[extropy-chat] hope you can comprehend

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 08:03 PM 5/17/2006, Ned Late wrote:

>Agreed, but no one, outside of cryonics enthusiasts, that I personally 
>have talked to has said reanimation is feasible; that's all. No biggie, 
>merely slightly discouraging.


Inside cryonics, many people do not think reanimation is possible at this 
time.  I don't and I am signed up.  Your question would have to present a 
time frame in order to be viable, and that time frame would have to have 
the rate of progress across many areas (basic STEEP + other areas).

The reason I do not rely on personal interviews as a reliable source is 
because it would take a heck of a long time to first learn what their 
information sources are.  Peoples' knowledge base comes from their 
information sources.  If one person only listens to gossip, then he will 
not have a balanced, unbiased knowledge about a topic.  If another person 
only reads the New York Times, he will not have a balanced, unbiased 
knowledge about a topic. Where we obtain our information affects the level 
of balance we have about any topic.  Not very many people have the time or 
patience to perform environment scanning across domains.  Further, not very 
many people understand science or technology and if they do, a small 
percentage of them read recent findings and reports on the development 
curve of same.  Lastly, patents that are in the process are highly 
confidential.

So, the people you consult with may not have enough substantial information 
to even be able to fully understand what is involved with reanimation, let 
alone developments in the vitrification and protectants.

I have two brothers who are surgeons.  Both are religious.  One agrees that 
cryonics could be feasible.  The other laughs. They have different 
personalities and influences accumulated through their different medical 
training and specializations.  (Beside, they both also know nothing about 
nutrition.)

>Look, only came to this list because I once asked a professional (who has 
>since died) if Extropy consisted of libertarians. He replied "no they are 
>all kinds" and added one shouldn't give up so easily.

This is true and sound advice.

>But Keith Henson loses his temper calling the post 'troll bait'.

What does one person have to do with the list?

>See this is why I don't want to be at all seriously involved.

I'm sorry to hear this, but it would be advantageous to you to actually 
branch out and apply critical thinking to your thoughts and ideas.

Best wishes,

Natasha

<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
Cultural Strategist - Designer
President, <http://www.extropy.org/>Extropy Institute
Member, <http://www.profuturists.com/>Association of Professional Futurists
Founder, <http://www.transhumanist.biz/>Transhumanist Arts & Culture

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the circle, 
then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the 
circle and everything outside the circle, then that is an open system 
perspective. - Buckminster Fuller


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060518/5b29a95a/attachment.html>