X-Message-Number: 5840
From: 
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 11:14:15 -0500
Subject: comments

Miscellaneous comments on recent postings:

1. Brian Wowk says he has heard that CI representatives in Britain demand
$2,000 for an interview and that this offended NEW SCIENTIST and hurts
cryonics generally. Actually, just one British CI member, Paul Michaels,
acting as a private person, has demanded as a condition of an interview that
a donation be made to CI--amount depending on the size of the readership or
viewership. He has had so many requests for interviews--and has actually
given so many--that he must impose limits, and in his opinion the donation
requirement serves to cull the requests and to help CI a bit financially. I
doubt very much that there is any serious overall negative sentiment
generated by this, but in any event it is his decision to make. CI
itself--its officers and official representatives--do not demand pay for
appearances. 

Incidentally, when occasionally a would-be newspaper interviewer (e.g.) tells
Paul he should donate his time, he says he will--as soon as the newspaper
donates its space for advertising. Don't forget, the would-be interviewer
isn't giving us anything out of the goodness of his heart; he thinks he has
something to gain. We may need the media, but they need us too. 

Striking the right bargain is always a matter of judgment and luck. Brian may
believe that the relatively small amounts of money involved should not stand
in the way of more publicity and more good will, and he could be right; but
Paul's stance is just one small part of the overall picture.

2. Thomas Donaldson was probably referring to me when he said some of us
would be happy to be revived with no memories of former life, and that this
could be done now. 

First, I didn't say that, although I came fairly close to it. I said I have
few memories of my early childhood, and relatively few even of my middle life
(active memories, that is; I can't speak for what is there unbeknownst); and
that I don't especially care--I'm alive and happy and that's what counts. But
obviously, if I had my druthers, I would prefer to have all my memories
available, at least in principle; and I would certainly prefer to have enough
explicit or implicit memories to preserve some sense of continuity. But,
druthers or not, in general these are secondary matters. There are many types
and degrees of amnesia, but in general it is better to have amnesia than to
be dead.

Second, I'm not sure what he means by saying that revival without memory is
available now.  Perhaps he means that I could be cloned, and that a clone is
equivalent to revival without memory. But that is probably not the case--no
matter how broadly we define "memory." For one thing, we haven't yet
identified or adequately characterized the self circuit or subjective
circuit. For another, it would be stretching things to include in "memory"
all kinds of personality traits, habits, proclivities, etc., and most people
would probably include these in their criteria of survival.

3. Some legal Brits have been saying silly things about what the law is or
should be with respect to "corpses" and "patients" in cryostasis. 

In part, this is just their hang-up on language. No one disputes that our
patients are legally and clinically dead, under present custom; but the
question is whether and how to change law and custom, if necessary, to take
future developments into account. Nothing new about this--but some people
have personal neuroses on this particular subject.

The statement was made that, prior to successful revival, a corpse is a
corpse is a corpse. Plainly false. During the first heart transplant
operation, was the patient "dead" until he sat up again? In particular, was
he dead after the old heart was excised and before the new one was sewn in?
If so, did the surgeons defy law and logic by continuing the operation? 

One might quibble and say that, in this case, there had been prior success
with lower animals. Yes, this made success more likely, but people are
different, and success was far from guaranteed. We are dealing in
probabilities. Cryonicists are more optimistic in this respect than
others--and also more knowledgeable. But in any case, under PRESENT custom,
the "law" does not attempt to dictate to a surgeon how to estimate
probabilities. Usually it does not even attempt to dictate to a gambler when
he must refrain because the house cut is too large; the gambler can take his
own chances. And the law (after taking the government cut) does not attempt
to tell a testator that he may only bequeath his assets to people or entities
or enterprises approved by the bureaucrats. 

"Custom" is sometimes rather rigid, often pretty fluid; and the historical
revisionists are always with us. In the U.S., some people are saying loudly
that our country has religious underpinnings, and cite the "pledge of
allegiance" which includes the words: "...one nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all." But the "under God" bit is actually
relatively NEW; when I was a boy the Pledge did not include those words.

The Devil can cite Scripture, and all sides will continue to claim the
sanctity of Custom, and all sides will disregard Custom when they think that
is feasible and in their interest. Rally 'round the flag, boys.

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5840