X-Message-Number: 5593
From: 
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 13:49:24 -0500
Subject: misc.

1. Thanks to Mike Darwin, Joe Strout & others for the useful material about
alarms.

2. On probability of revival of cryonics patients:

Brad Templeton--without displaying any calculation--expresses a certain
degree of pessimism (some would call it optimism), estimating or guessing a
10% chance of revival of today's cryostasis patients. Most
cryobiologists--without even pretending to make a calculation--call the
chance "negligible." Cryonics organizations generally say the chance is
"unknown"--even though  many people will equate "unknown" with "negligible."
 What is correct?

First, in passing, "negligible" means HE or she--the person speaking--is
willing to neglect it, and thinks you should too. As most people usually
forget, the appropriateness of a gamble depends both on the chance of success
and on the VALUE (or "utility") of success. Millions buy lottery tickets
because it would be nice to win a fortune, and it is fun just thinking and
talking about it, even though the chance of winning is exceedingly small. In
the cryonics case the chance is certainly much better, and the reward of
success incomparably greater--and it is even more fun to think and talk about
than winning a lottery, so some payoff is assured.

Concerning actual probability calculations, very few people understand how to
do them in this context. Some of the greatest names in the business (e.g. von
Mises)  would not even agree that such a thing is susceptible of calculation
or included in the theory of probability. On the other hand, most of us are
thoroughly accustomed to making IMPLICIT probability estimates countless
times daily, based on experience and fuzzy logic. This is often extremely
useful, but also often very misleading.

I have just about given up trying to educate people on the correct approach,
but we (Immortalist Society) still have available an old booklet I wrote on
the subject, based on an essay I wrote for the M.S. in math, which we will
send on request (in reasonable numbers). 

3. Thanks to Dwight Jones for his kind words; but it may be slightly useful
to follow up a bit on the Church of Man and identity of (identical) twins:

First, brevity no doubt tends to make some of my points even more likely to
be misunderstood. For example, in saying that feel-good/feel-bad is the only
physically possible basis for motivation or values, in the recent posts I
omitted mentioning that actions and reactions can have causes other than
motivation. As Mr. Jones says, some actions or tendencies are DNA based or
congenital and often the products of evolutionary selection; others are mere
habits; still others are just accidental in various senses. I reserve the
word "motivation" for values or goals in the conscious domain. 

Now a couple of obvious comments on the Church of Man. In practical terms, it
seems very unlikely to me that you will get adherents if you emphasize the
tenet that identity resides in genetics and that identical twins are the same
person. Of course, institutions have been built on even more questionable
foundations, so we can't be sure; and you may have other things to offer,
such as agreeable companionship. But it is unlikely that you will get much
sympathy on this list, or that you will help cryonics, if you are selling
just a cheap save-your-DNA program (along with ethical/spiritual precepts). 

In fairness, the notion that clones are all one person isn't so much harder
to swallow than the idea that complete duplicates, separated in time or
space, share identity. It is even difficult on a logical basis to understand
why ordinary continuers--say myself hours or years later--should be
considered "really" the same people. The "philosophical" problems have NOT
been solved (not to my satisfaction, anyway), and it seems possible that the
individual survives only for a subjective moment, probably less than a second
in objective time, with continuers being close relations, becoming less close
with every tick.

I do NOT believe that identity or survival criteria are arbitrary, with
individual choice to be respected. I think there is probably one correct
view--but we don't yet know what it is. 

Meanwhile,  we generally have to go with the more likely (and more palatable)
postulates, which most of us agree means preserving your personal carcass as
best you can, and expecting a future awakening (if you miss the
anti-senescence boat).

Robert Ettinger  


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5593