X-Message-Number: 3068
From: 
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 94 11:40:10 EDT
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS responses

Re the "perspective" posting and responses:

I suppose I should have saved myself the flak and foreseen the inevitable
misinterpretations, and asked myself what useful purpose such a posting might
serve. However, having done it, let me respond to the criticisms--with
apologies for sloppy organization, since this as usual is done in haste.

First and foremost, I said there are MANY reasons for long term optimism, and
I hoped it was unnecessary to emphasize that I am NOT complacent about
procedures. Well, apparently it WAS necessary to emphasize this latter and
perhaps also to reiterate some of the other reasons. Also I must clarify the
point that my view on determinism is the "bottom line" for long term optimism
only in the sense that, if all other reasons for optimism fail to impress,
this one might (at least for some people).

Before getting into the long term optimism, however, some brief remarks on
the short term pessimism.

Taking at face value Mike Darwin's assessment of the proof of principle for
reversible kidney cryopreservation by Greg Fahy's methods, then instead of
saying that kidney preservation HAS proven intractable fo rmany years, I
should say HAD proven intractable for many years. This scarcely changes the
point--that if it took many years to work out the kidney problem, it might
very possibly take much longer to work out the brain problem.

But Mike's assessment, I think, cannot QUITE be taken at face value. Until
whole kidneys have actually BEEN processed in the proposed way and proven
viable, we  can't be sure. At CI we never take anything for granted. 

And Mike ought to know better than to keep trying to label me Pollyanna. I
have never minimized the problems of maximizing our chances, and if I ignored
the necessity of trying to maximize our chances I would be an idiot. The
research effort at CI has never been restricted by the philosophical view
Mike imputes to me--only by our finances and capabilities (which fortunately
are improving).

Now about Mr. Zimov's points. On the possibility of irreversibility with
determinism, he is technically right--but trivially. In the real world, the
interconnections are so numerous and complex that there is hardly ever more
than one solution.

As to his remark about "better reasons," I have already commented. Of course
there are.

Mr. Zimov also says it is a logical fallacy to "conclude anything about"
 determinism just because the definition of randomness is incomplete. Not so.
It would of course be a logical fallacy to conclude with assurance that there
is no such thing as objective randomness, just because we cannot yet define
or explain it--but there is nothing wrong with preferring a satisfying
concept over an unclear and probably meaningless one.

As to the philosophical problems of identity, the Parfit thought experiment
Mr. Zimov cites is well known to all cryonicists, along with countless other
examples. The bottom line is that, at present, there are no known
satisfactory criteria of identity or survival. All we can do now is grope our
way along and use conservative criteria to try to  save or/and peserve
ourselves by the least damaging/disruptive methods. We will probably not have
a good handle on criteria of survival until we know much more about TIME and
also about the anatomical/physiological nature of the portion/aspect of the
brain that allows feeling.

Responding to Mr. Platt, I can only repeat that no sapient being would deny
the necessity of minimizing risk and maximizing the probability of revival. I
do believe that it is (with sufficiently advanced technology, time, money,
and motivation, and subject to resolution of some of the philosophical
problems of identity and survival) theoretically possible to revive anyone
after any lapse of time. But this does not address the likelihoods or
practical problems. Nor am I dogmatic about the principle; I believe it, but
would change my mind if evidence warranted.

Yes, quantum mechanics as a mode of description/prediction is widely accepted
these days--universally accepted, in fact, among scientists; but the standard
INTERPRETATION is not universally accepted. It remains possible--and in my
unimportant opinion probable--that current quantum theory is not the whole
story, and further information will restore determinism, for the reasons
previously noted.

No, it is not true that the "flying flivver" already exists and just has not
found a market. Mr. Platt seems to forget that none of the vehicles he
mentions satisfies the criteria of combined safety, simplicity, and price.
(Comfort and convenience should also be included.) If these were ever
available, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the market would
be enormous. It remains true that the flying flivver has failed to
materialize after 60 years, despite its being (probably) a relatively minor
project.

OF COURSE  we need more information about the types and degree of damage
being done by current methods of cryopreservation, and ways to improve our
methods. (How many times do I have to say it?) If my postings have left doubt
in the minds of intelligent people about my views on this, then my postings
must have been very sloppy, or else they were not carefully read, or both. 

IN SUM: No sane person can disagree that we need to work hard at improving
all aspects of our organizations and procedures, and that falling just a
little bit short might be fatal. But my sometimes point is just that it is
also wrong ever to give up. Our knowledge of the universe is still so limited
that despair--in any situation whatever--is absurdly premature. And I do
think the evidence suggests that the world is deterministic, and there will
always be at least a theoretical possibility of eventual rescue. 

(It may also turn out that there is no such thing as survival, that we exist
only in the moment, that everything was hopeless from the beginning. But this
is only one of many bleak scenarios that we necessarily disregard, both
because they seem remote and because they lead nowhere.)

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3068