X-Message-Number: 217 From att!parc.xerox.com!merkle Fri Aug 31 14:52:57 1990 Return-Path: <att!parc.xerox.com!merkle> Received: from att.UUCP by whscad1.att.uucp (4.1/SMI-3.2) id AA15408; Fri, 31 Aug 90 14:52:56 EDT Received: by att.att.com; Fri Aug 31 14:20:45 1990 Received: from manarken.parc.xerox.com by arisia.Xerox.COM with SMTP (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8/gandalf) id AA05620; Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:22:01 -0700 Received: by manarken.parc.xerox.com (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8/gandalf) id AA01802; Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:18:29 PDT Message-Id: <> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:18:29 PDT From: Ralph Merkle <> To: Subject: Re: CRYONICS #216 - Boston Cryonics Meeting Cc: Some thoughts on how to present ideas: People respond quite differently to ideas depending on how they are presented and in what sequence they are presented. Therefore, care should be taken in the way in which ideas are presented. As regards nanotechnology and cryonics, there are lots of people interested in nanotechnology who either haven't heard of or aren't interested in cryonics. Cryonics raises a host of emotional issues that bias people's judgements and influence their thinking. To the extent possible, it is helpful to separate those issues and ideas which deal with purely technical areas (nanotechnology, cryobiology, neuroscience, etc) from those issues that raise great emotions (extension of human life span, the correct definitions of life and death, etc). Presenting nanotechnology as centrally about cryonics is neither accurate nor useful. Nanotechnology is a broad-based area which is centrally about low cost atomically precise manufacturing. It relates to cryonics in the same way that electronics relates to open heart surgery. Yes, electronics is extremely useful for building the widgets involved in open heart surgery. No, electronics and open heart surgery are not fundamentally the same. The technical success of cryonics relates to issues in several areas, including cryobiology, neuroscience, biochemistry, medicine, physics, etc. etc. We must ask the following question: if some technical issue bears on the success of cryonics, should we start by saying "This is a technical issue which, if true, makes freezing people a good idea" or should we say "This is a technical issue which is interesting for many reasons, let us discuss this technical issue in the abstract and determine its merits, based solely on technical considerations, before giving any consideration to possible applications." In the former, a new technical idea is presented in an emotionally loaded context and in a framework which almost begs to be rejected. In the latter, people can become familiar with a new technical concept in an emotionally neutral or positive framework. The consequences of the technical conclusion can be discussed later, after the technical idea has already been accepted (or rejected) for rational reasons unrelated to the emotion-laden concepts surrounding cryonics. Nanotechnology discusses ways of arranging atoms. As such, it is simply the logical extension of work in physics, chemistry, biochemistry, scanning tunnelling microscopy, etc. This is a concept that can be discussed, and the broad implications (e.g., lower cost, higher quality manufactured goods of all types) considered in a relatively neutral emotional atmosphere. In the following title, the uninitiated listener is at once put on guard that something called "nanotechnology" is related to cryonics. > ALCOR BOSTON > PRESENTS > NANOTECHNOLOGY AND CRYONICS: TWO RELATED FIELDS The gut response will then be to view both with great suspicion. A somewhat better title might be: NANOTECHNOLOGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR CRYONICS Still, most people will be familiar with neither nanotechnology nor cryonics, and so will react emotionally and reject both. This suggests the following title: FUTURE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR CRYONICS Everyone knows that medical technology is good, and future medical technology must be even better. Cryonics is unfamiliar, but at least we've got some familiar words and ideas in the title. In the actual talk, the technical issues should be presented first in a context as divorced as feasible from any emotion-laden issues. Thus, a brief general discussion of molecular scale devices emphasizing the broad range of application these will have (computers, material science, space exploration) followed by a discussion of the more-or-less conventional medical applications (micron scale "submarines" that can clear out fat deposits in the circulatory system, or hunt down and kill cancer cells). Only after the technical issues have been presented in a context that allows them to be evaluated on their own merits should potentially emotion-laden consequences be considered. I'm sure people will have varying opinions about the particular suggestions made here. The key point, however, is that WORDS MATTER. IDEAS MATTER. The ORDER in which ideas are presented MATTERS. The particular MANNER in which ideas are presented MATTERS. Never present an emotionally laden conclusion before the technical issues underlieing it are discussed. Always isolate technical points from their emotional consequences. Always present reasons for being interested in a particular technical point that are NOT emotionally charged, and that are acceptable to the audience being addressed. If people were perfectly rational thinking machines, none of these considerations would matter. It has been widely noticed that people aren't perfectly rational, and so the way in which ideas are presented greatly influences their acceptance. Understanding how to present ideas and concepts is therefore of critical importance, and is a subject worth discussing and analyzing in its own right. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=217