X-Message-Number: 26539
From: "David Pizer" <>
Subject: still more replies
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 19:40:21 -0700

RELPY TO DAVID VERBEKE.


VERBEKE: David Pizer and his quest, what a joke. Just think about the
following mr. Pizer, as you re looking for arguments pro and contra you re
cryo-cruisade: You want to take on religion so the believers would listen to
your
logical, rational arguments and wouldn t choose anymore for something that
promises
everything , a promise that s based on air (there you re absolutely right).

PIZER: You have misunderstood my intentions. I do not want religions
persons to quit choosing to do things that may lead them to eternal Heavenly
life - quite the contrary. I want them to have more options. I want their
message reflect only what is knowable about reality at present. I don't
think reality allows if it can be known at present if Heaven really exists
or not.

I want the religions to quit *guaranteeing* the eternal life. I want the
religions to state their beliefs as just that -- beliefs. That is also the
way I want to the cryonics community to state their beliefs. I want both
parties to state their beliefs in the same way. It would be just as wrong,
in my opinion, for cryonics to guarantee that their technology will bring
more life as it is for religions to do this.

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but as two options that can
double the probability of extended life.

I want to help religions make there message more realistic with reality so
that if there is a mistake in what they are promising the followers will be
open-minded to other possible options.

VERBEKE But the very basis of religion is that one doesn't need
arguments.
Religious people want to believe, they don t need arguments. The rational
arguments against religion are out there, the rational arguments to take
the chance and choose for cryonics are out there, all one has to do is to
think for themselves (that s enlightment; Immanuel Kant). But that s what
most
people don t want to do (or simply aren t able to do). So again, they
like/choose to follow like sheep, they don t want to think for themselves,
they don t need arguments.

PIZER: Religions do respond to the truth, even when it goes against their
previous beliefs. Here is just one example: Religions used to teach that
the Earth was at the center of the Universe. They even severely punished
people who dared to think otherwise. Eventually there was just too much
evidence for them to continue to hold this wrongful belief and they changed
their policy and apologized.

I am hoping that this can be the case again.


VERBEKE So mr. Pizer, don t have the pretention to think
that you will be able to change these people, that they suddenly will
listen to your rational arguments and come to the conclusion; Oh yes, mr.
Pizer
is right, we we re wrong all the time, let s run to Alcor or the CI and
sign
up for cryonics. They will only react with anger and hatred towards you,
because you want to destroy the dream they like to live in.

PIZER; I agree with you. Good ideas sometimes take a long time to get
others to accept. It may not be fast. The better the idea is, often is
related to how different from present thinking the idea is. The more
different it is (and therefore the better it is) the longer it may take to
get accepted. But I think the beneficial changes will come sooner if we
start sooner than if we start later.

VERBEKE: > So mr. Pizer, wake up out of you re own little dream and smell
the thorns.
As almost everyone wrote here, your action will lead to nothing, except
the fact that you will put the cryonics community in great danger.

PIZER: You are correct in your assessment that there is potential danger in
this plan. That is why at this time, I am only discussing in this forum
attempting to flush out ideas and possible pitfalls. I would call this a
risk ratio assessment discussion. That is why I would also investigate the
idea in other forums (legal and religious) and then back to this one, before
I would dare do anything.


PIZER REPLIES TO RISKIN

RISKIN It is my opinion that Dave Pizer's target ( organized religion) is
incorrectly chosen. The real problem is not what organized religion may
say or promise, but the manner in which individual peoples think about what
is
said or promised.

PIZER; Thank you. You have just said what I have been trying to say, Mike,
and you have helped me to be more clear. Let me try again (while thinking
of what you said above).

I do NOT want to target organized religion per se.

I do NOT want they to drop any of their beliefs.

I DO want to only target "the manner" in which they state their beliefs to
their followers. Specifically I only want them to state their beliefs as -- 
beliefs, and not as what they guarantee absolute reality is. I want them to
say they hope religion leads to extended life, just as you might say you
hope cryonics leads to extended life, but you are more realistic, when you
add that you can not guarantee the results of cryonics. I only want them to
be as realistic about their beliefs as you are about your own.

Nowhere has that been made more clear to me than here on Cryonet (where even
some of the top leaders of the organizations misunderstood what I said,
honestly misquoted me, accidentally built an army of strawmen to beat up on. I
am not referring to this exchange). This debating experience has shown me
that if I were to proceed to the next bigger arena, I must to do a much
better job or trying to explain what my position is and what it is NOT than
I did here. And this more clear understanding has to be in the very
beginning.

RISKIN: >Suing organized religion at worst will mobilize the faithful
into retaliative law suits or simply convince them even further that they
are right due to the reflex thinking of the human mind to reject processes
that threaten them.

PIZER: I thought that at first, but I am now not positive that there is not
some way to correct this big harm that is being done. I mean here to say
that there your comments are well-taken and true in many cases, but I don't
think they are always true. I believe this because there have been times in
history when someone opposed the standing religious beliefs and eventually
the religions were convinced to accept the new thinking.

RISKIN Joe Waynick, Alcor's CEO, for example, is an educated but
vigorously religious person who understands the value of having
alternatives at his disposal.

PIZER He is of one, or a very few, in 6 billion. I would ask if he has even
been able to convince his wife (also of his religious conviction) to sign
up?

PIZER REPLIES TO EIVIND BERGE

BERGE: David Pizer asks for more arguments against suing religion. A lot of
people have supplied plenty of excellent reasons why this is a bad
idea, which is what I believe too. Not just because it would imperil
cryonics, but because the whole idea is utterly senseless and silly.
Society is already overregulated and overly litigious; we need less of
that, not more.

PIZER: You are wrong here, sir. And you have identified one of the
problems so far, but I think things are getting better.

A lot of people have done only what you have done above, called my
arguments names (there are two arguments: 1) There is a wrong that presently
exists,
2) what should be doing about it),
They have expressed their fears, but they have Not
supplied any excellent reasons on why this is a bad idea. I am trying to get
people to do just that - give "excellent reasons" on either side.

We all assume it
might be a bad idea, that is why we are discussing it here. Also, what
many
people don't do is discuss the possible benefits these actions might be. I
think you would agree that we don't want to make decisions based only on
what bad things might happen, if we did we might still be swinging in the
trees. I would think we would want to assess the risks vs the benefits, to
ourselves and to our fellow humans. I have a feeling that you are a person
who would like to do some good in the world as I am. I would bet that all
we differ on is HOW to proceed.

BERGE: Adding insult to injury, I find the notion of suing or coercing
someone ostensibly for their own good, extremely offensive.

PIZER: It is done everyday in the United States. It is called a class
action suit. Our legal system allows one to sue for the benefit of an
injured party(s) or to stop potential injury to them even if they don't want
the suit filed. I have to operate within the framework of what exists now.
I don't like this either, but I think you would agree that it is better than
the way religious differences have been settled in the past and still are
sometimes now. I don't want to fly an airplane into their church!

BERGE: This is the kind of logic that gave us concepts like mental
> illness,..............................................

PIZER: But you DO believe that people should not use fraud or force in
their persuasion. Further even if that fraud is one that comes from an
honest mistake, you realize that the bad results can be the same from an
accident as from an intentional harm.

The government already has the power. I think you miss the intention of the
suit. The suit is to gain the attention of decision makers in religions to
cause them to think about the mistake they are making, to cause them to
think about an alternative way that their goal of extended life for their
followers might be reached. To persuade them with logic and evidence that
they are making an honest mistake that might lead their followers away from
the goals they want to help those followers reach. I don't think you would
object to an action that caused a party to correct a mistaken way they were
presenting their case if that mistake they were committing was harming
millions of people, or more??

BERGE: Actually in this case it is not so much scary as laughable (unless
you are a cryonicist). America is already famous for absurd lawsuits; this
would be the funniest one yet. A uniquely American approach to a very
unAmerican purpose. And so what if religions had to include a
disclaimer? I think normally intelligent people already understand
that when religions speak of eternal life and heaven, they are in fact
referring to belief, not assurances.

PIZER: Then you would be wrong. I have seen the rejection of cryonics based
only on the
of the dying person that they were guaranteed a place in Heaven. If you
miss this point,
it will be impossible to convince you of what really happens. Perhaps it
would help if
you talked to some other old-time cryoncists like my self who have see this
over that last
20+ years?

PIZER REPLIES TO PERRY

PIZER HAD SAID: David Pizer wrote:
Can you suggest a better immediate (people are dying every day, time is
of the essence) way than a lawsuit to get something going that will cause
Religions to rephrase their beliefs as just that -- beliefs, and not as
absolute truth?

MIKE; Dave, you say you want evidence for any recommendations that are made
(including not to proceed with the lawsuit--my recommendation and just
about everybody else's). Maybe you should talk to some devout believers
who
are not cryonicists--I'm not sure where you'd find them but you have
contacts.

DAVID: You are correct. If I were to continue with this plan it would go
something like this:
1. Discuss this within the cryonics community.
Get as many ideas as possible.
Try to find the major problems with the initial argument and the secondary
argument about what to do about it.

At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go
forward to step two, or continue to do more research in step one.


2. Go to religious leaders and ask them what they think will happen if I
file.
At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go
forward to the next step, or continue to do more research in step one.

3. Talk to legal advisors for advice.
At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go
forward to the next step, or continue to do more research in step one.


4. Take all this back to the cryonics community to get their take on what I
was told in 2 & 3.
At this point, if the evidence and logic so dictate, we stop at once, go
forward with the suit (or if some better method has been found by then, go
forward with that one)..

5. All the time looking for other possible (better) ways to fix the
problem.


MIKE: Other considerations are that the courts themselves are composed of
non-cryonicists, many of whom are religious themselves, and they do
consider precedent in arriving at decisions.

DAVID: We don't have to win in court. Odds are against that. We need the
world-wide forum generated by the suit to respectfully show the world the
problem and try to get them to help fix it. Their goals are our goals -
more life, more life and more life. We both want to help fellow humans have
more life.

Final note: As you all know (some of you better than I) there are several
types of debates, including (but not limited to)

1. Personal debates. Where one tries to win the debate at all costs.
Lying, name-calling, anything goes in this type of debate.
This is not the type of debate I am looking for.

2. Negotiating debate. Try to get the best deal you can.
This is not what I am looking for either.

3. Persuasion debate. Where you try to persuade the other party, and
they try to persuade you. But you want to win your point.
We may have to settle on this one, but I would hope for #4.

4. Truth-seeking debate. Each side tries to state their evidence and logic
as best they can.
They honestly and respectfully listened fully to the other side. When it is
possible they grant the other side the benefit of a doubt
(For instance, you would grant that the other side's intentions are as just
as you own unless there was evidence opposite)

This is type of debate I am seeking out here. The results of this debate
can affect our lives and the lives of millions of other.
In this case, doing nothing has consequences to many other people who may
not choose cryonics who might have. It also might harm the existing
cryonics if we do not change this wrongful situation, because the success of
OUR survival may fail only because there were not enough people in our
movement. Perhaps, in some way, your own self-interest may be harmed by
doing nothing?

I hope you will keep this in mind if you choose to debate further. I also
realize that sometimes I don't follow these guidelines - by not on purpose.

I sincerely state here that my purpose in staying in this on-going debate is
to try to find the truth, as much as it can be known, about the conclusion
of my first argument (which concludes religions are doing something wrong,
maybe by mistake) and the conclusions of my second argument which tries to
explore what is the best thing to do about this harm, (If anything can be
done). And to try to discover how to proceed to cause the most good with
the less risk of harm resulting. I define "good" here as more people
signing up for cryonics. I define "harm" as doing something that causes
people not to sign up or prevents cryonics from being practiced..

If I could say it in a nutshell, I would like to know the probability of all
possible results of continuing on. I don't think we can know the results
themselves, but can we know the probability of each possible one?

David Pizer




 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26539