CryoNet #32445 - #32447
CryoNet <[email protected]> 4 Mar 2010 10:00:02 -0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.science.cryogenics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
CryoNet - Thu 4 Mar 2010
#32445: Re: cryonics terminology [York W. &/or Lois G. Porter]
#32446: Re: D Stodolsky's Replies to Me [David Stodolsky]
#32447: Re: "Evidence that Cryonics May Work" on YouTube [benbest]
Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32445%2D32447
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 #32445
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:49:12 -0600
From: "York W. &/or Lois G. Porter" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: cryonics terminology
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
9:20 a.m. CST
My e-mail has, as it has for the past several months, been giving me fits.
Repairman down yesterday for about the sixth or seventh time and I'm still
not sure that it's working right. At any rate, it has slowed down my
ability to respond and this is part of the reason for this belated reply to
David's points.
As to my presenting (messages 32394,32395) the four "cautionary" points,
slightly modified, from Mike Darwin's article from Cryonics magazine of
April 1990, as a way to keep down claims of "scam" on the part of cryonics,
DSS wrote (in message 32397):
"This kind of narrow legalism is not the real question we have been
discussing. It is important, but only secondarily. Legal decisions, in
particular, jury decisions, are often based upon 'community standards'
or a climate of opinion. If cryonics is regarded as a scam or a cult,
because it uses terms that are in opposition to their everyday
utilization, no amount of legalistic detail is likely to save the day
(in court)."
My reply:
My understanding was that the real question that was being discussed was
the appropriate use of terminology and its effect on how the community at
large views us. I suppose the four paragraphs I mentioned seem like "narrow
legalism" as written but the wider point, which I do believe relates
directly to the original discussion, is that the wording is about our most
important asset and that is our integrity. As I believe Steve Bridge wrote
in a recent point/different thread, the presentation of cryonics by folks
who are intelligent, reasonable, friendly, successful people seems to aid
the effort. All those things can certainly be said, for instance, about the
"father of cryonics". The wording Mike used (and I somewhat modified) may
be able to be presented in a better fashion but the point is, in part, to
show that we aren't some sort of "starry eyed idealists/fanatics/cult
members" ala a group like the Heaven's Gate bunch that committed suicide
because "the great spaceship was supposed to be following the Hale-Bopp
comet" back in the late 1990s. To me, no one that reads/hears/is exposed
openly and honestly to the four points mentioned could conclude that we are
some sort of a scam or cult by any reasonable definition of the term,.
which, as I understood it, was the whole point of the original discussion.
Again, our presenting the four points "up front" and clearly (I would say,
preferably in large and bold type) on appropriate documents and contracts
as well as verbally in, perhaps, less formal fashion and, for that matter,
in our actions as well, seems to me to lead an outside observer to the
inevitable conclusion that we all aren't running around believing something
just because we want to believe it (seemingly a necessary component of
cults). Further, it shows that we recognize the possible limitations of our
efforts. The use of the word patient in the context we use it is, in my
view, perfectly ethical as long as we clearly define it in a way analogous
to CPR, i.e, we don't dispute that there is a point where "dead is dead"
(the most extreme example that I can readily think of being if you are at
the center of a thermonuclear explosion). The argument is over just whether
the patients entrusted to our care are "beyond all help" (i.e.,
biologically dead/frozen corpses) or whether they are just "beyond present
help". If the latter, they could rationally, reasonably, and just as
important, ethically be classified as individuals who are undergoing an
experimental process that is quite a logical one to undertake given the
options/evidence available.
It seems to me to do otherwise increases, again, the risk of conceding the
moral high ground to our opponents. It seems this could subject the men and
women who have entrusted themselves to our care to being given no more
consideration than those lying in a traditional cemetary and subject,
therefore, to the same lack of consideration if societal desires (a new
superhighway, etc.) seem to warrant their being thawed out and
cremated/planted in the ground. It changes the argument from one of whether
people placed in cryonic suspension are truly in a situation where their
basic humanity and the possibility of future restored physical life should
be deeply respected to one where we basically would have to state, in the
every day usage of language: "Well, we've got these frozen corpses stored,
some of which have been decapitated/had only their brains stored but we're
confident that we can take those frozen corpses/frozen heads/frozen brains
and bring them back to life some day".
All of the last sentence in the previous paragraph is again consistent, as
far as I can tell, with the every day utilization of language Just
doesn't seem, to me at least, to have the same "ring" as presenting
cryonics for what I think it is and that is an attempt to get to people as
near to the time of clinical death as possible (and that includes,
hopefully some day, before clinical death) and subject them to an
experimental procedure using the best technology that research and
resources can provide, and to store them and consider them with the same
consideration we would patients in a hospital until we know for certain
that the procedure works or it doesn't. No different, in my view, than the
patients we now deal with in cardiac arrest situations in the emergency
room whom we work on (and occasionally work on and work on and work on and
work on) until we are convinced that there is nothing else reasonable for
us to do. The term "patient" seems to apply equally to those individuals
and individuals in cryonic suspension as well using the same "yardstick" if
you will. As far as the being beyond "present help" phrase, it also applied
to persons whom I dealt with in the ambulance trade, some of whom were
beyond me doing much beyond anything other than "holding the line" until my
partner and I could get them to definitive care. We were taught in EMS work
that frequently our job was to simply try to prevent any further damage or
at least minimize any further damage, some of which might come through the
procedures we were using, as opposed to correcting existing damage, until
we could get the person, at some point obviously in the future, to help.
Again, to me at least, this is exactly analogous to the people we have in
cryonic suspension and the word "patient" seems to apply, ethically and
rationally, to both groups..
As far as the ramifications about jury decisions being based on "community
standards", Louis Nizer, the prominent attorney from a few decades back,
wrote, as best as I remember,that frequently the effort in court is to get
the judge/jury wanting to rule your way and then providing them with some
sort of legal basis for them to do so. I suppose this ties in to your point
but I also see it as indicating that being viewed by the community as
rational folks, etc. as Steve Bridge wrote, is going to be a very important
component in those community standards as they develop. I think to
basically give up the idea that cryonics is much closer to experimental
medical care than anything else one can think of is what would result in
less sympathy for our efforts and not more.
Given your knowledge in the area, I am curious how social movement theory
looks at Christianity which is, of course, one of the major religions in
the world. It started off, however, as a situation in which its chief
figure was nailed to a cross by the Romans. On top of that, it's concepts,
though perhaps not its use of every day language, would certainly seem to
be at odds with every day experience. A few hundred years later (not bad by
mass communication not being available), it was the state religion of the
Roman Empire. I'm supposing this might relate to what I hope is your
incorrect (but you may be right) thinking that cryonics may have to go
through a lot of fits and starts before it is widely accepted. The fact
that numerous members of this religion were executed themselves for having
the "audacity" to believe in it shows, I suppose, that being a proponent of
cryonics in this thankfully modern society where freedom of speech and
thought is supposed to be one of our cornerstones isn't so bad after all.
But, again, I'm curious how social movement theory deals with this example
of an initially very small group in a distant outpost of the Empire and how
it managed to gain such prominence. Are there lessons there for our concept
as well?? Thanks for your interesting earlier reply and am looking forward
to this one as well.
York
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32445
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #32446
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: D Stodolsky's Replies to Me
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:02:50 +0100
References: <[email protected]>
On 3 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
> In addition, the Evaluators should be identified and their record of
> message disposition choices should also be available to all CryoNet
> subscribers in order to insure their continued impartiality.
> Cooperative
> group activities always work amicably and without suspicion when there
> is total openness concerning all related actions
Unfortunately, if you are evaluating your boss publicly your judgement
may no longer be impartial and if it is, you may be looking for a new
job. That is why anonymous peer review is the gold standard of
scientific publishing.
> Unfortunately, Social Preferencing with respect to the personal
> characteristics of other individuals, even more than with respect to
> goods and services, requires the possibility of evaluating the
> evaluator, and therefore cannot be fully effective until anonymity
> ceases and total openness of one's personal life and characteristics
> is
> embraced
This is erroneous. I explain in a number of peer-reviewed publications
how both the protection of anonymity and evaluation of evaluators is
possible with a secure pseudonym system.
dss
David Stodolsky
[email protected] Skype: davidstodolsky
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32446
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message #32447
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:18:25 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "Evidence that Cryonics May Work" on YouTube
In CryoMessage 32426 Ben Best wrote:
> Dr. Aubrey de Grey has given permission
> for the video of my SENS3 lecture
> "Evidence that Cryonics May Work"
> that I gave at the SENS3 conference at
> Cambridge University in September 2007
> to be uploaded to YouTube.
>
> Cryonics Institute Member Dennis Kowalski
> has converted the web version of the lecture
>
> http://richardjschueler.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=56961
>
> to two YouTube versions:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85IQZOLPF6U (Part I)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf8tsrw_piM (Part II)
>
> Thanks to Dennis and Moyea Software for converting
> this video for presentation on YouTube. Unthanks to
> Moyea Software for putting their logo in the very
> center of the picture, making it difficult to read
> the powerpoint slides.
The "Moyea Software" logo has been removed by
John de Rivaz, but the new improved YouTube versions
Dennis uploaded are now at new YouTube addresses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7bYLcpRMlg (Part I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_zAmUfyRA (Part II)
-- Ben Best
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32447
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of CryoNet Digest
*********************