X-Message-Number: 32391
From: "Jens Rabis" <>
References: <>
Subject: AW: CryoNet #32385 - #32388
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:49:20 +0100
Hi,
everything is made of the same elementary particles. It follows: Justice is
deep-blind.
Alles besteht aus den gleichen Elementarteilchen. Daraus folgt: Die
Rechtsprechung ist Tiefenblind.
Best Greetings
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin
-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: CryoNet [mailto:]
Gesendet: Montag, 15. Februar 2010 11:00
An:
Betreff: CryoNet #32385 - #32388
CryoNet - Mon 15 Feb 2010
#32385: Re: cryonics terminology [John de Rivaz]
#32386: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong [Max More]
#32387: Dietary Formula [J Coetzee MSc]
#32388: Re: cryonics terminology [Luke Parrish]
Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32385%2D32388
Administrivia
To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
with the subject line (not message _body_):
subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.
To retrieve past messages, send email to:
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
http://www.cryonet.org/
For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
- Kevin Q. Brown
Message #32385
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:47:31 -0000
Lawyers claim a dead person is not a person, it is a corpse.
The idea that certain people are not people as defined by law has extensive
historical precedent. Slavery was justified because people who were being
enslaved were not regarded as being people in the law of the time. This idea
persisted well into the 19th century.
If a time comes when evidence based science can demonstrate that anyone who
had been cryopreserved in the 20th and 21st centuries could have been
restored to good health, any lawyer or other administrator who prevented
such an event will be regarded in the same way as a slave trader. I doubt
whether there are many people today who are proud of ancestors who were
slave traders.
It is difficult to say when the reanimation of cryopreserved people could
ever be possible. If it is unlikely to be within the lifetime of the present
generation of lawyers and administrators, then they may take comfort in
enjoying their power over cryopreserved people feeling sure that they will
never have to answer for their actions. Concern over their descendants is
very much less likely to influence their actions.
I would suspect that any lawyer or administrator interfering with a
cryopreservation has never given any serious thought as to whether
cryopreservation may work. If anything, he has probably relied on
authorities who, without giving it any thought, have said it won't work.
Unless some way can be found of making these people give it serious thought,
getting a specific individual cryopreserved is always going to be very
tricky. Some will get through -- many won't.
I think someone mentioned fairly recently that there are plenty of books and
papers that have been written saying why cryonics could work, but none
giving detailed reasoned argument as to why it could not possibly work. The
only remarks from people in positions of power stating the case against are
statements like "it is like turning a hamburger into a cow" or comparisons
with deep frozen fruits.
The only books against cryonics have really been against cryonics
practitioners, suggesting that they were making money offering nothing of
value in return. Of course this is not true - no one ever got rich out of
cryonics. Only time will tell whether the service they offer is of value. No
one can legitimately offer an opinion on that value today.
--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz: http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy, Nomad .. and
more
----- Original Message -----
From:
<del>
>From CI's website:
[Cryonicists make best efforts to minimize tissue deterioration to maximize
the future potential for life. For this reason, cryonicists refer to people
who have been cryopreserved as patients, rather than as corpses.]
>From Alcor's website:
[The cryopreservation phase of cryonics will not be reversible for a very
long time. But this still does not mean cryonics patients are dead.]
According to a court ruling in the state of Michigan a patient can not be a
corpse, and thus technically CI is guiltly of making a fraudulent claim. Any
unsympathetic bureaucrat could take CI to court and win the lawsuit.
Snipped from the web>
[A ruling however by the Michigan Court of Appeals determined that "because
a dead body is not a person, it is not protected under a statute that
protects patient abuse in nursing homes."]
<del>
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32385
Message #32386
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:38:37 -0600
From: Max More <>
Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong
Since you posted the last paragraph of Midgley's article, which is
full of nonsense, be sure to read the critical comments that follow.
Also Dawkins response to similar claims by her:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1664#71914
David Stodolsky posted:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/what-darwin-got-wrong
>
>What Darwin Got Wrong....
Max
Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
The Proactionary Project
Extropy Institute Founder
www.maxmore.com
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32386
Message #32387
From: "J Coetzee MSc" <>
References: <>
Subject: Dietary Formula
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:27:17 -0500
Dietary formula helps. But a cure for aging? That is a lot of bs.
Basie
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32387
Message #32388
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:46:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Luke Parrish <>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology
In order to prove that CI is making fraudulent claims, it
would be necessary to first prove that people stand a real
chance of being deceived by their use of the given
terminology.
In other words, the context would have to be such that
people are likely to seriously and erroneously believe that
they will no longer be legally dead when they are
cryopreserved.
It is painfully obvious to all concerned that nobody who is
cryopreserved is alive by the traditional, much less legal,
definition of death. Because of this, use of the term
"patient" is not and cannot be misleading in the manner your
argument implies.
In the cryonics context, the term "patient" is being used
quite deliberately to convey the less-than-obvious fact that
such legal and traditional definitions of death are utterly
irrelevant as far as the premises of cryonics (i.e.
information-theoretic death) are concerned.
Over and over, cryonics advocates deal with the arguments of
people who miss this point entirely. I can see how such
people might be uncomfortable with our terminology, but that
is the entire point of using it. The presumption that legal
death removes all ethical obligations towards an individual
has gone unquestioned in our culture for far too long now.
From a constitutional standpoint, simply consider that there
is no more deception involved here than there is when
"pro-life" groups portray human fetuses as "unborn babies".
It is a case of a group with a particular definition of life
using that definition as a rhetorical device to advance
their position. There is nothing fraudulent or illegal about
them taking this position, it is simply a natural way to
convey their honest and heartfelt opinion. To attempt to
censor them over it would be a clear violation of the first
amendment.
There is no intent nor realistic possibility to deceive
anyone regarding the reality of the situation. "Patient" is
the only term that adequately conveys the proper attitude
with which cryonics organizations view the so-called
corpses under their care, and is thus entirely appropriate
in this context.
You are of course free to use whatever term you like.
Suspendee, cryonaut, and preservee may be appropriate in
certain contexts. But inventing new non-dictionary words
means creating new jargon, and risks creating a separate
set of cryonics "elites" who "get cryonics". This is the
opposite of what we should be trying to do, which is to
mainstream the idea so that more lives will be saved by it
(assuming that they can be, which I do) and more research
will get done on making it more effective (i.e. likely to
work). Honestly I think cryonics has had enough elitism and
counterculturalism over the past 40 years.
Opting out of information-theoretic death is, as far as we
can tell, entirely possible. We shouldn't try to dilute
this message. Desiring to continue one's own existence is
an entirely normal concept, and more and more normal people
are getting involved. Making it seem more esoteric and
bizarre would be unfair to them, and is fortunately (and
for good reason) not something the government has the
authority to force us to do.
> Message #32384
> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:29:27 -0800 (PST)
> From:
> Subject: cryonics terminology
>
> I received one "non-supportive" email from an influencial
> cryonics proponent regarding my proposed change in cryonics
> terminology to delete all mention of fraudulent terms such
> as patient or person in reference to stored corpses. The
> sender stated that the "eyes of the law are irrelevant".
>
> Below is an extract from my reply, which I hope will serve
> as a warning to cryonics organizations that are still using
> such potentially dangerous terminology.
>
> "It was the law which shut down CI for awhile. CI is
> regulated as a respository only for corpses, yet CI
> continues to use terms that imply it is violating the law.
> CI has been shut down by the law in the past, and will again
> when at some point in the future when the local law is more
> strictly enforced. Using terms that are not in the
> dictionary elminates some of this risk. Terms like
> "suspendee", my own proposed "cryonaut", and "preservee" as
> suggested elsewhere all possess the advantage of being low
> risk terms because they are not in the dictionary. They
> would mean the same to members of the cryonics movement, as
> "patient" would, but are not in technical violation of the
> law. As you know, the dictionary states that "patient" can
> only refer to live human bodies and not to corpses. This
> dictionary reference can be used by any unsympathetic
> bureaucrat to shut down both CI and Alcor at any time. For
> institutions that may have to survive hundreds or even
> thousands of years to fulfill their purpose, taking needless
> risks such as using words like "patient" is imprudent."
>
> >From CI's website:
> [Cryonicists make best efforts to minimize tissue
> deterioration to maximize the future potential for life. For
> this reason, cryonicists refer to people who have been
> cryopreserved as patients, rather than as corpses.]
>
> >From Alcor's website:
> [The cryopreservation phase of cryonics will not be
> reversible for a very long time. But this still does not
> mean cryonics patients are dead.]
>
> According to a court ruling in the state of Michigan a
> patient can not be a corpse, and thus technically CI is
> guiltly of making a fraudulent claim. Any unsympathetic
> bureaucrat could take CI to court and win the lawsuit.
> Snipped from the web>
> [A ruling however by the Michigan Court of Appeals
> determined that "because a dead body is not a person, it is
> not protected under a statute that protects patient abuse in
> nursing homes."]
>
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32388
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32391
Warning: This message was filtered from the daily CryoNet digest
because the poster's reputation was too low.
It thus may need to be rated.