X-Message-Number: 16979 From: "Trygve Bauge" <> Subject: Bauge fires back at Rick Potvins bogus attack! Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:48:28 +0200 To Rick, There is a basic fallacy in your approach: When someone is trying to accomplish something, others who don't want it done, have a tendency to hold up every conceivable or imaginary obstacle they can think of, as a reason for not undertaking the venture. And often they do so without checking and with no interest in checking to see if their claims hold water or not. Whenever there is an obstacle, some people hold the presence of an additional obstacle as a reason for not taking on the first obstacle. From the point of view of the person trying to undertake the venture, the presence of a second obstacle is not a reason for not taking on the first obstacle, it is just one of possibly thousands of obstacles that each has to be overcome, and incidentially often can be overcome. In this case it had even been addressed and overcome, you just hadn't discovered it. I don't know why you make such a big number out of systematic mapping of the deceased's mental content not being covered in the registration form? The registration form is used to register interest and to find out if the suspension can be done legally and if it can be financed. e.g. to find out if the next of kin agree and can afford to undertake a suspension. If you had read the e-mails I have sent to Elizabeth and posted to the cryonet etc. on the Australian case, you would have seen that I repeatedly have mentioned the importance of restoring mental content and memory from other sources than the corps' own brain, e.g. from other people still alive, and from pictures, the persons own achievments, writings etc. I have even several weeks ago contacted the branch of the Norwegian government that deals with protection of personal information in data records, so to see what the rules are. It seems like to store such records we will have to go through a permit process, unless we select to store all such patient specific information abroad. Such information could best be stored by a cryonics patient organization like ACS, with backups at the various cryonics organizations. If you had stopped and thought before you attacked me, you would possibly have realized that the reason I post so many case details publicly, is to spread the necessary case information around, so that it won't get lost. And even the few letters from Elizabeth that I do not post publicly, I have systematically forwarded to trusted contacts at ACS, Alcor and C.I. And that is how I have handled my grand father's case and other cryonic cases too. Thus when you so eagerly jumped to the conclusion that this case is bogus, because you didn't know that any steps had been taken to preserve vital information, then you just exposed your own bias and your own wishful thinking. Sincerely, Trygve Bauge Ps. Why is it that your bogus attack on me, so eagerly is accepted by Kevin Brown on the cryonet? Rick, if you are honest I suggest you retract the attack, and get a correction posted to the cryonet. Rick Potvin erroneously wrote: >Bauge's "cryonics" is bogus because he has failed to >take into account a key purpose of suspension: >preserving individual information. I have not failed to take this into account. It is you who have failed to discover that I have taken it into account. You could have asked me before eagerly posting the attack, and you would have seen that there was no reason to attack me. Even check out stand news paper journalists usually do better than you just did, when it comes to verifying what one base an article on. >His questionnaire proves that he is not the LEAST bit >concerned with the preservation of individual >information of the deceased and buried person-- Your statement is laughable, why do I even bother to take it seriously. Anyone that knows the case and me, and a little bit about my involvement in cryonics know that you are attacking a straw man, that only exist in your own imagination. I have actually challenged people to develop a computer program that would make it easier to store vital information, and I have developed a quite elaborate task system and computer system for storing my own will system, goals, wills, priorities, thoughts, and ventures etc. >the >sort of individual information that would conceivably >lead to personality reconstruction as described by >Tad Hogg, PhD (Cryonics, 3rd quarter, 1996. pp 18- >25). > >Given that a buried body is likely severely >decomposed with a relative absence of information >required to determine a unique individual compared to >a "medical-quality cryonic suspension", the "salvage- >quality cryonic suspension" absolutely, by >definition, MUST include a vast effort at collection >of "external records" as described by Hogg in order >to maintain any credibility whatsoever. >Bauge has CLEARLY made NO effort in that direction. Your statement is bullshit, nothing less, and you know it. You could have asked me what we planned to do to preserve vital information. But chose rather to make an attack based on your own ignorance about the situation. Furthermore, the body was embalmed before it was burried, thereby increasing the chance that some information might be preserved. But you haven't even bothered to ask if it had been embalmed. >the "salvage- >quality cryonic suspension" absolutely, by >definition, MUST include a vast effort at collection >of "external records" as described by Hogg in order >to maintain any credibility whatsoever. >Bauge has CLEARLY made NO effort in that direction. Rather to the contrary. >Therefore, his attempt to offer a "cryonic >suspension" rescue to the deceased Australian is >BOGUS. This episode will be recorded in the >CryoNet "permanent and unalterable" archives (Kevin >Brown's intention) as Bauge's Bogus Plans. Just one more reason to either civilize cryonet or have it replaced by a better more civilized cryonics forum. Most serious publications that post libel, slander and erroneus information, can be forced to post a retraction. Regular publications have a trade organization that one can complain to, and that enforces that corrections are included. >I intend to create a "questionnaire for Bauge". The >first question will be "Do you concur with Tadd Hogg >in his 1996 article, Information Storage and >Computational Aspects of Repair"? > >At this time, Bauge has indicated somewhere here in >this forum that he doesn't think that freezing a >person's paper records (reciepts and diaries) would >be neccessary. I have never come across anyone else than Rick Potvin, that has wanted to freeze paper records in liquid Nitrogen. I have posted in a separate article why I don't reccommend this. But to therefore jump to the conclusion that I am opposed to keeping records, or don't do enough to keep records, is a complete and willful distortion of what I have said. >He HAS indicated that a digited form >of those records would be optimal and yet there is NO >attempt to gain digitized records of the Australian-- >digital photos, a digitized autobiography, digitized >recordings of interviews of people who knew the >deceased etc. Rome wasn't built in one day. I have repeatedly (long before Potvin's post) let Elizabeth know about the importance of storing vital information about her father, as a supplement or replacement source for information that can't be retrieved from his brain. But first we have to find out if the next of kin wants a suspension, (Elizabeth has to convince her mother) and we also have to find out if they can afford it, and even before that I had to get in place all the means and the suppliers here in Norway so that I knew I even could offer to take on the case. Then we still have to write a contract and meet all requirements that the various governments involved might make (including requirements for storing personal patient records). If the body or cells are frozen, there will be ample time to systematically take care of gathering vital information, and I have encouraged Elizabeth to do so. Information could then be gathered first in non digital form, and then systematically be digitalized over time, with digital back up copies stored several places around the world and on several medias. >To the extent that there is less chance of a unique >structure, that is precisely the extent to which >external records become vital. In a very good high >quality cryonic suspension, some suspendees have made >some effort to store external records which makes >sense. To the extent that a suspension is lower in >quality, that is the extent to which records become >more important. In the case of skeletal remains, that >have been buried for years, obviously there is >nothing unique that enables personality >reconstruction and so external records become 99.999% >of the source of data for reconstruction. > I have said something similar in different words, in several of my letters to Elizabeth: e.g. in the letters where I outlined survival by degree, listing possible scenarios and options on a scale from 100% extinction to 100 % survival as oneself. >Bauge's failure to describe this point, clearly, to >his client, makes his effort misleading and clearly >potentially harmful to the entire cryonics movement >in terms of it's gross violations of ethics on this >count. I have not failed to explain this at all. But you have failed to ask what is going on, and you have failed to read what I have posted. Rick, you have wrongfully jumped to conclusions, and that reflects negatively only on yourself! Your wrongful attack is the only gross ethical violation here. >Bauge needs to inform his client, if he has >any moral fibre at all, that the deceased and >buried's personality reconstruction is probably MORE >likely to occur if a vast effort is made to collect >external records about the person, along with, >perhaps a tissue sample. Why do you think I have been posting the whole case to Internet, and been asking for feedback and suggestions. Why do you think I forward all feedback, even all attacks and objections (including your bogus attack) to Elizabeth????? In plain text: I want her to see it all. That can hardly be said to be unethical or to not properly inform the client. If there is something I have overlooked, then by publicising the case people get a chance to point out to Elizabeth both what I have overlooked and what they think I have overlooked. Many people seem to see the value in this and to come with suggestions in a much more civilized manner than Potvin just did. There is no reason to expect the worst, or to place bogus attacks just for the sake of attacking, unless of course the latter is the purpose of the attack. >This would NOT constitute >cryonics, by definition, but would be more like >creation of a "super-autobiography". > >If Bauge would like to know more about the concept >of "super-autobiographies", which includes tissue >samples that contain DNA, he should respond to this >offer positively. If he does NOT respond to this >offer positively, then I deem his motives suspect. Seems like some people try desperately to come up with new words for cryonics cases they don't want to be associated with cryonics. >Ball's in your court now, Trygve. Let's see what you >can do with that! To Rick Potvin, I expect you to retract your bogus attack. I expect you to contact Kevin Brown, and ask him to remove your article, or post your retraction at the front of it as part of it. There is no excuse for your attack, and no apology would rectify your error, only a retraction would correct the injustice. For the future I suggest you check your premises before you attack, (you could for example have asked me what I had done or planned to do to preserve vital information, before wrongfully assuming that nothing has been done or will be done) otherwise your assistance in setting up this forum, seems kind of out of place with your attacks. Sincerely, Trygve Bauge Ps. To read the whole story about the situation in Australia and Norway, you can do so by visiting Trygve's cryonics forum: http://network54.com/Forum/136627 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16979