What percentage of Cryonet posts are on topic?

What percentage of Cryonet posts are on topic?

Rick [C R Y O N E T]
Rick [C R Y O N E T]

November 18th, 2004, 9:32 pm #1

I'd say only 30% of Cryonet posts are on-topic-- at best. Most of the time, Cryonet is off-topic. That sounds about right to me just off the top of my head. What do you think?
Last edited by recreation on November 18th, 2004, 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

FD
FD

November 19th, 2004, 3:06 am #2

Either you consider philosophy of the self/soul/whatever, on topic, or you don't. Here lately that makes it almost 100%, or 0%.

Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 19th, 2004, 9:55 am #3

I don't understand some cryonicists' obsessions with self-philosophy. These people need a new forum area. Cryonicists by definition accept the idea that your self is embedded in preservable brain (and perhaps some CNS) structure and that it's theoretically reanimatable. What more is there to say unless you don't really accept that basic axiom? Maybe these people don't accept it so continue to debate it. I would have thought that the best discussions on a cryonics forum would be about how best to preserve that structure. All the people who best know what's going on in that area, however, have been "privatized". This is not how to attract new people to cryonics.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 19th, 2004, 12:54 pm #4

I think cryonicists, in general have personal identity crises. But then, too, I think that most people-- not just cryonicists-- have continual struggles with identity. They don't know who they are and what they are and what role they're playing socially and historically-- because they've rejected the most fundamental tenets and axioms of Western Civilization. In a sense, most of us are literally insane as a result. This insanity is manifested in numerous ways too numerous to deal with in this post.

Someone should post something to Cryonet (me?) that says something like "shut the hell up about the soul and identity, you insane fools". And the post should continue: "If you have a personal identity problem, take it somewhere else". Finally the post should remind eveyone involved in the discussion that "we assume that your personality and memory are embedded in preservable brain structure" and that "the topic of Cryonet is, essentially, how to preserve and reanimate that brain structure."

Human identity problems must begin with differentiating human from animal. Most cryonicists can't even bring themselves to understand that much. Cryonicists are essentially empiricists and logical positivists that reject any notion of mind, of the continuity of minds in history through ideas, and the reanimation of ideas and concepts through education. So they're basically ****ed. There is no hope for cryonicists' coming to terms with identity, in my opinion. We're all screwed.

Cryonicists, then, should shut up about identity and mind. I think Mike Perry especially should shut up. So should Ettinger and his Younivserse stuff. EVeryone should simply shut the **** up. No cryonicist should say anything more about mind and identity because cryonics, as cryonics, assumes that presonality and memory are embedded in preservable brain strucuture. So the question for cryonicists is simply-- how do we manage to preserve brain structure and how can we prepare to potentially reanimate it?

The people in cryonics who are most able to talk about the real ideas in cryonics-- how to preserve structure-- the people who SHOULD be talking-- have essentially gone underground and have privatized their operations. You don't see Brian Wowk with a cryonics blog, do you? Nope. And the people in cryobiology who should be talking about the application of cryobiological techniques to the human brain have a thing up their ass about that-- just because its the human brain we're talking about instead of the liver or the kidney. So they're screwed up too.

The real topics in cryonics-- like each case of a cryobiological preservation-- aren't discussed because there is nothing to go on-- since these foolish members appear to want "privacy" or because cryonicists think that a cryonaut deserves "confidentiality". So we're screwed there too. We don't get to examine issues relating to individual cases because most of the information is hidden.

As the reader can probably tell, I'm pretty disgusted with the entire field right now. I think I'll make an effort to focus just on getting a copy of Cooper's writings and start all over again, fresh, from that point-- that is-- if I can find a copy. I think it's pretty retarded of the entire cryonics field to not have Cooper's book available at all times. I still say he beat Ettinger to it in terms of inventing the modern cryonics movement. I still want to see someone explain what he got so pissed off at Ettinger about.

Well, I could go on-- but what's the point? Like Charles Platt says, I'm writing to myself. Maybe I'll start inventing other characters to visit this forum-- as Platt already thinks I do. On the other hand I have more important and critical things to deal with.

I think I'll soon wrap up Cryonaut 2004 and call it a day. I'm tapped out.
Quote
Share

FD
FD

November 19th, 2004, 8:35 pm #5

I don't understand some cryonicists' obsessions with self-philosophy. These people need a new forum area. Cryonicists by definition accept the idea that your self is embedded in preservable brain (and perhaps some CNS) structure and that it's theoretically reanimatable. What more is there to say unless you don't really accept that basic axiom? Maybe these people don't accept it so continue to debate it. I would have thought that the best discussions on a cryonics forum would be about how best to preserve that structure. All the people who best know what's going on in that area, however, have been "privatized". This is not how to attract new people to cryonics.
I don't think the subject is any more related to cryonics than what I had for breakfast or whether it is safe to take a road trip.

Everything could be construed in some manner to be related to cryonics.

I tend to agree they could use another forum dedicated to philosophy, though.

Quote
Share

FD
FD

November 19th, 2004, 8:43 pm #6

I think cryonicists, in general have personal identity crises. But then, too, I think that most people-- not just cryonicists-- have continual struggles with identity. They don't know who they are and what they are and what role they're playing socially and historically-- because they've rejected the most fundamental tenets and axioms of Western Civilization. In a sense, most of us are literally insane as a result. This insanity is manifested in numerous ways too numerous to deal with in this post.

Someone should post something to Cryonet (me?) that says something like "shut the hell up about the soul and identity, you insane fools". And the post should continue: "If you have a personal identity problem, take it somewhere else". Finally the post should remind eveyone involved in the discussion that "we assume that your personality and memory are embedded in preservable brain structure" and that "the topic of Cryonet is, essentially, how to preserve and reanimate that brain structure."

Human identity problems must begin with differentiating human from animal. Most cryonicists can't even bring themselves to understand that much. Cryonicists are essentially empiricists and logical positivists that reject any notion of mind, of the continuity of minds in history through ideas, and the reanimation of ideas and concepts through education. So they're basically ****ed. There is no hope for cryonicists' coming to terms with identity, in my opinion. We're all screwed.

Cryonicists, then, should shut up about identity and mind. I think Mike Perry especially should shut up. So should Ettinger and his Younivserse stuff. EVeryone should simply shut the **** up. No cryonicist should say anything more about mind and identity because cryonics, as cryonics, assumes that presonality and memory are embedded in preservable brain strucuture. So the question for cryonicists is simply-- how do we manage to preserve brain structure and how can we prepare to potentially reanimate it?

The people in cryonics who are most able to talk about the real ideas in cryonics-- how to preserve structure-- the people who SHOULD be talking-- have essentially gone underground and have privatized their operations. You don't see Brian Wowk with a cryonics blog, do you? Nope. And the people in cryobiology who should be talking about the application of cryobiological techniques to the human brain have a thing up their ass about that-- just because its the human brain we're talking about instead of the liver or the kidney. So they're screwed up too.

The real topics in cryonics-- like each case of a cryobiological preservation-- aren't discussed because there is nothing to go on-- since these foolish members appear to want "privacy" or because cryonicists think that a cryonaut deserves "confidentiality". So we're screwed there too. We don't get to examine issues relating to individual cases because most of the information is hidden.

As the reader can probably tell, I'm pretty disgusted with the entire field right now. I think I'll make an effort to focus just on getting a copy of Cooper's writings and start all over again, fresh, from that point-- that is-- if I can find a copy. I think it's pretty retarded of the entire cryonics field to not have Cooper's book available at all times. I still say he beat Ettinger to it in terms of inventing the modern cryonics movement. I still want to see someone explain what he got so pissed off at Ettinger about.

Well, I could go on-- but what's the point? Like Charles Platt says, I'm writing to myself. Maybe I'll start inventing other characters to visit this forum-- as Platt already thinks I do. On the other hand I have more important and critical things to deal with.

I think I'll soon wrap up Cryonaut 2004 and call it a day. I'm tapped out.
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that a cryonicist must absolutely be a believer in the self/identity-within-physical-brain philosophy. A cryonicist may think it is probably a true philosophy, or even that it "might be" a true philosophy, and therefore get signed up on what is thought to be a good chance of it preserving the "self." Said cryonicist may also have doubts, and/or entertain the possibility of other less-physical explanations for the basis of identity, such as the traditional religious "soul," or modern concepts such as that the machine which provides self-identity may reside in quantum time/space. If either of those happen to be true, cryonic preservation will probably not touch the self/soul.

The simple fact is we do not know. The honest cryonicist would not be one who is a true believer in any one of the above, but that does not rule out undergoing cryonic preservation "just in case it works."


Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 20th, 2004, 1:12 pm #7

You seem to suggest that some cryonicists are fanatics who think it will work and others who are more "honest" and who sign up "in case it works". That's a false view. ALL cryonicists are signed up in "case it works". I've never encountered a fanatic who thinks it will definitely work. There is no such thing as a dishonest cryonicist, insofar as that belief goes.

All cryonicists are signed up "in case it works" BASED on the ASSUMPTION that personality is encoded in the brain (either grossly or quantumly-- it doesn't matter). If you want to talk about other ways to personallly survive physical death, either as a signed up cryonicist or not, that's potentially interesting, but it's not cryonics and it's not very interesting because there's not as much to go on as there is in the cryonics thesis.

Of course nobody "knows" for sure. But to act on the assumption that personality can be locked into the brain and to ignore all the other speculative ways to survive death is hardly "dishonest".

When we say "in case it works", we don't mean "in case personality is encoded in the brain". Rather we mean "in case we're able to reanimate that personality that is encoded in the brain". We've already made the assumption that personality IS, indeed, encoded in the brain. That's the central of the cryonics thesis.

To the extent that you say "personality MIGHT be locked into the brain", is the extent to which you are NOT talking about cryonics and the extent to which you are off-topic-- and actually boring.

You seem to have this idea that there are fanatic cryonicists who are "true believers". Well, from a non-scientific point of view, I guess a cryonicist, qua cryonicist, "looks" like a "true believer", because he or she has made the assumption that personality is embedded in the brain. But a "more reasonable cryonicist" does not say "maybe personality is NOT embedded in the brain". Rather a more reasonable cryonicist might say "maybe we won't be able to store and reanimate the personality that is encoded in the brain".

To say "the personality is encoded in the brain" isn't a "belief" anyway-- not for any cryonicist. It's a reasonable "assumption". And that's what we act on-- with fanaticism. The fanaticism isn't a manifestation of our "belief" in the personality being encoded in the brain (because that's an assumption), but rather our fanaticism is a manifestation of-- once having made the assumption-- that the "implications" of that assumption are that our potential immortality is at stake if we don't preserve our brain.

Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 20th, 2004, 1:20 pm #8

I don't think the subject is any more related to cryonics than what I had for breakfast or whether it is safe to take a road trip.

Everything could be construed in some manner to be related to cryonics.

I tend to agree they could use another forum dedicated to philosophy, though.
...they just need to shut up about identity and discuss cryonics. But they won't because all the cryonicists who are able to talk about cryonics have abadonened Cryonet. Actually, for the most part, they've all abandoned publishing in general. And you know what they say about that-- publish or perish. What's happened in cryonics is that, in general, it's been privatized and has gone underground. Only the "heavy hitters' (as I've heard the term applied to wealthy people) are now in the "know". There are about 40 heavy hitters in Alcor. They don't publish. As well, there is a irrational and unexplained propensity for "confidentiality" that is more important to current cryonicists in the inner circles, that is more important that anything other factor-- including the quality of preservation itself. What has happened is that there are inherent social/legal problems in cryonics that act to thwart any open intellectual debate about issues that really matter. The entire field seems, to me, to be spiralling down into this pit of darkness and secrecy-- by virtue of it's own requirement to protect itself. What's happening to Cryonet can be interpreted as the canary in the mine-- an indicator of the problem at large.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

November 20th, 2004, 1:57 pm #9

Cryonics, since its inception, has had hidden elements that are crucial to understanding it. It was privatized from the very beginning and has has become even more privatized to the point where it's basically a blackbox operation now-- and that's true for everyone in cryonics, and it's true for all organizations. This is a problem because it makes the entire area of study uninteresting and more political than scientific. Ultimately, it represents the failure of cryonics. When Saul Kent wrote his paper, The Failure of Cryonics, his work since then, has contributed to even a bigger and darker blackbox. So Saul Kent doesn't have the solution to the problem despite the interesting work apparently going on at 21CM. The work will be useless if it's not replicatible and affordable. The CI cheap route isn't a solution either because access to UAGA makes CI a pretend-cryonics organization. The only way cryonics will grow will be through public universities and companies that spin off from basic public financed research. Cryobiology must be looked at again and inroads need to be be made there. Of course, that's a huge problem for reasons too numerous to cite here-- but it's a conceptual leap that will have to be made.
Quote
Share

FD
FD

November 21st, 2004, 4:42 am #10

...they just need to shut up about identity and discuss cryonics. But they won't because all the cryonicists who are able to talk about cryonics have abadonened Cryonet. Actually, for the most part, they've all abandoned publishing in general. And you know what they say about that-- publish or perish. What's happened in cryonics is that, in general, it's been privatized and has gone underground. Only the "heavy hitters' (as I've heard the term applied to wealthy people) are now in the "know". There are about 40 heavy hitters in Alcor. They don't publish. As well, there is a irrational and unexplained propensity for "confidentiality" that is more important to current cryonicists in the inner circles, that is more important that anything other factor-- including the quality of preservation itself. What has happened is that there are inherent social/legal problems in cryonics that act to thwart any open intellectual debate about issues that really matter. The entire field seems, to me, to be spiralling down into this pit of darkness and secrecy-- by virtue of it's own requirement to protect itself. What's happening to Cryonet can be interpreted as the canary in the mine-- an indicator of the problem at large.
.. do you think it is safe to say that most of them are those who left Alcor over a decade ago to form "Cryocare," and after they could not get along with themselves, are now back and have unofficially taken over Alcor?

Quote
Share