X-Message-Number: 3032
Date:  Sun, 28 Aug 94 15:31:36 
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: CRYONICS Merkle's definition


To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge, Alcor
August 28, 1994

Re:  Message: #3025 - Merkle's Definition
     Date: 27 Aug 94 05:41:44 EDT
     From: Paul Wakfer <>


>     It appears that Ralph Merkle, chief apostle to the cryonics 
>community from the god Nanotechnology is such a true believer, that he 
>can't even state the definition of cryonics correctly.  His opening line 
>in Cryomsg #3024 is:

>>Cryonic suspension is the technique of freezing the body of a
>>legally-deceased person for storage until medical technology advances
>>sufficiently to repair and revive them.

>     Nowhere is their even a hint that however advanced the technology 
>is, the information may not be there to repair and revive.  

     Sorry, I think Paul Wakfer has gone wildly overboard here.  A basic 
definition of one sentence has to be short and to the point.  If that one 
sentence was the *entire* content of a lecture or of piece of publicity, 
Paul might have something to argue about.  A definition by itself does not 
have to meet tests of informed consent.

>To state this
>definition to someone about to sign-up would be completely fraudulent 
>and, furthermore, it would violate the fundamental principle, and the 
>legal requirement, of informed consent.

     Again, sorry to be so abrupt, but this is ludicrous.  Signing someone 
up for Alcor or any other cryonics organization requires a complex set of 
forms and informational documents.  No one *document*, much less any one 
*sentence*, can carry the totality of information required for informed 
consent.  No one will ever sign up a cryonicist on the basis of one 
sentence.

>     I challenge him to show proof that ANY of the informational content 
>of a person's memory and other mental capabilities is being captured and 
>saved with even the very best possible of current cryopreservation 
>techniques.

     This is an entirely separate argument which has nothing to do with 
Paul's hints of fraud for the use of a perfectly acceptable definition.  
If Paul wants to argue about whether identity is being saved, fine.  It is 
a central point of discussion for cryonics.  But if he demands absolute 
proof that current cryonics techniques are adequate before any of us 
lecture about or give a definition of cryonics ever again, he'll be 
shouting alone.

>    I'm simply not going to let him or anyone else get away with foisting
>this assumption on us anymore.

     "Get away with?"  "foisting?"  Pretty emotional language from someone 
who advertises himself as thoroughly rational.  (grin)  If Paul wants this 
discussion to be rational, he might consider stating the discussion points 
that way as well.

     How about Paul providing his OWN one-sentence definition for others 
to take shots at?

Steve Bridge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3032