X-Message-Number: 7157
From: 
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:06:17 -0500
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS guidelines

Steve Harris has written a long diatribe (#7154) which compels me to respond;
it may require more than one message, depending on how time works out.

First, while I do admire the knowledge and zealousness and accomplishments of
Dr. Harris and Mike Darwin, their incessant holier-than-thou (excuse me,
more-scientific-than-thou) attitude does become tiresome and perhaps
counterproductive. Mike occasionally shows signs of having learned a little
humility; Steve is perhaps still too young. Now some specifics, not
necessarily in order of importance:

1. Steve offers a "definition" of the "scientific method" which is juvenile,
and which leads him to exclude certain areas of life and thought from
"science." Actually, NO area of life or thought need be excluded from the
"scientific method", or should be. 

One can find many definitions of "science" or the "scientific method" offered
by famous scientists. The best is that of Paul Bridgman, who said that the
essence of science is just to "do the best you can with your mind, no holds
barred." I believe I improve this by saying that the essence of the
scientific method is just HONESTY (facing the facts) and RESOURCEFULNESS
(devising ways to find facts and apply them toward one's goals). 

One of the most simplistic definitions (and one somewhat similar to Steve's)
is that of Lord Kelvin, who said, "...when you can measure what you are
speaking about...you know something about it; but when you cannot express it
in numbers...you have scarcely advanced to the stage of Science..."  The fact
is that, while a scientist certainly prefers quantitative measures and
precise definitions, he cannot always get them. The scientist is not too
proud to use rough approximations when necessary, and in lieu of a clear idea
he will go as far as he can with a vague one. Likewise, the scientist prefers
direct observation to hearsay or inference; nevertheless, his limitations of
time and competence force him--like everyone else--to accept most "facts" on
the basis of "faith," hearsay, or indirect evidence.

Is a choice of paintings "scientific?" Could be, if it results from a
reasonably clear set of criteria--or even if it results just from a
reasonable decision just to go with one's feelings. In all cases, what counts
is an examination--as careful as the stakes warrant--of one's goals and the
likelihood of reaching them by various routes. 

2. Continuing the thread above, much of the "scientific method" boils down to
understanding and applying probability theory. This understanding is mostly
lacking, not only in lay people but even among specialists in probability and
statistics, as it applies to many areas of life. (Yes, I lack humility in
this area; I believe I am one of a tiny minority who understand the
foundations of probability theory.) 

My discussion of  probability would be too long for this venue; those who
want it may request a copy of a booklet I did some years ago on probability
and cryonics, based on an essay for the M.A. in math long ago. However, a
sense of part of it may be had just by looking at the most important
comon-sense example.

Experience tells us that science and technology tend to advance, and that
attempts to put limits on the possible advances are naive. In particular, our
understanding of the laws of nature, and of our own biology, are increasing,
and are likely to increase very far; also that understanding tends to permit
control. We thus have a likelihood--which is even roughly quantifiable, in
ways my booklet indicates--that certain configurations of matter may be
inferrable and recoverable from their deteriorated conditions.

Look at a person frozen after legal death by the crudest method--a straight
freeze, no matter added or removed. If the universe is fully deterministic,
as I think probable, then in principle there is no apparent reason why a
sufficiently advanced technology, with sufficient wealth and time, should not
be able to recover the person. If the universe is not fully deterministic,
then the argument is weaker in some ways, but the philosophical problem more
difficult, for reasons that brevity rules out discussing here. 

3. Nanotechnology and the psychology of cryonics adherents and prospects:

In THE PROSPECT OF IMMORTALITY I suggested that, if necessary, advanced
"surgeon machines" might repair the patient, cell by cell or even molecule by
molecule if necessary. "Nanotechnology" offers more specific and detailed
arguments as to how this might be done. Ralph Merkle, in particular, has
written some excellent technical summaries, available from Alcor.

Steve Harris thinks nanotech therefore is, to paraphrase Marx, the "opiate of
the (cryonicist) masses" or a new variety of religion, and counterproductive
for cryonics in the long run. What nonsense!  

First, you cannot equate the unequal just because they might in some sense
have partial similarities. Someone who swallows conventional religion
uncritically is not in the same class as someone who swallows nanotech
predictions uncritically. There is a major difference in kind and degree.
Nanotech is largely scientific; conventional religion is largely
unscientific.

Second, we know of many who have joined cryonics organizations because they
were encouraged by Drexler's book. I know of no evidence whatever that these
people are more complacent than others in cryonics, or more willing to be
frozen by cruder methods. It is just ridiculous to suggest that such
people--or anyone at all in cryonics--would not prefer to be frozen by more
advanced methods, or does not recognize that more advanced methods reduce the
burden on the future and improve one's chances.

In fact, it is very possible that the complaints of Harris et al may be
counterproductive; some readers might well infer that joining any
organization now is premature if not futile. 

4. No progress? Some of Harris' complaints are factually wrong, as well as
inconsistent with past statements. I don't want to get into a long historical
he-said-you-said-we-said; suffice it  for now to note, for example, that
Harris in his last message says there is "no evidence whatsoever that
freezing people with today's techniques does any better job than what we did
to them 10 years ago..." Yet in the same message he says that glycerol is on
the way out, and that his organization is making progress. If his
organization is constantly changing its procedures, surely it is based on
evidence!

5. Cryonics Institute procedures and policies:

Our goals and policies have always been totally realistic and scientific. The
aim is to maximize the chance of rescue (revival, repair, rejuvenation, and
rehabilitation) of our patients, within our constraints of financial and
technical resources and the financial resources of our likely patients. For
many years our assessment was that, for ALL existing methods of suspension,
something akin to full-fledged nanotech would be both necessary and
sufficient for success; and therefore our main emphasis should be on
stability and reliability of storage. (If we can't keep them stored, then how
they were suspended is irrelevant.) We developed cryostats that we believe
are better, overall, than anything commercially available. We have also
achieved what is arguably the soundest financial position of all cryonics
organizations.

At the same time, we have always kept in mind the obvious fact that better
suspensions reduce the burden on the future and (in some unknown degree)
improve the patient's chances. A few years ago we began our own research with
sheep brains,  and this was repeated and extended by Dr. Yuri Pichugin, an
experienced cryobiologist in the Ukraine, with the help of colleagues at
Kharkov University.

The procedure we found best (among those tested on sheep brains) had one
undeniable virtue--it eliminated the cracking problem, which had been
considered by many people as one of the most serious. (Dr. Pichugin verified
this.) As to other results, as indicated by light microscope and electron
microscope studies, interpretations differ. Mike Darwin's interpretation is
much more pessimistic than that of Dr. Pichugin. In any case, it is certainly
not true, as Harris rails, that we offer no objective evidence and make no
progress. Our reports, and Dr. Pichugin's, have been published in THE
IMMORTALIST, along with mircographs; and original micrographs have been given
to other interested parties, including competitors and critics such as
Darwin.

Dr. Pichugin also tested pieces of rabbit brains, and found both spontaneous
and evoked bioelectric activity coordinated among networks of neurons, after
rewarming from liquid nitrogen temperature--a first in the literature, I
believe. Dr. Pichugin's work continues, and now includes variations of the
Visser method, in cooperation with the Vissers and collaborators in several
countries.

At the CI facility in Michigan, our own people (who, like Darwin, have no
formal credentials) are preparing to work on sheep hearts using Visser
technology or variations; the relevance of this to cryonics is indirect but
still important.

Our patient procedure is also in the process of being modified after
evaluation of relatively recent information. We expect modifications to
continue--and in fact I rather suspect that, within the next few years, there
will be a convergence of methods used by all organizations, based on more
vigorous investigations as well as the better communication which may
develop.

6. The outlook:

Cheer up, Steve. The tone of your message ranged from sour to bitter. Maybe
you prematurely need some Geritol for tired blood. Maybe you're having
burnout syndrome. Realism is not the same as pessimism. We (in the "other"
organizations) are neither stupid, nor dishonest, nor ill informed. Opinions
can differ, after all; we are always willing to back ours with argument and
evidence. 

I will be 78 next month, and Mae is 82. If we can be optimistic (NOT
complacent, mind you; we're working hard), despite our aches and pains, you
younger people should find a glimmer of hope here and there. You may be a
good physician, and sometimes a good scientist, but you're not the greatest
salesman or psychologist or logician. Physician, heal thyself.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7157