X-Message-Number: 19741
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:49:44 -0700
From: <>
Subject: Re: probabilities

> Message #19735
> From: "George Smith" 
> References: 
> Subject: Shermer, "skeptics", debunkers and
> odds.
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 11:34:02 -0700
> 

> (2) It is intellectually dishonest to assign
> ANY "odds" with ANY numbers to
> the gamble we call cryonics other than zero or
> 100%.


Comment: Why is that?  One is reminded of Feynman asking his surgeon what his
suvivial odds were, and the surgeon saying you can't talk about odds of a
single event. Feynman's answer to the surgeon: "Psst, from one professor to
another-- you can if it hasn't happened yet."

And he was quite right. The idea that you can't talk about odds of something
happening in the future would mean that there's no information in the
weatherman telling you there's a 20% chance it will rain tomorrow, because in
the event either it will or it won't. But that is wrong. There IS information
in what the weatherman says, and if you don't use it, you'll be the poorer for
it. And if you don't use similar calculations when you roll dice at Las Vegas,
you'll REALLY be poorer for it.

Lastly, there's George's idea that survival in cryonics is 100% or zero.
Again, nonsense. You can come back with any fraction of your memories, from
none, to all, or in between. In the in between cases, your survival is fuzzy.
You partly survived and you partly didn't. It would any attempt to force a
black or white answer out of such a gray situation that would indeed be
"intellectually dishonest."

George, you really are an Aristotelian. I prescribe less Rand and more
Korzybski, Hayakawa, and even Kosko.

Steve Harris

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19741