X-Message-Number: 31555
From: 
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:47:32 EDT
Subject: science & probabilities

Kennita wrote in part:

>One
>might, however, claim that what we're doing  is
>"unscientific" because we don't even have a  well-specified
>hypothesis, or an experiment with repeatable results  that
>we can be assured of completing in a reasonable  timeframe.
>"[T]he intelligent use of probabilities" in cases  like
>this where we have no real idea what will happen or  when
>may depend on what one means by "intelligent" --  without
>experimentation, there's no way to tell, and one might  be
>doing philosophy rather than science.

One "might" claim anything. We do have a well-specified hypothesis, viz.,  
that  freezing the brain, or preferably vitrifying it, preserves much  

structure, depending on circumstances, and even function, and that future repair

technology will be better than current technology. The evidence is on the CI web
site and  many other places. Included on the CI web site is my essay on the  
probability of revival--and I happen to know more about the foundations of  
probability theory than most scientists. 
 
Since Kennita seems to be a cryonicist, I presume she's playing devil's  
advocate just for the heck of it.
 
Robert Ettinger



**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479 


(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799606x1201361003/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doub
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B213153745%3B34689725%3Bo)


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31555