CryoNet #32943 - #32946

CryoNet - Sat 16 Oct 2010

    #32943: Re: Mark Plus and Perry Metzger [John de Rivaz]
    #32944: Long For This World [Luke Parrish]
    #32945: It appears I am correct, Mark Plus has not read "Nanosystems"... [Perry E. Metzger]
    #32946: Re: experimental validation of uploading [Luke Parrish]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32943%2D32946

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.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


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

Message #32943
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mark Plus and Perry Metzger
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:06:24 +0100

It seems to me that both Mark Plus and Perry Metzger are quoting literature 
that neither has read. I think it would be a good idea for Mark Plus to try 
and read Nanosystems if he is going to quote any more of these naysaying web 
sites. I suspect that, as with all of us, the problem is time. Maybe it 
would be best not to spend it supporting the nano doubters without really 
understanding the issues.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32943

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

Message #32944
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Long For This World

Jonathan Weiner comments on why he didn't talk more about cryonics in this 
Reason interview: http://reason.org/news/show/live-forever-or-die-trying

Reason: You don't talk about one of the more colorful parts of the larger 
immortality movement"cryonics, or freezing dead bodies in hope they can be 
revived by future medical science. Why not?

Weiner: Cryonics was of no appeal to me personally and it doesn't appeal to most 

people I talk with and most people I know. I chose not to go into it because I 
don't see it being all that important for our society, and it's not Aubrey's 
main focus, it's not gerontology's main focus.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32944

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

Message #32945
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:59:30 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Subject: It appears I am correct, Mark Plus has not read "Nanosystems"...
References: <[email protected]>

> From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>
> Subject: Perry Metzger's nervous breakdown

Nice subject line, Mark.

I asked for you to state specific technical objections against
Drexler's work. You answered with:

> Perry, if you insist on assigning a fringe, sterile textbook, not
> taken seriously by the mainstream scientific and engineering
> communities, as homework to a 50 year old motel manager so that you

It appears that, having no technical objections to bring against
Drexler's work, and being unable to even read it for lack of
appropriate background, you have resorted to innuendo and ad hominem
attacks.

I believe I've won the argument.

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email protected]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32945

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

Message #32946
References: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Luke Parrish <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: experimental validation of uploading

> From: David  Stodolsky <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Oct  2010 16:22:11 +0200
> References: <[email protected]>
> 
> This is not using  Occam properly. 
> The flaw is in assuming that 'consciousness' can exist in  machines, which is 
>an Assuming the Consequent error.
> 
> First you must  define 'consciousness'. Then you must perform a test of the 
>null hypothesis: A  machine can't be conscious.


Then there's the null hypothesis that (a given definition of) 'consciousness' 
does not exist.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32946

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

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