X-Message-Number: 4654
From: 
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 13:50:40 -0400
Subject: emphases

Probably too much spacetime has been wasted on the non-question of suspension
research vs. repair potential. We are probably all in essential agreement,
with differences of emphasis. Even so, I'll make this response to Thomas
Donaldson's #4650.

First, it shouldn't be necessary to cross every t and dot every i. When I
mentioned die casting, I was referring to ordinary symmetrical dice and not
possibly loaded ones. My point was valid--that in most cases the broad sweep
of historical evidence is much more important than any individual datum of
observation. 

In fact this valid point--or a misapplication of it--is one of the reasons
for the failure of cryonics to gain much acceptance so far. A subset of the
sweep-of-history principle is that the traditional wisdom is usually right,
which implies cryonics is wrong. The problem here, of course, is that the
skeptics are looking at the wrong subset and don't really understand the
principle; they are merely obeying habits and not really reasoning at all, or
not reasoning carefully enough.

Thomas mentions that optimistic speculations have often proven wrong. So have
I, with specific examples; I am not a short-term optimist. In particular,
although I hope I am wrong, I am not optimistic about early perfection of
reversible-on-demand suspended animation, even for the brain alone. (For the
umpteenth time, this does not denigrate the importance of research, but
underlines it.)

The difference of emphasis is that Donaldson and Darwin and others fear
insufficient support for research--too much complacency about future repair
capabilities. They don't want too much optimistic speculation about nanotech
and cryptanalysis etc. (Incidentally, when I mentioned the wide view in
relation to cryptanalysis, I didn't mean to imply that Merkle had no
specifics to offer; he did, even if not enough to complete a "syllogism" to
Donaldson's satisfaction. )

But some of us think that investigation into nanotech and inference
technology (whether or not very detailed and closely relevant to brain
biology) is highly desirable, both for the impetus to actual technological
advance and also for its psychological effect.

Again: A few people may be overly complacent. A few may be in cryonics for
the wrong reasons--starry-eyed and uncritical worship of science-writers'
science. But against this is the overwhelming mass of people who "want an
automobile that runs" (in my father's words) and will not buy one that almost
runs--not at any price. 

These skeptics pride themselves on hard-headed realism--an exaggeration or
parody of the Donaldson/Darwin position. "Show me; I'll believe it when I see
it." But this is NOT realism. One is reminded of the saying in Israel: "Here,
whoever does not believe in miracles is not a realist." (Yes, that saying has
become a bit frayed lately.) Realism not only excludes uncritical acceptance
of fantasy; it also INCLUDES reasonable extrapolitions and acknowledgements
of the remarkable accomplishments of the past.

Have any of the goals of science or technology proven unattainable? On a
short term basis, yes--no flying flivver after all this time, to use my
well-worn example. But none, to my knowledge, has been ruled out with
finality. (And of course many new areas of achievement have opened up that
were previously undreamed of. This ALSO is a central element of realism.)

The relevance of a datum is more important than its accuracy. Feynman
suggested atomic manipulation of matter; the implications of this far
outweigh most particular findings about the anatomy and physiology of the
brain. 

Some people think it is impossible to read a page that has been torn up, so
they shred documents. In fact, it is sometimes possible to read a page that
has been BURNED up. Cryptanalysis is not irrelevant and should not be
disparaged.

Some think that all the information about your  brain can only be found IN
your brain. In fact, you have impacted your environment in countless ways,
and it will almost certainly become possible to infer massive amounts of
information about your fine structure just from the public  written records
in conjunction with your own genotype, writings, photos, videos, audios, and
the memories of your acquaintances. All these things TAKEN TOGETHER will
almost certainly converge to fine specifics. If you want some further far-out
possibilities, look at some of Yvan Bozzonetti's stuff.

For that matter, many of the consequences of the currently dominant
interpretations of quantum theory are far from established. How reconcile
uncollapsed wave states with universal gravitational interactions, as one
small example. (Has anyone important ever suggested that Newton's Third Law
implies that no system is ever isolated? ) Or how do we reconcile a fixed
past with a  blurred present? Or how can we confidently dismiss the "still
life" view of spacetime as all laid out in one continuum, past/present/future
coexisting? How can anyone seriously claim that we are out of kindergarten
when we know NOTHING about the physics of time? 

A few centuries ago MOST of the physical universe and MOST of its phenomena
were totally unkown--e.g. only the visible part of the electromagnetic
spectrum was known, and only a tiny part of the sidereal universe and only a
minuscule fraction of its history. For all we know,  this may STILL be true. 

The difference between cryonicists and others--at least on the intellectual
level--is that we try to look at the big picture. What is important? Your
life, and those of the people you love. How can we save and improve
ourselves? By applying ALL of the means at our disposal now and in the
future, and by working to shift the odds in our favor. 

Forgive the rambling. I don't think I'll dwell any further on this topic any
time soon, unless I think of cleverer ways to say it.

Bottom line: skepticism is a MUCH bigger problem for cryonics than is
complacency. We need both direct, immediate suspension research and broader,
more remotely targeted work toward nanotech and inference technology.

Robert Ettinger 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4654