Agreeing with FD's Disagreement with Me

Agreeing with FD's Disagreement with Me

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

February 7th, 2009, 4:19 pm #1

Somewhere down there, in a locked thread, FD mentioned that he disagreed with me that cryonics had "failed." He indicated he believes cryonics has not even made it to the "beta-testing" stage, so it couldn't possibly be a failure. I feel inclined to stand corrected on that one. Now, if we could get all the self-taught, self-proclaimed "cryonics experts" who want to teach salesclerks and kindergarten teachers how to perform cryopreservations in the back of cryomobiles stocked with a bunch of homemade equipment to step aside and let trained medical professionals using state of the art equipment to participate, we might could get this party started.

Don't let some of these people fool you. The "standby, stabilization and transport" procedures are nearly identical to well-established medical procedures, in conventional medicine. Top-notch medical personnel, using FDA-approved medical devices could be had, for only a small percentage of what is being spent in cryonics, at this point in time. This doesn't need to be, and SHOULDN'T BE a DIY project for amateurs with over-inflated egos.

(Yes, I realize I've been particularly mean and nasty, this week. I just don't know what it's going to take to get cryonicists to recognize the incompetence, greed and corruption that is right there in front of your eyes. Larry Johnson is about to have his second "15-minutes in the spotlight," and I fully intend to keep being as direct (mean and nasty) as I need to be, to get the organizations to behave professionally and ethically, and in a manner that won't leave the rest of the world thinking you are a bunch of cult members, or morons playing with dead people. If you guys can't find a way to implement professional and ethical behavior within your organizations, someone is sure to do it for you.)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

February 7th, 2009, 5:17 pm #2

Cryonics needs to move out of the hobbyist basement and into the hospitals (or state of the art equipped mobile vitrification units ). Keep the pressure on! I've seen objections to professionalism in cryonics such as "who is going to pay for it?" and wonder what the heck cryo org members are paying for, especially with $150K to Alcor. And the point that all the money being thrown into SA pays huge salaries to non-medical staff, is well-taken, considering that most of it could go for trained professionals instead.

Will 2009 be the year cryonics gets serious? Time will tell.

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 25th, 2005, 8:19 pm

February 7th, 2009, 6:08 pm #3

FD says: "Will 2009 be the year cryonics gets serious?"

Johnson says: "Today, Alcor continues to operate without any regulation whatsoever. I have made the decision to come out from hiding this year (2009) to publicly lead the initiative to regulate the practice of cryonics. I feel that this action is the only right thing to do by those who have fallen victim to certain activities of this unregulated practice. Regardless of what certain cryonics organizations might want you to believe, I hold absolutely no malice against Alcor or cryonics; I simply want to do the right thing, to call the publics attention to this very unfortunate issue."
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,64749

So as FD said "time will tell."

I have to say, like the feeling I get from Maxim, I have to side with Johnson. If his efforts rid cryonics of the Charles Platts and Mike Darwins in the world, I am all for it.

Here is the question I have. Is Johnson the Cryonics Savior or is he the Cryonics Anti-Christ?

DR
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 31st, 2007, 2:14 pm

February 7th, 2009, 6:21 pm #4

Somewhere down there, in a locked thread, FD mentioned that he disagreed with me that cryonics had "failed." He indicated he believes cryonics has not even made it to the "beta-testing" stage, so it couldn't possibly be a failure. I feel inclined to stand corrected on that one. Now, if we could get all the self-taught, self-proclaimed "cryonics experts" who want to teach salesclerks and kindergarten teachers how to perform cryopreservations in the back of cryomobiles stocked with a bunch of homemade equipment to step aside and let trained medical professionals using state of the art equipment to participate, we might could get this party started.

Don't let some of these people fool you. The "standby, stabilization and transport" procedures are nearly identical to well-established medical procedures, in conventional medicine. Top-notch medical personnel, using FDA-approved medical devices could be had, for only a small percentage of what is being spent in cryonics, at this point in time. This doesn't need to be, and SHOULDN'T BE a DIY project for amateurs with over-inflated egos.

(Yes, I realize I've been particularly mean and nasty, this week. I just don't know what it's going to take to get cryonicists to recognize the incompetence, greed and corruption that is right there in front of your eyes. Larry Johnson is about to have his second "15-minutes in the spotlight," and I fully intend to keep being as direct (mean and nasty) as I need to be, to get the organizations to behave professionally and ethically, and in a manner that won't leave the rest of the world thinking you are a bunch of cult members, or morons playing with dead people. If you guys can't find a way to implement professional and ethical behavior within your organizations, someone is sure to do it for you.)
Darwin wrote in part:

>The only negative attitude I know of in cryonics towards >medicine is that of Charles Platt and, in a different way, Bob >Ettinger. As I understand it Bob sees much of medicine as it >has been applied to cryonics as gilding the lily, superfluous, >or not worth the cost, or not affordable. If I have any of this >wrong (vis a vis Bobs position) Im sure hell correct me.

In response to this, and to some other recent comments by others, a few reminders:

As any fool can plainly see, better is better, but something is better than nothing. Claims should not be exaggerated, but criticisms should not be exaggerated either. Even a straight freeze is far from obliteration. Many scientists believe that (with certain possible exceptions such as black holes) there is a law of conservation of information, so that any previous configuration of matter might in principle one day be restored. (Yes, there remain unresolved philosophical problems.)

Regarding "medicine" and medical professionals, there are many problems. They worry about legal vulnerability, and about their insurers, and about their oversight committees, and about the FDA, and about peer pressure and public relations. Even a dying patient with no other option often cannot get permission to use an experimental drug or procedure. Our best bet currently, in most cases, is to get informal cooperation from hospital personnel, and to use their familiar forms including the donor form and the advance directive.

Long ago Alcor claimed "state of the art" procedures. What a laugh. It is a platitude of cryobiology that (for best effect) different procedures must be used for different organs or different tissues and different circumstances. "State of the art" would really mean several teams of surgeons and cryobiologists dividing the job. Don't hold your breath.

Darwin likes or liked to poke fun at my phrase "our friends of the future," implying that I didn't care about quality of procedure or reducing the burden on the future. Again, just use common sense. We do want to reduce the burden on the future as much as possible, but we also want to seize whatever chance there may be using our currently available resources. Don't sacrifice the good for want of the best.

As for the claim (by Melody and others, if I remember correctly), that cryonics is a failure and even "corrupt," again, use common sense and look at the record. Yes, the movement remains tiny, but growth in membership and patients in recent years has been trending up. At the Cryonics Institute, if I remember correctly, roughly half our members and half our patients have come in the last five years or so, whereas CI is about 33 years old.

As for "corruption," this is just a vicious lie as applied to CI and probably, as best I can judge, for the most part to Alcor also and to ACS. Alcor has churned its leadership and made serious blunders, but most of its people are trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, most of the time. At CI, and I think also at ACS, there have been no scandals whatever and continuing honest effort to improve, with demonstrated results.

Suspended Animation is another story. No doubt Saul and Bill think they are doing something that will be of use to them personally down the road, but aside from the problems Melody has harped upon, Saul and Bill will eventually be gone, and the ability of SA to survive as a for-profit company seems questionable to say the least. SA may also impair recruitment because of the implication that without that large added expense your chances are much smaller.

Robert Ettinger

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

February 7th, 2009, 9:30 pm #5

FD says: "Will 2009 be the year cryonics gets serious?"

Johnson says: "Today, Alcor continues to operate without any regulation whatsoever. I have made the decision to come out from hiding this year (2009) to publicly lead the initiative to regulate the practice of cryonics. I feel that this action is the only right thing to do by those who have fallen victim to certain activities of this unregulated practice. Regardless of what certain cryonics organizations might want you to believe, I hold absolutely no malice against Alcor or cryonics; I simply want to do the right thing, to call the publics attention to this very unfortunate issue."
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,64749

So as FD said "time will tell."

I have to say, like the feeling I get from Maxim, I have to side with Johnson. If his efforts rid cryonics of the Charles Platts and Mike Darwins in the world, I am all for it.

Here is the question I have. Is Johnson the Cryonics Savior or is he the Cryonics Anti-Christ?

DR
Like Polidoro, who does random things to get free publicity like trying to get McCain involved in cryopolitics, Johnson is merely taking a page out of Polidoro's book, on methods to get free publicity/advertising for his own.

That's my story and I'm stikkin to it! :D

FD

Quote
Like
Share

interested
interested

February 7th, 2009, 10:16 pm #6

Darwin wrote in part:

>The only negative attitude I know of in cryonics towards >medicine is that of Charles Platt and, in a different way, Bob >Ettinger. As I understand it Bob sees much of medicine as it >has been applied to cryonics as gilding the lily, superfluous, >or not worth the cost, or not affordable. If I have any of this >wrong (vis a vis Bobs position) Im sure hell correct me.

In response to this, and to some other recent comments by others, a few reminders:

As any fool can plainly see, better is better, but something is better than nothing. Claims should not be exaggerated, but criticisms should not be exaggerated either. Even a straight freeze is far from obliteration. Many scientists believe that (with certain possible exceptions such as black holes) there is a law of conservation of information, so that any previous configuration of matter might in principle one day be restored. (Yes, there remain unresolved philosophical problems.)

Regarding "medicine" and medical professionals, there are many problems. They worry about legal vulnerability, and about their insurers, and about their oversight committees, and about the FDA, and about peer pressure and public relations. Even a dying patient with no other option often cannot get permission to use an experimental drug or procedure. Our best bet currently, in most cases, is to get informal cooperation from hospital personnel, and to use their familiar forms including the donor form and the advance directive.

Long ago Alcor claimed "state of the art" procedures. What a laugh. It is a platitude of cryobiology that (for best effect) different procedures must be used for different organs or different tissues and different circumstances. "State of the art" would really mean several teams of surgeons and cryobiologists dividing the job. Don't hold your breath.

Darwin likes or liked to poke fun at my phrase "our friends of the future," implying that I didn't care about quality of procedure or reducing the burden on the future. Again, just use common sense. We do want to reduce the burden on the future as much as possible, but we also want to seize whatever chance there may be using our currently available resources. Don't sacrifice the good for want of the best.

As for the claim (by Melody and others, if I remember correctly), that cryonics is a failure and even "corrupt," again, use common sense and look at the record. Yes, the movement remains tiny, but growth in membership and patients in recent years has been trending up. At the Cryonics Institute, if I remember correctly, roughly half our members and half our patients have come in the last five years or so, whereas CI is about 33 years old.

As for "corruption," this is just a vicious lie as applied to CI and probably, as best I can judge, for the most part to Alcor also and to ACS. Alcor has churned its leadership and made serious blunders, but most of its people are trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, most of the time. At CI, and I think also at ACS, there have been no scandals whatever and continuing honest effort to improve, with demonstrated results.

Suspended Animation is another story. No doubt Saul and Bill think they are doing something that will be of use to them personally down the road, but aside from the problems Melody has harped upon, Saul and Bill will eventually be gone, and the ability of SA to survive as a for-profit company seems questionable to say the least. SA may also impair recruitment because of the implication that without that large added expense your chances are much smaller.

Robert Ettinger
Interesting conversation.
Postulated above is a law of conservation of information, and that this may lead to the reconstruction of the brain? Is that the point?
Who in science is talking about that?

That seems to be out of speculative philosophy, and not science, perhaps someone like Frank Tipler.
There are Christian scientists who put out speculative ideas, that allow for bodily resurrection by God, of course without saying that directly. That gets them in good with the Pope.

There are the laws of thermodynamics though, like the law of conservation of energy, and the laws of entropy, those are science.

But there is no law of conservation of information in science. As a matter of fact, entropy is exactly the opposite.

Quote
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

February 7th, 2009, 11:39 pm #7

Darwin wrote in part:

>The only negative attitude I know of in cryonics towards >medicine is that of Charles Platt and, in a different way, Bob >Ettinger. As I understand it Bob sees much of medicine as it >has been applied to cryonics as gilding the lily, superfluous, >or not worth the cost, or not affordable. If I have any of this >wrong (vis a vis Bobs position) Im sure hell correct me.

In response to this, and to some other recent comments by others, a few reminders:

As any fool can plainly see, better is better, but something is better than nothing. Claims should not be exaggerated, but criticisms should not be exaggerated either. Even a straight freeze is far from obliteration. Many scientists believe that (with certain possible exceptions such as black holes) there is a law of conservation of information, so that any previous configuration of matter might in principle one day be restored. (Yes, there remain unresolved philosophical problems.)

Regarding "medicine" and medical professionals, there are many problems. They worry about legal vulnerability, and about their insurers, and about their oversight committees, and about the FDA, and about peer pressure and public relations. Even a dying patient with no other option often cannot get permission to use an experimental drug or procedure. Our best bet currently, in most cases, is to get informal cooperation from hospital personnel, and to use their familiar forms including the donor form and the advance directive.

Long ago Alcor claimed "state of the art" procedures. What a laugh. It is a platitude of cryobiology that (for best effect) different procedures must be used for different organs or different tissues and different circumstances. "State of the art" would really mean several teams of surgeons and cryobiologists dividing the job. Don't hold your breath.

Darwin likes or liked to poke fun at my phrase "our friends of the future," implying that I didn't care about quality of procedure or reducing the burden on the future. Again, just use common sense. We do want to reduce the burden on the future as much as possible, but we also want to seize whatever chance there may be using our currently available resources. Don't sacrifice the good for want of the best.

As for the claim (by Melody and others, if I remember correctly), that cryonics is a failure and even "corrupt," again, use common sense and look at the record. Yes, the movement remains tiny, but growth in membership and patients in recent years has been trending up. At the Cryonics Institute, if I remember correctly, roughly half our members and half our patients have come in the last five years or so, whereas CI is about 33 years old.

As for "corruption," this is just a vicious lie as applied to CI and probably, as best I can judge, for the most part to Alcor also and to ACS. Alcor has churned its leadership and made serious blunders, but most of its people are trying to do the right thing for the right reasons, most of the time. At CI, and I think also at ACS, there have been no scandals whatever and continuing honest effort to improve, with demonstrated results.

Suspended Animation is another story. No doubt Saul and Bill think they are doing something that will be of use to them personally down the road, but aside from the problems Melody has harped upon, Saul and Bill will eventually be gone, and the ability of SA to survive as a for-profit company seems questionable to say the least. SA may also impair recruitment because of the implication that without that large added expense your chances are much smaller.

Robert Ettinger
I wasn't going to allow cryonics to take up any more of my time, today, but I can't resist a quick response to Mr. Ettinger.

Mr. E: "As any fool can plainly see, better is better, but something is better than nothing. Claims should not be exaggerated, but criticisms should not be exaggerated either. Even a straight freeze is far from obliteration."

I'll agree with Mr. Ettinger that "something is better than nothing," but "something" may not be better than "something else." Oh, say, like a straight freeze might be better than having a metal fabricator over-pressurize one's vascular system with a perfusion circuit, especially when one's brain has already been subjected to a cerebrovascular accident.

Mr. E: "As for "corruption," this is just a vicious lie as applied to CI and probably, as best I can judge, for the most part to Alcor also and to ACS."

THIS is why I didn't want to end the day, without responding to Mr. Ettinger. I truly, and sincerely, apologize (I seem to be doing a lot of that, this week!), for not being more specific about corruption within the cryonics organizations. I do not believe CI to be engaging in corrupt behavior. I think everyone knows the only objection I have, in regard to CI, is their promotion of SA, which I DO believe to be corrupt. I don't know ANYTHING about ACS, (and I can't find anyone else I know who does), so it would be unfair for me to include them in my blanket corruption accusations. I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Ettinger's opinions of Alcor, especially since rumor has it that Saul Kent has at least one hand on the reins, and where Saul Kent goes, a certain other group of individuals follow. I guess only time will tell.

Mr. E: "Suspended Animation is another story."

At least we agree on that one.

I believe Ben Best, Andy Zawacki and Mr. Ettinger to be honest and honorable people, truly interested in helping others in cryonics endeavors. So, again, I apologize for my neglect in not excluding them from my "harping" about corruption. (And, yes, I realize I do it...I'll blame it on my obsessive-compulsive tendencies and my commitment to patient care.)

Melody
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 2nd, 2004, 8:27 pm

February 8th, 2009, 6:09 am #8

Melody said "I do not believe CI to be engaging in corrupt behavior. I think everyone knows the only objection I have, in regard to CI, is their promotion of SA, which I DO believe to be corrupt. I don't know ANYTHING about ACS, (and I can't find anyone else I know who does), so it would be unfair for me to include them in my blanket corruption accusations. I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Ettinger's opinions of Alcor, especially since rumor has it that Saul Kent has at least one hand on the reins, and where Saul Kent goes, a certain other group of individuals follow. I guess only time will tell."

Somehow I knew that Ms. Maxim would eventually get the whole scene straight in her head.

ACS has been pretty reclusive, but I found the info here recently to be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cryonics_Society

No idea who wrote all of that, of course, which is the biggest deficiency of wikipedia.

More later on,

FD
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2007, 2:45 pm

February 8th, 2009, 4:10 pm #9

FD says: "Will 2009 be the year cryonics gets serious?"

Johnson says: "Today, Alcor continues to operate without any regulation whatsoever. I have made the decision to come out from hiding this year (2009) to publicly lead the initiative to regulate the practice of cryonics. I feel that this action is the only right thing to do by those who have fallen victim to certain activities of this unregulated practice. Regardless of what certain cryonics organizations might want you to believe, I hold absolutely no malice against Alcor or cryonics; I simply want to do the right thing, to call the publics attention to this very unfortunate issue."
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,64749

So as FD said "time will tell."

I have to say, like the feeling I get from Maxim, I have to side with Johnson. If his efforts rid cryonics of the Charles Platts and Mike Darwins in the world, I am all for it.

Here is the question I have. Is Johnson the Cryonics Savior or is he the Cryonics Anti-Christ?

DR
He views cryonics as a pseudoscience and is encouraging Anticult's paranoia.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 31st, 2007, 2:14 pm

February 8th, 2009, 9:52 pm #10

Interesting conversation.
Postulated above is a law of conservation of information, and that this may lead to the reconstruction of the brain? Is that the point?
Who in science is talking about that?

That seems to be out of speculative philosophy, and not science, perhaps someone like Frank Tipler.
There are Christian scientists who put out speculative ideas, that allow for bodily resurrection by God, of course without saying that directly. That gets them in good with the Pope.

There are the laws of thermodynamics though, like the law of conservation of energy, and the laws of entropy, those are science.

But there is no law of conservation of information in science. As a matter of fact, entropy is exactly the opposite.
The writer (see below) is wrong. I don't want to be bothered with multiple citations, but one readable source for laymen is physics professor Leonard Susskind's book THE BLACK HOLE WAR (Little, Brown 2008).

The "information theoretic" criterion of death is that you are only irreversibly dead if the essential information in your CNS cannot be recovered. Although the law of conservation of information is not taught in elementary courses, it has, as I said, wide credence among leading scientists, although I couldn't quote exact statistics. In fact, it is nearly incontrovertible on the basis of logic and known physics.

Yes, conservation of information implies that, in principle, any previous or future configuration of matter could be figured out and (if past) restored. (In fact, there is a theorem tending to show that, in a finite universe, any previous configuration, or one arbitrarily close to it, will eventually recur.)

The writer is also wrong about entropy. It has nothing to do with conservation of information, and has limited application. It does not imply anything important about human capabilities.

Robert Ettinger

----------------------------------------------------------------
Response to common sense

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting conversation.

Postulated above is a law of conservation of information, and that this may lead to the reconstruction of the brain? Is that the point?
Who in science is talking about that?

That seems to be out of speculative philosophy, and not science, perhaps someone like Frank Tipler.
There are Christian scientists who put out speculative ideas, that allow for bodily resurrection by God, of course without saying that directly. That gets them in good with the Pope.

There are the laws of thermodynamics though, like the law of conservation of energy, and the laws of entropy, those are science.

But there is no law of conservation of information in science. As a matter of fact, entropy is exactly the opposite.




Quote
Like
Share