[extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?- No

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Wed Apr 21 01:48:37 UTC 2004

Robert J. Bradbury wrote :

> Ok, since this has been a long thread -- why don't you restate
> your assertion(s)?

Threads do get long if obfuscations and diversions get thrown in
all over the place.  It is very time consuming to have to restate stuff
over and over while you try to move the issue to something that
you can put a positive spin on. I don't want you to put a positive 
spin or any spin. I want you to acknowledge the truth in clear
unambiguous terms. 

So I'll put back the relevant bits that you removed. 


>> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
>> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
>> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > > case of pick your belief-poison?

>  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> strictly require the disassembly of the brain.

Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the dissassembly
of the brain". 

I asserted that it does.  That's binary. You've taken one position 
with your "perception".  I have taken the other with mine. 

Do we agree on this much? 

I'd like you to be able to communicate the truth of your perception
to me like I have an IQ of 100, and a whole lot of other things to do
with my time. Which I do. But I don't have to rush. Although I am
in a different time zone to you. 

In short I want you to think of me as if I was an average voter. If you
can't convince the average voter without calling in assistance from
Eugene or Anders or anyone then *you* don't perceive the truth of
your position well enough to be polically effective with it on your own.
If you can then you can teach others to do it. And you will be
effective.  Politicians are not a lot brighter on scientific matters
than the average voter.

Be warned the average voter feels perfectly capable of rejecting
you and everything you care about as irrelevent because the average
voter has other things on his/her mind. To the average voter the
most valuable time in the world is not yours its theirs. 

The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average 
voter thinks their vote is as good as yours. 

Brett Paatsch

PS:  I read the Merkle paper years ago. But the link you provided
is now available to other extropes. The paper was apparently written
in 1994. Unlike the average voter I have one text book that old.
The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts, Watson et al 
If I hadn't written in it I'd probably be tempted to throw it out
as being too old to justify its space on the shelf. 






More information about the extropy-chat mailing list