X-Message-Number: 13361 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:55:07 -0500 From: Paul Wakfer <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #13353 References: <> > Message #13353 > From: "George Smith" <> > References: <> > Subject: Comment on ad hominum and clarification, respectfully submitted. > Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:09:30 -0800 > > Paul, I suspect that you undermine your credibility when you attack the > person instead of addressing the issue. George, I suspect that you undermine your own credibility when you leap to the defense of the "father" of cryonics instead of accepting that he too may sometimes err. > Calling my reply to your criticisms of some else's posting "guru supporting" > is simply ad hominum. > > (I wonder if I spelled that correctly. Never took Latin). Did you also not learn how to use a dictionary? > It is a common ploy in politics but is not intellectually honest. "Ad hominem" means attacking the character of the one making an argument *rather* than addressing the argument itself. Once one has successfully addressed an argument (as I did) then one is entitled to suggest what character flaws led to use of that argument, and to do so is in no manner intellectually dishonest. BTW, "common ploy in politics but is not intellectually honest" is about the strongest ad hominem attack that one could ever make against me in particular. > Name-calling is less than useless in my opinion. The term "guru" means a venerable counsellor, mentor and leader. Calling someone a guru is thus in itself not an ad hominem remark. In addition, if one supports a guru by being loyal to his teachings when those teachings are correct then "guru supporing" is a rational course of action. Only if one defends a guru's incorrect remarks , is "guru supporting" a negative description of a person. In any case, it is hardly "name calling", in fact it is much less so than "common ploy in politics but is not intellectually honest". > In Message #13349, From: Paul Wakfer, he wrote on the Subject: Re: CryoNet > #13342 "Biased viewpoints and guru supporting" in reference to my earlier > posting in Message #13342 on the Subject: "A few clarifications and > observations respectully submitted" > > > > > > > Clarifications and observations interspersed below: > > > > > > In Message #13336 Paul Wakfer wrote on the subject:Re: CryoNet #13305 > sound > > > bites > > > > > > > > > > > > Message #13305 > > > > > From: > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 21:18:02 EST > > > > > Subject: sound bites > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Robert Ettinger pushed the following "viewpoint as 'the' key to > > > > life". > > > > > > > > > we can say some relevant things with > > > > > considerable confidence: > > > > > ----- > > > > > If you don't try, you are less likely to succeed. > > > > > > > > This is a mere tautology > > > > > > Yet the tautology does describe a relevant truth we can state with > > > "considerable confidence". > > > > So does "If you try, then you are more likely to succeed", > > or "If you do not succeed, then you may not have tried". > > So what? > > The balance of my comments addressed that question. Huh? I don't think so. > > > > > For the optimists to be right, only one approach need work. For the > > > > > pessimists to be right, every approach must fail. > > > > > > > > For cryonics to succeed, every individual part of a series of highly > > > complex processes must work > > > > correctly. For cryonics to fail, only one part of one of those highly > > > complex processes needs to > > > > fail. > > > > > > This is conjecture stated as fact. It is actually only a personal > opinion. > > > > No. As stated, and lacking other conditions, it *is* a fact. > > The "other conditions" you refer to are what I would call "reality". > > In reality can you PROVE AS A FACT your assertion that "every part ... must > work". > > Until you do so, it IS only an opinion. No. We don't have to know what the processses are. The argument is a purely logical one. It is proven by *definition*! When/if someone is restored to life, then from beginning to end there will have taken place a "series of highly complex processes" every one of which will have had to work. > > > For example, there seem to be non-linear patterns with redundancies > which > > > work despite failures. A launched missile is over 99% of the time off > > > target but is corrects its trajectory as it goes. > > > > The "mid-course" corrections were already included as part of the "series > of highly complex processes". > > You are seizing my metaphor instead of offering a different one to explain > your disagreement and support your claim. So what! "mid-course corrections" is also a reasonable description of whatever adjustments need to be done to the "series of highly complex processes" to make them work. > My example is not identical to the issue. You need to offer a different > metaphor to explain your position rather than merely attacking the limits of > my example and feeling (and implying) that you have thereby addressed the > underlying question. I don't "need" to do any such thing! Since a metaphor does not constitute proof, it would be logically no stronger to use a different metaphor and "mid-course corrections" was a reasonable metaphor to the modifications which would take place in the series of highly complex processes over time. > > > The human body is constantly "failing" as cells die. Yet we generally > > > continue breathing for quite a few years - another example of non-linear > > > patterns with redundancies as cells continue to reproduce and replace > the > > > failures in the highly complex process we call the human body. > > > > They are only "local" failures. > > Yet they are complete failures for the cell. The cell does die. Perhaps you don't realize that cell death is as necessary and healthy a part of maintaining homoeostasis as it is of causing global body decline. In any case, most cells are replacable units whose death does not impair the functioning of the whole. While this was thought to be not true for neurons, recent discoveries have shown the potential of neurons also to be replacable. > If all the > cells die, the whole body is dead, which was my point in this example. A poor example. No one ever dies because of the death of all their cells In fact, whole body death it rarely a result of cell death at all, but rather a result of malfunctioning of cells and cellular interfaces. > > The operation of the human body is a "series of highly complex > > processes" which have been organized and developed by evolution over > billions of years. > > Not everything requires millions of years of blind evolution. Like the > computer I am using now. That is what human technology is intended to do. > Produce something new that we want and do it sooner. I have no idea why you are arguing against something which I did not say or imply. In any case, human technology has not yet produced anything with near the complexity and capabilities of a human body. So the products of evolution and human technology are hardly comparable. I you really think that your computor is in any manner comparable to your brain, then you must have a pretty dim view of your brain. > > Those processes > > are only acutely successful at fixing local failures. In time they fail to > prevent the chronic, global > > decline and disintegration of the system. > > Yes, but again you are only attacking the limits of MY metaphor. Please > also offer one of your own to explain your reasoning. You still have not > supported your claim to fact over opinion with proof. You have a very strange view of the basis of logical argumentation. The idea of corrections to processes as the processes unfold and corrections are seen to be necessary is quite generic and not limited to rockets flying to distant planets. There is no reason to introduce another metaphor when this one does quite nicely, and as I stated before it would lend no additional logical strength to the argument. > > The goal of life-extension sciences is to modify the body's homeostatic > processes, either internally, > > externally, or through migration to new hardware, in order to prevent the > chronic, global failure of the > > hardware which is the mind's container, processor, and interface to > external reality. > > You state that hardware is the mind's "container" and this is a popular > assumption. Please remember that we do not know this as a fact yet. You > could very well be right, but this still remains only popular speculation. > Stating it as established fact does not make it so. It is as much a fact as anything else is. If you wish to get really technical, then no statement about reality is a "fact" except those that are derived from pure logic alone. > Also you imply that we know as a fact that there is an "external reality" > which a separate "mind" has "interface" to. We do not know this to be true. Maybe you don't, but I do, again as much as I know anything at all. > If it is not true, then the shape of our work will be entirely different. > > You are probably right IN MY OPINION but, again, if we proclaim our beliefs > as truths it blinds us to reality as it is. There is no reason why acceptance of working assumptions should blind us to reality so long as we do not "believe" them. And if we do not make *some* working assumptions, we are powerless to reason at all. > This then blocks understanding > if we happen to be wrong in our beliefs. As stated above, there is a vast difference between "beliefs" and "working assumptions". I agree that one should never "believe" anything. > The scientific method is NOT to > proclaim truths and then seek to prove them, but to establish HYPOTHESES and > seek evidence to support them, is it not? Unless one starts with certainly working assumptions, however, one encounters the infinite regress problem and does not gets anywhere. > > The goal of cryonics is to capture the state of the mind with as high > fidelity as possible and to store > > it until recovery, and life-extension sciences have the ability to restore > it to full function in > > hardware capable of chronic homeostasis. > > > > > > > In the sweep of history, the can-do surprises have overwhelmed the > > > can't-do > > > > > surprises. > > > > > > > > Nonsense! This totally ignores the myriad of inventions, processes, > > > businesses, discoveries, > > > > etc. which are never amount to anything and are, thus, never heard of > and > > > certainly not recorded > > > > by history. In science for example, negative results are seldom > published. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that these unknowns never amounted to anything is why they are > > > overwhelmed by those that have. > > > > Again you have missed the point. The number of unknown failures is vastly > more than the number of > > failures which were noted as "surprises". > > It is only the *noted* failures which were overwhelmed by the successes. > This is merely a result of the > > "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" principle being > intentionally applied to highly > > important goals. It says nothing about lessor, or largely unpublicized > goals which might have lead to > > highly important ones if they had succeeded, but about which we know > little or nothing simply because > > the whole idea was a non-starter for one reason or another. It is possible > that reversible suspended > > animation by means of vitrification may become such a lost failure. > > For example, there are multiple ways to achieve space travel which have > never been tried. It is entirely > > possible that if we had taken the path to try one such many decades ago, > we might now be much further > > into space than we are. Similarly, if evolution had taken certain > different pathways millions of years > > ago, there might now be a race of near-immortal, sentient creatures > populating this planet. > > > > I am sorry, sir, but I do believe that YOU have missed the point. > > "In the sweep of history can-do surprises always overwhelm can't-do > surprises" > > This is true. I admit that with the use of the word "suprises" the statement is technically correct. However, it is also extremely misleading and *that* was the basis of my criticism. > You are only complaining about WHY it is true, > > What is "unnoted" or never pursued, DIDN'T HAPPEN. Not so. It may have happened partially. All the myriad patents in the patent office which were never brought to practical fruition certainly "happened". They simply did not go any further. > What didn't happen is certainly overwhelmed by what DID. > > Failures failed. They produced nothing. That's why they are "failures". This is a very strange viewpoint. All the airplane crashes, animal extinctions, etc. are certainly faillures which produced *something*. > That is the bottom line here and the clear intent behind the original quote > in question as demonstrated by the context of the original message. I disagree. The intent of the original quotation appears to be to paint an unreal view of the inexorable progress of technology. There is a difference between realistic optimism and a rosy-colored unrealistic worldview I have deleted the rest since it has either been considered or is pointless to consider. Paul Wakfer Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13361