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