X-Message-Number: 9123
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:50:24 -0500
From: "Stephen W. Bridge" <>
Subject: Probabilities

To CryoNet
From Steve Bridge
February 6, 1998
 
A couple of brief comments:
 
On the probability of cryonics:  After reading several more posts, I see
we are actually arguing about the probability of more than one event.
From Bob's description, I gather that his attempts to place a probability
on something is on the question of whether or not *cryonics* could work.
This is a more general case.  Emotionally, I think I was looking at
"whether cryonics will work for any particular patient frozen today."
 
I will submit that I think it *may be* possible to estimate in a very
general way whether or not cryonics -- *in principle* -- will work.
 
I think it is very unlikely we can assign a meaningful number to the
probability of whether cryonics will work for any single individual in
suspension today or yet to be frozen, because of:
 
1.  Our lack of knowledge as to whether past cryonics procedures were EVER
adequate to retain the necessary information.
 
2.  The wild variability of conditions and procedures applied to current
patients.
 
3.  The current unknown of what future procedures and conditions will face
any specific future patient.
 
 
 
In reply to:
 
Message #9095
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 09:14:25 -0800
From: "Joseph J. Strout" <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9085
 
>Of course, I could be completely wrong about this, and I certainly think
>nanotech is a milestone technology that should be pursued with vigor.
>But I don't think we should stop talking about uploading, either, because
>for those (like me) who have doubts about the magical power of Nano,
>uploading is the only way we can imagine to get out of the dewar.
 
From my point of view, Uploading looks more much like magic than ANY
version of nanotechnology I have ever hear.  Sorry, Joe.
 
Steve Bridge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9123