X-Message-Number: 15544 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: Cryonics is our back up Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:24:40 -0000 > Message #15536 > Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:49:16 -0500 > From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <> > Subject: Re: Cryonics is our back up #15514 > References: <> <del> > The topic of > standards, however, can be the subject of serious discussion at *this* > time between members of various organizations who want science-based > cryonics procedures. It may not be easy for some to put aside their > "territorialism" and look at the betterment of the field as a whole, but > continued factionalism in cryonics only adds to the view by outsiders of > cultism. There can still be room for variation and individuality. I couldn't agree more. When I first put Longevity Report on the web in the preamble to the contents list I wrote a short couple of paragraphs about people fighting in burning houses. Unfortunately human nature being what it is has the effect that once one tiny insult is perceived in a debate positive feedback increases the insults ad infinitum. This is probably the problem that the Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" was invented to solve. It was not really meant to apply to a situation where A had smashed someone in the face with his fist, but instead the situation where a slight, probably unintentional insult had appeared. If the positive feedback doesn't start, or can be corrected, then the incident quickly dissappears and reasoned debate continues. But if answers are required of an organisation, they are more likely to be obtained if the questioning is conscise and focussed. After all, you would hardly go to a shop keeper and hit him in the face if his answers about the goods on offer were unsatisfactory in content. You would either walk away or ask a different question to try and get at the required information another way. I don't think my "time machine that transmits information to the past" suggestion was invalid. By extraploation, conjecture and hypothesis, and as suggested verification of intermediate levels of experiment, you may be able to get near the truth, but reverse time transmission would be the only way of getting the *exact* truth. Maybe it was innapropriate to suggest in jest that Paul Wakfer try and make such equipment, if so I apologise. I am sure that if anyone had the faintest idea as to how to proceed (without impractical equipment such as lining up neturon stars etc) they would do so. There was a point in my comments about conventional medical practise. That point is, that nothing is perfect, certain or perfectly safe. But many detractors of cryonics (oin general, not just on Cryonet) give the impression that the establishment is perfection. (or maybe I take the worng impression from them) I try not to ask questions to make a point, but it did seem to me that my question about how the medical profession treats questioning patients was a valid one to ask given that Mrs Wakfer had stated her credentials and I was genuinely interested in the answer. However I also felt that it could easy be seen as a rhetorical question. I certainly valued her response, and thanks for the time taken. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15544