CryoNet #32393 - #32396

CryoNet - Thu 18 Feb 2010

    #32393: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong [robomoon]
    #32394: Re: cryonics terminology [York W. &/or Lois G. Porter]
    #32395: Re: cryonics terminology [York W. &/or Lois G. Porter]
    #32396: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong [Keith Henson]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32393%2D32396

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32393
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:08:23 +0100 (CET)
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong

Next time you see a scientist laughing about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, refer him to this: A Lamarckian Evolution Strategy for Genetic Algorithms by Brian Ross, in L. Chambers (Ed.), The Practical Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, 1999. The abstract http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.44.5913 alone serves to argue that natural selection by mating preferences as described by Robert Trivers and explained by Richard Dawkins isn't enough to fill the queries that science "cannot answer".

> Message #32392
> From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong

> On 15 Feb 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> 
> > Since you posted the last paragraph of Midgley's article, which is
> > full of nonsense, be sure to read the critical comments that follow.
> 
> I don't read comments, unless one is specifically cited.
> 
> 
> > Also Dawkins response to similar claims by her:
> > http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1664#71914
> 
> This doesn't address the argument in the original article. Regardless  
> of what Dawkins himself believes, the "Selfish Gene" concept as been  
> used to support a range of social darwinistic policies.
> 
> 
> dss

--



Immer auf dem Laufenden! Sport, Auto, Reise, Politik und Promis. Von uns fur Sie: der neue Arcor.de-Newsletter!
Jetzt anmelden und einfach alles wissen: http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newsletter

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32393

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32394
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:48:56 -0600
From: "York W. &/or Lois G. Porter" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010
12:05 p.m. CST

I think that Luke Parrish's general comments are correct. I also tend to 
think that the abandonment of the term "patient" in referring to persons in 
"cryonic suspension" (which I still prefer over "cryopreservation") is 
giving up the moral high ground to our opponents. Everyone who has taken a 
CPR class is exposed to the idea that you are trying to intervene between 
the point of "clinical death" and "biological death" (the latter of which 
is supposed to be "final death"). I think similarly that we in cryonics 
have argued that we are doing basically the same thing, that the patients 
that we deal with are certainly legally/clinically dead but that they have 
not reached the point of "biological/final" death. I have participated in a 
number of cardiac arrest codes since I first started doing hospital work 
over thirty five years ago and even the "biological death" point has been 
pretty debatable even before evidence of longer term brain tissue survival 
became available. It basically means, in practice, when the ER doc/ER staff 
think you are beyond help and that varies depending on who the doc/staff 
members are at the time you go down, the recency of their training, their 
own philosophys' about how vigorous the intervention should be, etc..
	On the legal side, I'd say David Ettinger and/or some of the other 
attorneys involved in cryonics can assess whether the Michigan court cases 
provide CI any realistic danger of liability for the use of any 
terminology, whether the word "patient" or any other. All the other 
cryonics organizations that have existed have, I'm sure, looked at their 
forms and public statements, etc. in part with the concern for liability 
and, just as importantly, truthfulness as well.
	As Luke's writings point out, however, groups use terminology all the time 
as a rhetorical device to indicate their own beliefs about certain things. 
In an example of something that seems totally ludicrous to us now, the 
belief, and statement in law that African Americans were "property" instead 
of "human beings" and that they were to be counted for, I believe, three 
fifths of a person for purposes of voting representation in the U.S. 
Constitution was the law at one time but, thankfully, it didn't stop the 
abolitionists from vigorously arguing otherwise and, thankfully, ultimately 
prevailing.
	 To me, for those of us who believe in cryonics, the statement that the 
individuals in cryonic suspension should be considered "patients" and not 
"frozen corpses" (i.e, are in a state of "clinical death" as opposed to a 
state of "biological death") indicates the value we place on them and our 
willingness to work, as many have, very vigorously to protect them from 
harm. Otherwise, I think we are in the position of a former sheriff I know 
in Kentucky who was taught, when he was in office, that "a dead body has no 
value", at least under law in Kentucky back when he served in the 1970's.
	Sorry to continue to be my usual long winded self, but  Mike Darwin, in 
the April 1990 issue of Cryonics magazine,  in an article entitled 
"Guidelines for Accepting Non-Members for Cryonic Suspension into 
Alcor"  wrote of some criteria accepted, as I understand it, at that time 
and implemented by Alcor in March of 1990. I have no idea whether these are 
still the current standards at Alcor or not but I have taken the liberty of 
slightly amending four points that it seems to me if included somewhere in 
our suspension contracts, literature, etc. might go a long ways towards 
blocking any claim that we are engaged in any fraudulent behavior. Again, 
these are not the points in the exact wording that Mike used but they have 
been somewhat altered by a few words/phrases I thought up/stole from other 
writers. (The majority of it, though, I think reflects fairly accurately 
what Mike wrote):

1) Cryonics is the storage of legally/clinically dead individuals by 
freezing or vitrification or by other appropriate means in the anticipation 
and hope that future biomedical technology will be able to reverse both the 
cause of legal/clinical death and whatever damage, if any,  is sustained 
from imperfections in the storage process used, and to revive the 
individual and restore them to a state of youthful good health.

2) Cryonics is at best an endeavor with an unknown probability of success 
and at worst an endeavor with little chance of working.

3) Cryonics is not presently endorsed by or presently is a routine practice 
of the medical, scientific, or mortuary communities. It is often publicly 
labeled by some credentialed people as being either a fraud or quackery.

4) People treated with todays cryonics techniques cannot be restored to 
life or health by any currently available technology.


Mike goes on and writes a fifth point that as to why cryonics is a 
reasonable thing to do but, again, the four points above seem, to me, to 
basically deal with any fraudulent claims anyone could make and it seems 
could form a basis for helping protect us from claims of unethical action. 
There have been at couple of attempts to form a national organization to 
help provide professional standards/ethics in cryonics, none of the 
attempts of which have been successful. It seems to me, however, that the 
inclusion of the four points above in suspension contracts/literature would 
be a good starting point as one of the standards that each group should, 
perhaps, adopt anyway as some protection against the usual nonsensical 
claim that cryonics is some sort of a "scam" or that we are misleading 
people in any way.

York

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32394

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32395
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:46:24 -0600
From: "York W. &/or Lois G. Porter" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology

Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010
1:45 p.m. CST

Some second thoughts occurred to me concerning the points I presented 
earlier. I was trying, in some ways, to "tone down" some of the original 
statements from Mike's article and may have gone overboard for the purposes 
of using the statements as "anti fraud" language. The two basic areas 
(there may be others) that I noticed on reflection were:


In the first statement the original language was used at the end of it as : 
"...legal/clinical death and damage sustained from the application of 
today's imperfect freezing process."

I changed this in my wording to: "...legal/clinical death and whatever 
damage, if any,  is sustained from imperfections in the storage process 
used, and to revive the individual and restore them to a state of youthful 
good health."

I thought, after I had sent the original post, that the "if any" part 
should be eliminated. Guess that's what you get for adding phrases "on the 
fly" to stuff you've already written out in longhand. I was originally 
trying to provide for the possibility that future suspension techniques 
might result in no additional damage. That would, of course, be covered by 
the phrase "whatever damage".

The next thing I thought might need to be altered:

I wrote, in statement labeled 3) that:  "It is often publicly labeled by 
some credentialed people as being either a fraud or quackery." I was trying 
to slightly tone down the original statement which says : It is often 
publicly labeled by credentialed people as being either a fraud or 
quackery." The addition of the word "some" seemed to me to be perhaps not 
quite as "harsh" as the original statement. Again, though, for the purpose 
of "anti fraud" langauge, the word "some" should, perhaps, be replaced by 
"many" so that it would now read "It is often publicly labeled by many 
credentialed people as being either a fraud or quackery." I was trying, 
both in the use of the word "some" and in the present use of the word 
"many" to indicate less than universal labeling on the part of credentialed 
folks.

There may be other problems that I would certainly like to read comments about.

York

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32395

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32396
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:48:51 -0700
Subject: Re: What Darwin Got Wrong
From: Keith Henson <[email protected]>

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:00 AM, David Stodolsky <[email protected]> wrote:

snip

> This doesn't address the argument in the original article. Regardless
> of what Dawkins himself believes, the "Selfish Gene" concept as been
> used to support a range of social darwinistic policies.

Probably so.  Can you provide pointers to some of them?  It is not a
legit use of the selfish gene concept.

It is a legitimate use to invoke selfish gene/evolutionary psychology
concept to *understand* or try to understand social phenomena.  I have
done it myself in tying the Patty Hearst kidnapping, army basic
training and SMBD all to one evolved psychological mechanism, capture
bonding.

Keith

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32396

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************