X-Message-Number: 26510
From: "David Pizer" <>
Subject: Fw: replies to various messages 1
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 12:50:49 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Pizer" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: replies to various messages


 REPLY TO SCOTT

 SCOTT > David, > Your argument seems invalid to me because your premise is
 far too weak. Where's the evidence that religions explicitly provide
guarantees?

 DAVID:  Go to most Christian church services and listen to the preacher.
 Turn on your TV.  Go to their websites.  They are saying something to the
 effect that if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior you will have eternal
 life in Heaven.   They have been saying that from the very beginning.  They
 don't use the word "guarantee" perhaps but they do guarantee it.  That is
 the underpinning of the Christian Religion - Accept Jesus = live forever.
 No buts about it.

 Further, I don't see how anyone could have missed this?  Are you saying
that
 they don't say what I think they say.  If I am wrong on this than you are
 right that I am wrong on the whole first part of my argument and we are
 done.  My argument rest on this premise being true - they guarantee eternal
 life.

 I actually have two arguments.
 The first one is that there is a wrong being done.  That is the one I think
 is valid and sound in the philosophical sense of these words.
 The second argument I do not claim a deductive conclusion.  The second
 argument is what most of us are debating and that is that the best way to
 fix the problem that the first argument exposes is to sue them.  I am not
 convinced my self that this is the best way.  1) it might not convince
them,
 2) it might bring more harm than good,  3)  They might not be convincible
by
 any method,  4)  There might be a better way that would convince them. 5)
 are the possible benefits of doing this way more then the possible risks?

 My first arguement is one where I think this argument is true, valid, sound
 and leads to a great harm beind done, the harm of accidental
 misrepresentation, and I want to argue in this one that I am right.  I
 believe it hold by deduction, the stongers possible proof of an argument.

 The second argument (what should we do now) is one where I don't know if
the
 conclusion is valid, let alone sound.  I am throwing out premises that may
 be true.  I believe them to be true on inductive logic alone.  The
 conclusion (sue them) is arrived at by induction.  Let's beat it around and
 see if we can destroy it or maybe make it stonger.  Let the truth prevail!
 (I "pray" we can find that truth before too many more people die without
 getting frozen).

  SCOTT:  >I've
 never heard a religious leader use that term. They make claims and
offer promises based on beliefs which are in turn based on faith since
they have no hard evidence to support their claims.

DAVID:   I don't know if they use the word"guarantee" but you can see that
right now
 if you go to the website of most religions.  Here is just one promise.  You
can find hundreds like this.   www.mormon.org/learn    below is the first
part of what they say.  They are all saying something very similar.

 WHAT THE MORMON RELIGION SAYS ON THEIR WEBSITE:
 "Where do we go after we die?
Death is not the end.  Death is really a beginning - another step forward in
Heavenly Father's plan for His children.
Someday, like everyone else, your life on Earth will end and our physical
body will die.  But your spirit will not die.  At the time of physical
death, your spirit will go to the spirit world, where you will continue to
learn and progress.
Death is a nexessary step in your progression, just as your birth was.
Sometime after your death, yuor spirit and body will be reunited -- never to
be seperated again.  This is called resurrection, and it was made possible
by the death and Ressurection of Jesus Christ."

The above is the  promise (guarantee), is some form or other, that is what
all the Christian religions all over the world are guaranteeing.

SCOTT: >Ask religious leaders if they provide guarantees to
the members of their church, and I'll bet practically all of them will
back away from that term. If they really did offer guarantees, they
wouldn't deny it.

 DAVID:  I have asked them that, on more than one occassion.  And they do
NOT
back away.  They do guarantee that accepting Jesus as your savior WILL get
you life after death in Heaven.

Further, Christians guarantee you won't get it any other way.

 I once asked a preacher what about the innocent people, say, in South
 America 700 years ago who did not accept Jesus as their savior because they
 had never heard of him.  He said his church teaches that those people had a
 "desire" to try to find the truth and they should have built boats and
 crossed the ocean to find people who could have explained it to them.  But
 because they were evil, they resisted doing this.  And so even though they
 lived in South America in the year 1300, they were going to burn in Hell
 forever for not accepting Jesus as their saviour.    The church guarantees
 this is the absolute truth and many people believe their guarantee because
 they believe that church or religion is speaking for God as they claim to
 do.  So they then conclude that they don't need cryonics.

 SCOTT:  > Another big problem with your argument is that you assume that
 this alleged guarantee is THE reason people choose to be religious, but
 that's a fallacy. There are many other factors that contribute to
religiosity which you are not taking into consideration.

 DAVID:  Example:  If you already have a guarantee that your mother will
have
dinner on the table when you get home tonight for you and all your family,
then it is logical that you will not stop at Jack-in-the-Box on the way home
and buy dinner for you and all your family.

The same logic must be true for extended life.  If you thought you knew that
you were going to live on forever in Heaven after legal death on Earth, it
is only logical that you would also think you do not need extended life
through cryonics.

In fact, it might be the case that at first so many people felt this way,
that the religions had to make it a sin if one comits suicide because people
were killing themselves to get to Heaven faster.

If you think you already have something, (like eternal life because you have
a guarantee from the highest source in the universe) why would you try to
obtain it from some other vender.   You have a good car to get to work in,
why buy another car to get to work.

 SCOTT::  > I'm also curious about why it is that the people who have
offered
support for your idea have only sent private messages to you rather
than present them openly on cryonet. Did any of them give permission to
have their messages posted anonymously?

DAVID:  I can only guess that my position, right now, is very unpopular.
Most people in the cryonics movement are concerned about the political
consequences of going against the majority.  Further, many of the leaders of
cryonics organizations who will eventually be the ones to suspend you are
against my position.  I guess that the people that support my position might
think that if they piss off the leaders, they might not get a good
suspension.  I don't think that would happen.

There is case history on this type of fear (not on that it did happen).
When Jerry Leaf died, Mike Darwin was involved in his suspension.  Jerry
(Alcor VP) had opposed Mike (Alcor Pres) lots of times in the past.  Right
after the suspension, some people accused Mike of doing something to not
help Jerry get as good a suspension as possible.  I was outraged when I
heard those accusations against Mike.  I felt they were only based on the
beliefs of the accusers that:
1.  Mike felt that Jerry had treated him bad.
2.  A person who thinks they have been treated bad will retaliate.
3.  Therefore when Mike had the chance he got even with Jerry.

But this argument doesn't take into consideration that Mike would never do
anything like that.   Meanwhile the accuser ordered some investigations and
other things.  I am trying to show that people do think (at least in this
case) that the leaders of cryonics might take it out on you when you die, if
you oppose them.  I don't believe this but this might be an answer to your
question as to why people who support my position only reply directly to me.

Still, if you are just counting numbers, counting the public and private
responses, not giving any credit for the quality of the arguments or the
possible truth of the premisis, of the lack of argument in the pure rants, I
can tell you that it is about 20% pro, 70% against, and 10 undecided or at
least I can't tell as there were mostly questions and not opinions in those.

BUT NUMBERS ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT TO ME AS JUSTIFIABLE REASON AND LOGICAL
CONCLUSIONS,.  WHICH AS ETTINGER LATER SEEMS TO ME TO POINT OUT ARE HARD TO
COME BY IN SOMETHING AS NEW AND DIFFERENT AS THIS, AND SOMEONE (I hope he
will) NEEDS TO DO SOME PROBABILITY CALCULATIONS.



Further, I am NOT afraid to be the only person on  a side in a debate with
the leaders of the cryonics community if the facts and logic seem to support
my position and the discredits the opposite position.  I am not running for
any cryonics political position.

Further, I have been in this same position several times in the past.  (I
hesitate to continue on this vein further because it sounds so self-surving,
but it is the only way I can make my point on why the numbers don't count as
much as the facts and logic., so here goes:)

 In every case where there was a major difference with the leaders of the
cryonics community and David Pizer, in the end it turned out that I was
right and they were wrong.  So, if anything, that track record would tend to
be evidence in my favor.  If we look in the past and see Pizer was right 10
times and cryonics leaders were wrong 10 times in their last major debates,
then that is some type of evidence (maybe weak) that in debate  #11 the same
results will occur.  Example: If Ali beat up Smith in 10 fights in  a row,
and if he had knocked Smith out in the first round each time, and if he is
fighting Smith again (as soon as Smith gets out of the hospital) and you did
not have any info other that this, who would you bet on?


DAVID:  this is one of the best stated challanges/inquires to my positon I
have received on Cryonet so far.  Thank you.

REPLY TO KEITH.
KEITH SAID: Before people get too deep in these arguments, I think it would
be
worthwhile to understand why people have religions at all, and why those
in state societies are different from those of more primitive peoples?
I won't say the question has been entirely answered, but reading Pascal
Boyer's book _Religion Explained_ is a step in the right direction.
Cognitive science and evolutionary psychology are where answers to such
Qestions are going to come.

DAVID:  I havn't gone to the website yet, but  I once wrote a reply to
Pascal's Wager.  Here it is again, from memory and not guaranteed to be
exact:

Pascal wagers something to the effect that since you are going to live a
moral life anyhow (one of the conditions to get to Heaven) and religions
guarantee (he doens't use this word) that if you do certain things you will
get to Heaven.  (I think one of those things is believing in God and
Heaven).

He says you have nothing to lose if relgions are wrong, so there is no
penalty in doing this, AND you have everything to gain if doing what he
advocated (believing in God by faith alone?) does lead to Heaven.  So you
might as well believe in God.

 And he says, (maybe somewhere else),  that believing in Heaven, even if it
is wrong, would ease the pain of knowing that you are going to be dead (if
it turns out there is no Heaven).  So believing in God and Heaven is a
rational gamble or wager and it is Pascal's Wager.

When I first heard about this years ago, I wrote something to the effect
called "Pizer Calls and Raises Pascall" where I said that before cryonics
Pascal's Wager was a good one.  But now that we have the technolgy of
cryonics things may be different.   I gave what was a precursor to my
current argument (that if one believes in Heaven, AND if one then concludes
that one does not need cryonics, and if it turns out that there is no Heaven
and cryonics works), then Pacsall's Wager might be a  loser.  PIZER' WAGER,
is to try for both: to be open minded about Heavnen, live a live or morality
that would get you there, and sign up for cryonics, also.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 RESPONDS TO ETTINGER

 ROBERT: Dave Pizer's error, I think, is one often made by
litigants--assuming that the judge and jury will listen to you and that
logic will prevail. The
U.S.  Supreme Court is a farce, with 5 to 4 decisions on the wrong side of
what
should  have been open and shut cases. If the nation's top jurists disregard
the
 law and  vote their prejudices, you can imagine the chance of logic
prevailing
at  lower  levels.

DAVID:  Robert, I agree with you that I will most likely lose the court
battle.   But I would love to be in the world-wide arena that this suit
might put me in.  I just want the attention of the whole world for a couple
of years to carry out this debate and try to RESPECTFULLY persuade them of
what I think is their mistake, what is a better way to proceed, the moral
ramifications of what they are doing if they are wrong, that we both
(cryonics and religion) have the same goals - extended life.

ROBERT:  Dave, I suggest you ask a few lawyers about your idea.

DAVID:  I agree.  My plan was:
1.  dicusss this with my fellow cryonicists for a year or so.
2.  discuss this with those reasonable religions leaders who would agree to
discuss it.
3.  then talk to attorneys.
4.  Then go back to the cryonics community with a plan for them to
investigate.
5.  All along the way, I would be trying to find ways to insulate the
cryonics community from any possible backlash.  Even in the short time we
have been discussing this I have come up with what I think is a VERY GOOD
IDEA.  I would let the cryonics community know before the suit was filed and
if they wanted to they could enter the suit against me for whatever reasons
they have stated so far.  Right off the get-go they could offer to join the
religions community against me.  It's just a thought for now that needs more
exploring.

 ROBERT As for the notion that we should risk ourselves because we might
save a lot
 of strangers--well, at the moment I'll just  turn around your request for
objective data and calculations of probability. Can you display any
calculations
supporting your project?

 DAVID:  No. I don't know how to start.

And further, I think you are one of the few people in the world who really
undertands probablity calculations (which I do not).  I was really hoping
 that you would do some calculations in this area so that I could see if the
risks really are too great.  I was hoping you could do this in the writing
style of 'PROSPECT OF IMMORTALITY"      where a very complicated idea was
explored with clarity a novice could understand.

And, if it comes out bad for my position I want to know that.


 REPLY TO TIM

David had said> >There is no more important battle for mankind.

Tim Replied > I don't make decisions for mankind; the relevant question is
whether
there's a more important battle for me, right now.  Doing what I can
 to try to keep myself alive is (in my opinion) more important than
trying to change the outcome for the crowd, mostly because I'm much
more likely to control my own actions than I am to successfully
influence a crowd.  (I might feel different if I've maxed-out my
contributions to my own longevity, but I'm quite far from that.)

DAVID:  Very good point.  I can't help it if I have this "problem: where I
feel sad and uncomfortable when I see someone else die and not get frozen.
I feel sad even if they do get frozen because we can't know if it will work.
I realize that a lot of people on Cryonet don't feel as strongly as I do,
but some others do.  And in the end most cryoncists DO agree with my goals
of wanting to help get more people signed up the dispute is in ***How*** to
proceed.

The other day I came home and there was a dead rabbit in my driveway and
some birds were picking at it.  Things like this make me sad.  When other
people die it really makes me sad.  I donated 11 years of my life to working
at Alcor for no pay only because I thought it would help save more lives.  I
also donated money.

 Perhaps this over-emphisizing of other living creatures is because I was
around so much death in my early years.  Perhaps that is the way I was
raised.  I can't explain it, but I do feel very bad when people die, and I
have this desire to make some kind of difference before I go into the tank.
I think a lot of other cryoncists do too.  I think we all want the same
goals.  I don't think even one cryoncist wants to shut the doors and tell
eveyone else there is no room in the tank.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26510