X-Message-Number: 12880 From: "George Smith" <> References: <> Subject: Trying to answer Saul Kent's important question. Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 11:53:57 -0800 In Message #12876, Saul Kent wrote: > Subject: Question For George Smith > > George Smith wrote: > > > When you HAVE proven something, > > it is a fact. > > All else is opinion. > > Cryonics can work. > > No one has PROVEN otherwise. > > Those are the FACTS. > > What is the proof that cryonics can work? > > ---Saul Kent For Saul Kent: Thank you, sir. You have caught me in an apparent contradiction because "facts" need to be proven, so therefore how can a potential be considered a "fact"? And this issue of trying to do the impossible of "proving a negative" is, as you surmise correctly, at the heart of any disagreement on this issue. Let me try again: There is no proof that cryonics WILL work. This could possibly happen in an infinite future. There is no proof that cryonics CAN'T work. This cannot possible happen in an infinite future. There is evidence interpreted by some to indicate it COULD work someday. There is evidence interpreted by others to indicate it MIGHT NOT work ever. In the absence of certainty, it is my opinion that this low cost alternative should be sought by those who desire to survive at least until such time there are alternatives to choose from which might prove better. The probable outcomes of this choosing are fairly easy to determine. If cryonics NEVER works, the comparatively small sums spent on cryonics have been wasted and the individuals involved will NEVER be revived. (An "expensive funeral" as someone put it). If cryonics DOES work, some or all of the individuals currently suspended will be restored to life. Now to the heart of the matter, as you have so rightly identified it: It is impossible to "prove a negative". It is impossible to prove that current state cryonics will never work. That which has not yet happened (a negative) cannot be demonstrated to be impossible. For example, we can't prove that UFOs don't exist. And this does not imply that they do exist. It is simply an impossibility to prove a negative. Thus those who hold that cryonics will NOT work feel that they are being asked to prove a negative, which is logically impossible to do. This is a very legitimate objection. I agree. All of this is actually an issue of where we draw the line - how each of us cares to define the boundary of what we consider to be likely or unlikely in a reasonable period of time. We read opinions from research experts regarding the potential of cryonics from both sides: those who think it may very well work and those who are believe it won't. In BOTH cases the individuals involved have come to their current opinion based on what they consider likely to happen in the future. Those opposed, discount revival potentials which they view as BEYOND a point which they believe to be likely to reasonably happen within a time frame they consider to also be acceptable or reasonable. Those who favor cryonics' success endorse revival potentials which they view as being WITHIN a point which they believe to be likely to reasonably happen within a time frame they consider to also be acceptable or reasonable. The difference between these groups? It is where they draw the line of what they believe to be possible. From the beginning of this discussion I have assumed that readers already understood this. My entire effort here has been to ask that this actual uncertainty be treated as such, that opinion be expressed as such and not couched to appear as established fact. This may be taken as unfair by those who disbelieve in the possibility of current state cryonics ultimately working as they can legitimately demand that they NOT be asked to do the impossible, to prove a negative. Yet this IS the problem with their position. By objecting that they CANNOT prove a negative, because it is impossible to do so, this is in actuality an admission that current state cryonics MIGHT work. We can't prove it won't. We can't prove a negative. That is my entire point. This can be a very frustrating posture to assume because it denies those opposed to the possibility of current state cryonics ever working from being able to ever prove that they are right. It may be frustrating but remains true. Current state cryonics MIGHT work. I am certain that each and every expert has many reasons to support their choice for where to draw the line in regard to what is likely to be true in the future. Assuming we do agree on this, then all that remains is a cost-reward analysis, regarding whether taking the cryonics gamble makes sense or not as an individual decision. This is no different than how we decide if the research gamble (in any particular field) makes sense or not. From the beginning of this series of postings I have simply asked that opinions be expressed as such. Why? Because I believe that the risk/reward ratio for choosing to take the cryonics gamble is worth it on an individual level. Some will agree. Some will not. I am not demanding that anyone try to do the impossible and attempt to prove a negative. Instead I am attempting to bring attention to the importance of this impossibility. What does it mean when we say we cannot prove that something can't happen? It implies that it MIGHT. There remains the possibility that current state cryonics might work. Clearly those who disagree feel that way to the extent that they do attempt to "prove a negative" by suggesting that current state cryonics can't work. I am certain that they feel the weight of their evidence is so compelling, so clear that disagreement is hardly understandable to them. However, this is again because of where the arbitrary boundaries are drawn. Boundaries such as how long a time are we considering, what do we think is likely to happen in other fields (such as nanotechnology), how much damage must happen before the person cannot be restored to life intact, etc. As long as neither side of this issue pretends to have certainty regarding these types of questions, then we avoid having to do the impossible, such as to "prove a negative". We can certainly draw closer together toward agreement on other issues which will over time lead us to finally coming to a true consensus. I hope I have answered your question. I believe it to be the most important question in regard to this entire issue. Thank you for pointing out my apparent error. I hope this posting helps clarify what I was trying to convey with too few words. George Smith PS - Recently someone referred to me as an officer in CI. I am not privileged to be an officer of CI. I am only a signed-up member. My opinions are strictly my own and subject to change as more information becomes available. I am only human and capable of error. I feel it has been my error in my more recent postings to be too abrasive and not more persuasive. I will attempt to avoid the former and embrace the latter henceforth. My best wishes to one and all. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12880