X-Message-Number: 9533 Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:40:17 -0400 From: Paul Wakfer <> Newsgroups: sci.cryonics Subject: Re: Pietrzak 6 References: <> Ettinger wrote: > 2. An important point is that Mr. Pietrzak uses "intuition" in a misleading > way. He seems to imply e.g. that, in attempting to use Bayes' formula, one > either uses some vague inner sense that could vary dramatically between > individuals; or else uses explicit, recorded statistics. Actually, there is an > extremely important intermediate case, where there is no simple or readily > available explicit statistical record, yet the facts are so clear that most > people will be in reasonably close agreement. I will term this, derogatorily, as "democratic intuition". If there is no "explicit statistical record" even as a succession of credible anecdotes, then "most people" would be very foolish to be in "reasonably close agreement". By this reasoning you have just argued for the existence of God among other things. > Remember also, once more, that we refer to the likelihood of EVENTUAL success. > A "failed" project means one which not only has not yet succeeded, but has been > proven to be almost certainly unachievable. This goes too far. "Proving" things to be unachievable is virtually impossible. > Putting all this together, one obtains a long list of successful projects of > technology, and a very short or empty list of failed projects. When I get > around to adding to the web subsite, I'll be specific. You can say this and be specific as many times as you like, but you are still wrong. I think it is patently obvious that the historically accurate ratio of technological failures to successes is probably HUNDREDS TO ONE. There has been an ingenious output of technological idea from an enormous number of people over the last few centuries (again just examine the patent record), but damned few have ever amounted to anything. If that were not so, civilization would be technologically much farther ahead than it is now. > Note that all this, really, is more or less equivalent to Feinberg's and > Feynman's propositions that, given enough time and motivation, we can do > anything that natural law permits, including manipulation of matter on the > molecular level. This (correct) theory, however, completely ignores the extent of the words "time and motivation" and practical accomplishability of any particular goal which "natural law permits". IMO, such statements are really quite negative and even dangerous (vis-a-vis technological progress), for they invite the dreamers and hand-wavers to do little but dream, hand-wave and play "games" while waiting for the inexorable accomplishment of the goals that they profess to want (which have been predicted and "promised" to them by the possibility theorists). As Charles Platt has stated, what's the difference between this and Christians waiting for the inexorable life-after-death. However, a better analogy, IMO, is to liken cryonicist-dreamers to science-fiction dreamers - those who have little need for a satisfactory "real" world (and often little ability to achieve it), since they are "living" in the phantasy worlds of their reading or viewing. The saturation of sci-fi enthusiats and conventions with such people is why cryonics has never been able to attract many from that cohort. If we wish to attract people, we should not look to communities of theorists and dreamers, but instead to the hard-nosed world of engineering and science applications. However, to attract such practical people, we first must have a product that works or, at the very least, be able to show them that we are earnestly seeking it, *here and now*, and that there is reasonable/practical/proven grounds that it can be achieved in the relatively short term. -- Paul -- Voice/Fax: 416-968-6291 Page: 800-805-2870 The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org Perfected cryopreservation of Central Nervous System tissue for neuroscience research and medical repair of brain diseases Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9533