X-Message-Number: 30486
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: What makes people take action?
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:55:21 +0100
References: <>

On 14 Feb 2008, at 20:22, Kennita Watson wrote:

> On Feb 12, 2008, at 2:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>> even though the religious people in
>> Badger's (1998) data set said they "agree" that "chances are zero  
>> if I
>> am buried or cremated", they also state they wouldn't change their
>> attitude about cryonics "under any circumstances". It appears that as
>> long as there is any doubt about the immortality of the soul, people
>> will resist even exposing themselves to information about cryonics.
>> Therefore, a change in life philosophy seems to be a precondition for
>> effective promotion of biostasis. A new institutional framework seems
>> essential, if this is to be accomplished.
>
>
> Fear not.  When thousands of people have been
> cryopreserved and reanimated, these tunes will
> change.

That is not a strong factor in the analysis. It certainly comes  
nowhere near the ones I cite above.


>  There will always be doubt, because the immortality of the soul  
> cannot be disproved.

The null hypothesis: Immortality of the soul is not a preexisting  
condition.

It isn't up to anyone to disprove an arbitrary hypothesis. Since there  
are an infinite number of them, it is a logical impossibility. This is  
why null hypothesis formulation is the first step in testing a concept.


> Religious people will still sign up
> if we can communicate (assuming you want to play
> their game) that any immortal soul is not in
> jeopardy through cryonics.  If you *don't* want
> to play their game, don't waste your time or
> mental energy.

It is a waste of time trying to communicate anything about cryonics to  
them. The data clearly shows that.

>
>
> Basically, life philosophies are VERY hard to
> change;

This depends upon how solid they are. The religious teachings from  
thousands of years ago simply don't make sense in light of today's  
science. That is why people are converting, creating their own systems  
with elements of various religions, etc.


> let's reach out to the people whose
> life philosophies don't need changing.

This would be the atheists and agnostics in the population. Since the  
agnostics will not seek information and don't form identified groups,  
an extremely expensive promotional champaign blanketing the population  
is the only option. Without that, we only get the atheists, who will  
actively seek information.


>
>
> Interesting -- this thread might as well be called
> "What stops people from taking action?".  Perhaps
> better, since it can be easier to remove barriers
> than to try to push people over them.

Not obvious. In fact, a lot of evidence says people will not give up a  
worldview, if a "better" one isn't available.


>
>
> Google "The Authoritarians" -- first hit leads
> to an online book that explains *a lot* about the
> problems in the world today, including the
> problematic mindset that David describes.
> home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
>
> Also Google "Enlightenment 2.0" -- first hit leads
> to a marvelous series of Google videos covering a
> 3-day symposium on the topic and what we (she says
> presumptuously) have to deal with.
> http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2

More relevant and up to date information:

ernestbecker.org

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/index.html



dss


David Stodolsky    Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30486