X-Message-Number: 18400 From: "George Smith" <> Subject: My answers to 4 questions Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:19:44 -0800 Charles Platt engaging wrote a clever metaphoric story and asked 4 Questions. Here are my responses. 1. Of the three persons in this story, who has the best grasp of objective reality? Neither person. The presumption of "objective reality" first of all flies in the face of what little we now know regarding the nature of reality from the efforts in both quantum physics and the 1982 vlidation of Bell's Theorum by Alain Aspect. To be blunt, the possibility of the subjective observer was ruled out early in the 20th century and that leaves the purity of an "objective reality" left on the scrap heap of disproven hypotheses such as the flat earth. If we know anything at all, we now know that an objective reality is the one impossibility. That aside, if we interpret "objective reality" to mean instead who has the most useful view of the situation, it would seem to me that the person (money lender) who encouraged a meeting for a communication of ideas offered the most useful perspective. Communication opens the door to possible changes which might prove beneficial. Something new might be better than status quo. 2. If the Die-O-Summit proposed by the money lender should come to pass, what specific achievements should we expect from it? One possibility that could prove useful would be for the participants to connect with each other as real people and thereby be less abstractly commited to only promoting their current perspectives. The psychology of primates who will eat together reduces the likelihood that only issues of dominance will be involved. (I do not eat with enemies. I am eating with you. Therefore you must not be my enemy). In other words, people can disagree, become friends and then possibly reconsider the arguments of others out of respect for the friendship. Face to face negotiations are more likely to end wars than letters and emails. 3. Are relations between the Catholics and the Alchemists likely to be worse before, or after, the Die-O-Summit? I haven't any idea at all but it seems to me to be worth a try. 4. Does squabbling between Catholics and Alchemists seriously impair the ability of either group to sign up new recruits? No. Squabbling may help to actually polarize new recruits to "side" with their new group in opposition to "the enemy." Truly clever groups who secretly collude but outwardly disagree can leverage this phenomonon. One fictitious example was the non war in the novel "1984" between Oceania and the Eurasians. The "war" was for maintaining patriotic loyalities and served the governments quite well. Of course, they could not openly admit this. Of course if the Catholics and the Alchemists could form an eccumenical union against those opposed to, say, "eternal life" along with any promoters (money lenders), then they would be unified in "squabbling" with those who had even less agreement with their overall objectives (survival). It is always easier to unite against a common enemy. 5. Just how much DO the two groups have in common? All members are primates and are ruled by the same psychological hard wiring. Thus there is always hope, or to paraphrase Professor Ettinger, "It is always too soon to despair." I would suggest that apart from being members of the same species all other issues are ultimately irrelevant. Pain and pleasure are excellent motivators. The rest is hyperbole. Just my opinion, George Smith CI member _________________________________________________________________ Join the world s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=18400