X-Message-Number: 5817
Date:  Sat, 24 Feb 96 16:19:26 
From: Steve Bridge <>
Subject: Mac on telekinesis

To CryoNet
>From Steve Bridge
February 24, 1996

In reply to:    Message #5804
                      Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:19:26 -0600 (CST)
                      From: N E U R O M A N C E R <>
                      Subject: "Paranormal" reasoning (Mac Tonnies)


     Mac, that was the wrong set of arguments you came back with.  
While the tone of some of the replies was pretty hostile, you managed 
to miss the main -- and totally reasonable -- point. 

     In your initial post on the subject, you stated that telekinesis 
was an established fact.  Everyone asked you to supply some 
references or evidence to that effect.  You completely ignored that 
essential step and only made arguments of the sort that indicated we 
shouldn't have dared to disagree. 

     Mac, haven't you noticed that when *cryonics* is questioned or 
something disbelieving or insulting is said about it, we provide 
references and summaries of *what the evidence IS*, instead of just 
trading trivial insults?   (OK, we may ALSO trade the insults; but we 
still provide the facts.)

     One bit of quote from you will show the problem:

>   I think it's unreasonable to devaluate a particularly emotive
> field of research such as so-called "paranormal" phenomena because
> proof has yet to be revealed in the manner of superconductivity
> (to pick an example at random).

     Most people were not particularly upset that you or others might 
want to *look for* some evidence for telekinesis.  They were upset that 
you claimed it was *already* proven fact.   Yet here you say it's 
"proof has yet to be revealed."  Until someone proves that there is 
something there to study, you might as well state that the phenomenon 
of "Fairie Civilization in England" has yet to be revealed.

     If you want anyone to pay the least attention to you in this forum,
you have to provide some facts; and you have to show SOME connection
of telekinesis with cryonics, I would hope.  CryoNet is not (in
general) set up to speculate about all of the neat things that might
exist in the world or even in the future.  It is about something
already real -- cryonics DOES exist, whether it turns out to be
"valuable" for us or not.  

     We don't have to prove that methods exist to freeze humans or even
that people are being frozen.  We just have to prove that the
technology is good for something (hopefully, good for the very
reasons we are doing it!) and that we can come ups with ways to make
it workable, affordable, and otherwise practical.

     On the other hand, you are one step back further.  You have to 
prove your subject even exists.  You haven't done much to convince us 
so far.  Maybe you should try some *private* e-mail for that purpose 
before you try to start discussions on what it might be good for in 
the future.  If you can't convince any of us privately that the 
subject even exists, there isn't much reason to pursue it on CryoNet.



Stephen Bridge, President ()

Alcor Life Extension Foundation
Non-profit cryonic suspension services since 1972.
7895 E. Acoma Dr., Suite 110, Scottsdale AZ 85260-6916
Phone (602) 922-9013  (800) 367-2228   FAX (602) 922-9027
 for general requests
http://www.webcom.com/~alcor


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5817