X-Message-Number: 8044
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:37:32 -0400
From: Michael Riskin <>
Subject: Instinct, Intelligence, Other.

   There are many instances of " real" facts that do not at the time meet
the " scientifically proved" standard of fact. They include the (1)
"instinct' method of fact gathering or (2) "  I can't prove it but it is
obviously so" category, or the (3) " it must be so..logic tells me
that...but .the instrumentation simply doesn't yet exist to demonstrate it"
category of fact.  

An example of (1) is that, by the nature of who we are,  female breasts are
arousing to many heterosexual males,which  leads to penile tumescence, and
the desire for copulation. ( While therefore staring ( with interest and
subsequent arousal) at womens chests may not be PC, it is certainly
consistent with factual reality.). Maybe one day the very specific
physiological  connection will be located...but for now "on the face of it"
it seems to be a fact. A mans best strategy may  also include showing  a
desire to make a commitment,  produce evidence of power or wealth or
status, and be sensitive to her needs in order to obtain copulation, but
nevertheless, the attraction to her breasts is also not only " gender
imperitive normal" but possibly a critical component of maleness.

Talking about sexual desires...we come to the (2)  above type fact.  Many
heterosexual womenare similiarly attracted to, and aroused by, relatively
larger flaccid and erect penises. Men are even more sensitive about this
issue than woman are about breats size...but nevertheless it appears to be
true...  We never read stories wherein the woman making love and desiring
to compliment her lover is saying " oohh, your penis is nice and small" or
see ads in swingers magazines that state 
" under endowed male wanted...less than 5 inches erect a plus".  Why not?
Any mention at all of penis size and erotica is always in the " big"
category. Woman lie about it, machines and operations are sold for it, and
men kill if insulted about it.
I can go on and on...No, penis size alone is not the only erotic factor for
women and is even of lesser weight to other criteria ( style, wealth,
technique etc  are absolutley and ultimately more significant to finding
sex partners) but it is nevertheless a valid one....only no one wants to
admit it. It is also the same logic that lets us correctly observe that "
jerks and assholes and arrogance " gets more sex than is gotten by " nice
guys". Why is that?...The " arrogance etal mentality" is perceived as a
display of male power. ...niceness is seen as " weak"...not a good
characteristic for a prospective provider. Finally ( 3) is the easiest to
note as in " I know that a body of a certain mass , spin, velocity must
exist so and so place in the univers...we just don't see it yet"


And there are also " un-real facts" . ( Ah...how to distinguish the 
correct from the incorrect facts of #1,2,3 above). That sounds like a
contradiction in terms...but for example....lets say that  a baby born with
the knowledge that says for its'  welfare ' you will believe it is good to
seek out a nipple connected to the best available milk laden breast....and
probably  your mother is the first best place to look first for a supply
and a willingness to provide"...The baby maybe also is  born with the "
knowledge" that dying is a good thing for its' welfare...and probably going
to a hereafter with god is its' first best choice". In that circumstance,
why would cryonics be " good". I will go so far as to speculate that
similiar to the obvious truth that " by nature"  female breasts arouse
heterosexual men, and arguably correct that larger penises are attractive
to heterosexual woman, and a star may exist that is not yet seen, i argue
that most people believe " by the nature of who they are", that a certain
type of permanent death under certain conditions is actually desireable for
them. They just can't prove it so they have to say "take it on faith". But
the funny thing, it would not be faith, but a reality of their condition.

(Cryonicists are probably no more than a mutation off another mutation
called atheists or agnostics.)

To get most folk them to believe otherwise ( than their faith)  would take
the same kind of extreme conditioning procedures necessary to reverse the "
see a breast...get aroused reflex".

A problem is that , as I noted earlier...intuitive information is often
correct information in the scientific sense....but other times it is
not....but to the believer it all seems the same...and is therefore argued
with the same passionate vigor.

It wuld therefore take a very persuasive argument, that (1) demonstrated
that the held belief that death was good  was hard wired in...not a moral
or other type choice, and (2) It is better for the listener to try to re
wire ( deprogram-reprogram) than follw their genes. 

It would be like saying, listen...you have a genetic defect...we found it "
here", and it can be fixed...(name any genetic as compared to environmental
disorder).  Then it is incumbent on The Doctors and Scientists to fix it.

Now...as to what is the me that i want to have revived...for me the answer
is currntly simple. It is a me that has knowledge of the old me, with all
the history and faults and strengths and neurosis and wanted to live a long
time, is conscious of coming back and desiring more of the same. Now..i may
chose to fix a few quirks in my personality...but I will know about it.
Coming back...identically to me as I am , but without the knowledge will
only seem like a new person that is living...so the concept of immortality
of  is missing. 

Even if I am certifiably or otherwise crazy, it is still me...and thats
what I want to come back.  Right no, if I was a Michael who was frozen
before and thawed out ok, thats nice for me...but not so hot for my
predecessor.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8044