>>not survived, then survival is not important to me..." He 
>>says, in effect, that he is satisfied with being the continuer 
>>of something and the predecessor of something, whether 
>>or not we can rigorously say that the predecessor/
>>continuer series represents survival.
>
>That's my viewpoint too, call it by whatever name you 
>want. I'm satisfied with being the continuer of something 
>and the predecessor of something else. I call it "survival" 
>because that is what "survival" means to me.

If I exist in time I will continue to be a continuer.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8069