X-Message-Number: 3032 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 15:31:36 From: Steve Bridge <> Subject: CRYONICS Merkle's definition To CryoNet >From Steve Bridge, Alcor August 28, 1994 Re: Message: #3025 - Merkle's Definition Date: 27 Aug 94 05:41:44 EDT From: Paul Wakfer <> > It appears that Ralph Merkle, chief apostle to the cryonics >community from the god Nanotechnology is such a true believer, that he >can't even state the definition of cryonics correctly. His opening line >in Cryomsg #3024 is: >>Cryonic suspension is the technique of freezing the body of a >>legally-deceased person for storage until medical technology advances >>sufficiently to repair and revive them. > Nowhere is their even a hint that however advanced the technology >is, the information may not be there to repair and revive. Sorry, I think Paul Wakfer has gone wildly overboard here. A basic definition of one sentence has to be short and to the point. If that one sentence was the *entire* content of a lecture or of piece of publicity, Paul might have something to argue about. A definition by itself does not have to meet tests of informed consent. >To state this >definition to someone about to sign-up would be completely fraudulent >and, furthermore, it would violate the fundamental principle, and the >legal requirement, of informed consent. Again, sorry to be so abrupt, but this is ludicrous. Signing someone up for Alcor or any other cryonics organization requires a complex set of forms and informational documents. No one *document*, much less any one *sentence*, can carry the totality of information required for informed consent. No one will ever sign up a cryonicist on the basis of one sentence. > I challenge him to show proof that ANY of the informational content >of a person's memory and other mental capabilities is being captured and >saved with even the very best possible of current cryopreservation >techniques. This is an entirely separate argument which has nothing to do with Paul's hints of fraud for the use of a perfectly acceptable definition. If Paul wants to argue about whether identity is being saved, fine. It is a central point of discussion for cryonics. But if he demands absolute proof that current cryonics techniques are adequate before any of us lecture about or give a definition of cryonics ever again, he'll be shouting alone. > I'm simply not going to let him or anyone else get away with foisting >this assumption on us anymore. "Get away with?" "foisting?" Pretty emotional language from someone who advertises himself as thoroughly rational. (grin) If Paul wants this discussion to be rational, he might consider stating the discussion points that way as well. How about Paul providing his OWN one-sentence definition for others to take shots at? Steve Bridge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3032