X-Message-Number: 11736
From: 
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:18:09 EDT
Subject: Kibitzers, Leitl, Crevier

A few days back I expressed a bit of irritation at those who demand much and 
contribute little. Let me round that out somewhat:

Kibitzers and back seat drivers have their uses. They are sometimes right. We 
should listen patiently to all suggestions, even non-constructive criticisms. 

At the same time, ideas and idea-people are a dime a dozen, while toilers in 
the vineyard are scarce. There is a vast gap between just making a 
suggestion, on the one hand, and on the other evaluating it competently and 
then implementing it effectively. There are always costs and tradeoffs. 
Nothing at all can be accomplished, except at the cost of neglecting 
something else. Even considering whether to consider something requires time 
and effort. Setting of priorities and allocation of resources are the essence 
of management. And finally, if they are not workaholic freaks, the managers 
must at some point reserve something for other aspects of their lives.

If you think you have a good idea, fine. But it would be a lot finer if, 
before speaking up, you figure out how you can contribute effort or money to 
development of the idea. At the least, do some of the scut work yourself; 
gather and organize a goodly amount of background information. If the idea 
involves creation of a new job or a new routine task, try to figure out how 
you can do that job on a volunteer basis. If necessary, educate yourself 
further to qualify yourself for the work. It might even be enjoyable--and it 
might conceivably save your life, or someone else's.
--------
In response to David Pascal's comments on the promise of nanotechnology for 
repair of frozen patients, Eugene Leitl writes:    

>Ralph Merkle and Eric Drexler are very bright men with many talents,
>however, I don't happen to think that their background in cryobiology and
>molecular neuroscience is very extensive.

Either on the basis of historical analogy or on the basis of detailed 
analysis, a very good case can be made that--for example--Merkle's background 
in nanotech theory and in cryptography are much more relevant than the 
background of any biologist.

On the one hand, we have countless examples of experts who were wrong about 
near-term developments in their own fields--explosive experts who said a 
nuclear bomb couldn't work, engineers who said an airplane couldn't fly, 
surgeons who said anaesthesia could never work, ad nauseam. 

On the other hand, both cryptography and nano-engineering are intimately tied 
to the prospect of retrieving information and making repairs in any 
biological system--and it matters very little whether "biology" is prefixed 
by "cryo" or "neuro" or anything else.

Our web site has reams of detail on these questions, for those who want to go 
beyond generalities. 
----------

Daniel Crevier wrote:

>We need to make a distinction here between awareness and consciousness:
>A dog is aware of its environment, but it cannot say "I think therefore
>I am". Consciousness is awareness of self. Philosophers are not the only
>ones to make this distinction. So do legislators, which is why dogs do 
>not have the same civic rights as we do.

We have a disagreement on definition. 

I have a remarkable memory, as a very young child, of trying to come to grips 
with the first person singular pronoun, the concept of "I" instead of 
"Bobby." Yet, before I became accustomed to using the pronoun, surely I was 
nevertheless conscious in some reasonable meaning of the word.

I use "conscious" and "aware" as synonyms, and the criterion is not the 
content or subject matter or any kind of intellectual contemplation, but just 
whether any subjective condition exists, whether there are qualia or 
feelings. I can't compel anyone to adopt my usage, but I think it is the most 
reasonable and useful, because it captures the distinction between a person 
and an automaton.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11736