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

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Fri Apr 23 02:39:49 UTC 2004

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > Threads do get long if obfuscations and diversions get thrown in
> > all over the place.
> I'm not intentionally trying to obfuscate.  Sometimes my mind
> will pick up in the middle of a discussion and perhaps
> misinterpret points or wander around things.

Please leave what is between these = line's in subsequent posts Robert
I want us and any readers to remember the background context.
> [Background:]
> > >> >... 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?
> > [Robert]
> > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Therefore:
> >
> > Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the
> > 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?
> Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions.

Robert's chosen online dictionary:

>  [One could get into complicated hair-splitting with regard to what
> "disassembly" means that might produce more positions.]

Quite so. This is true of many words so I want you to find and provide
the link to an online english dictionary of your choice in your next post
to this thread. Then put it above the = line. We can use the definitions
in that as a common base and improve or coin words between us as
we need to.

> I would assert from my reading of Ralph's paper and other knowledge
> with regard to what nanorobots (*or* even biorobots) can do that
> "disassembly" is not necessary (it might be useful but not necessary).

> > 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.
> I'm not sure that this can be done.

The average voter might have time to look at an online dictionary if
your talking to them and they ask you to provide it help keep you on
track. The average voter won't let you redefine ever word you and
they use while they put their life on hold indefinately.

> If one reads Ralph's paper,
> then one reads all of the work by Freitas on what Nanorobots can do,
> then if one reads the Robiobotics business plan on what bionanorobots
> can do (which I haven't seriously applied to the question of cryonics),
> then we might be able to have a head-to-head conversation on the subject.

Then one would have one's own view of those things. And if many did
and agreed with you your problems might be substantially over - but
that ain't happening.

> But to present it to the level of someone with an average IQ you are
> presenting a requirement that, at least from my perspective, I have
> to spend years educating such a person such that they understand
> all of the concepts involved.

> The scenario you suggest probably isn't about to happen.  I'll tell
> you a sad story (getting off track again).  One of the most beautiful
> women I have ever known, who I thought was quite intelligent, told me
> that she could never fall in love with me because she was intimidated
> by how smart I was.  That was quite revealing with respect to the
> fact there are some knowledge bases that are extremely difficult to
> communicate across intelligence boundaries.

The story is sad to you. Plenty of intelligent people lead lives with
some loneliness.

> > 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.
> Sorry, while I would like the average voter to believe in cryonics
> (or at least not be opposed to it) I don't much care if he/she does.
> I don't want to live in a world of reanimated individuals where most
> people are at the level of what we now consider to be average.  I want
> to live in a world where people have the time, interest, energy,
> etc. that it is much more extropic than ours currently is.
> You can accuse me of being "extropically prejudiced" and I will
> not object.
> > 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.
> I understand this.  But I would hope that we might develop a system
> where both the "average voter" and the "politicians" become much
> more educated and perhaps intelligent.

Don't hope. Look for an online dictionary.

> > 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.
> Reasonable point.  But as the recent discussion by Chris Phoenix
> shows "fact", "belief" and "faith" are mixed up in very complex
> ways by the human mind.  How one deals with them is complex as well.
> > The average voter does not think they are an idiot. The average
> > voter thinks their vote is as good as yours.
> Understood.  And this is perhaps a shortcoming of our system
> of one-person = one vote or "all persons are created equal".
> These are fantasies.  The reason you put a CEO in charge of
> a company or appoint a committee at NIH to schedule genome
> sequencing priorities (etc.) is because one recognizes
> that there are people who are going to do a better job at
> certain tasks because their experience or knowledge bases
> are greater than the average voter off of the street.
> The votes of informed or educated people are clearly worth
> more than uninformed and/or uneducated people.  Would you want
> group of a dozen people plucked from rural communities in
> India to be sitting on the Federal Reserve Board of the United
> States setting interest rates (which tend to influence
> interest rates around the world)?  Hell no!
> If ExI were to adopt a political position I might lobby for it
> to be -- "you have the right to vote -- but you must be qualified
> to do so".
> Robert
> P.S. Also -- I have not seen where you point out that Ralph's paper
> strictly requires the disassembly of the brain.  If my memory serves
> me correctly I do not think that it does.

First things first.

Brett Paatsch

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list