102 replies to this topic

[Fundie]

Even if vitalism is true, the fact is that we don't know if a person in cryonic suspension is dead or not. Just as we don't know if a person who just collapsed from cardiac arrest is dead or not. He might be revivable with application of CPR, and a person in cryonic suspension might be revivable with molecular repair.

CryoBurger, have you read any of the revival scenarios off of the Alcor website?

[enoonsti]

I'm not medically educated enough

[CryoBurger]

Enoosti -

You're one of those people? Here, let me help you put my words back into context. It loses some (okay all) of your intended meaning, but thus are the pitfalls of being an adult, versus a 12 year old:

"I'm not medically educated enough to come up with a really good example of a *Reversible Cause of Death* that isnt reversed in time"

Thank you.

[CryoBurger]

Bgwowk -

My entire point, was that a stimulant of some sort needs to be present, to revive a dead organism. Despite several people including yourself, telling me that I am wrong, your last post first outright denies that electricity might be needed, then turns right around and admits that in fact some electrical stimulation may in fact be needed to revive a dead person.

You're also continuing to confuse my use of "electricity" as some sort of equal to the religious notion of a "spirit" or "life force". I already stated very clearly that you dont need to believe in a spirit, in order to acknowledge that a *technology* needs to be developed which animates a person who has been dead for 600 years. Whether that technology is a chemical cocktail or a combination with electrical stimulation - the technology still is a HUGE part of reanimation. And that was the point I was making in my very first post. Which you took issue with several times, but eventually agreed with me about.

The issue of reanimation is not a simple issue of warming the body and arranging the molecules. Something must start respiration. If its a simple machine, fine. If its someone pushing on someones chest, then fine. But I believe it will be a bigger deal than that.

Thank you for acknowleding that Vitalism has not in fact been proven wrong. Your statement was incorrect. Its impossible to prove Vitalism is wrong. Just like it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist. Its nothing more than your opinion based on the evidence you are aware of. And when you've got a person who believes theyve got "answered prayers" piling up, their "evidence" is just as compelling to them. So please be more careful before you call a belief system "proven wrong". That is a common mistake of many in the science world. Just like in the religious world. Taking their own personal opinions and making them a fact simply because its currently accepted knowledge. In that sense, saying Vitalism is proven wrong is akin to the "flat earth" philosophy ... kurt... Just because everyone believes it in your circles, doesn't make it reality. At least with the earth we could prove it one way or the other. With this, we can't.

Lastly, absolutely I believe a frozen embryo that was frozen for 13 years (the longest Im aware of) which resulted in a viable newborn baby lends some serious credence to the fact that we are nothing more than machines. However it failed to shake (even minimally) my Christian friends viewpoint on the issue. On some level they're right. There's no way to know what God is doing. Maybe the development of the "religious spirit" comes in conjunction with the development of the human body and brain and self awareness. In such a scenario, there is no way to disprove the existence of the spirit. In fact, loopholes can always be found, no matter what angle you take. So its a pointless discussion.

[Fundie]

Lastly, absolutely I believe a frozen embryo that was frozen for 13 years (the longest Im aware of) which resulted in a viable newborn baby lends some serious credence to the fact that we are nothing more than machines. However it failed to shake (even minimally) my Christian friends viewpoint on the issue. On some level they're right. There's no way to know what God is doing. Maybe the development of the "religious spirit" comes in conjunction with the development of the human body and brain and self awareness. In such a scenario, there is no way to disprove the existence of the spirit. In fact, loopholes can always be found, no matter what angle you take. So its a pointless discussion.

It simply means that the question of "spirit" is entirely out of scope for the frozen embryo scenario. As I believe it is also entirely out of scope for the cryonic suspension scenario. The presence or absence of "spirit" (or any other proposed variant of vitalism) makes no difference at all and is completely irrelevant.

As for the subject of this thread and the implied question, let's go back to your original subject line:

"The Assumption that Life can be Restarted"

Cryonics is not an assumption that life can be restarted. Cryonics is declining to assume that life cannot be restarted. There is a difference.

[enoonsti]

Bgwowk - My entire point, was... a pointless discussion.

We love you, Cryoburger, and we want to be able to communicate with you. So it would be helpful if you supply us with the Cryoburger Glossary, because part of me finds it mind-boggling that you are still throwing around the unscientific slur "dead for 600 years" despite Fundie explaining that you should refer to a cryopreserved person's status as "unknown." I should also mention, though, that the other part of me realizes that you never publicly apologized to Fundie for all of your accusations in this post . On that note of soap box futility, let's take a look at - for example - the no-reflow phenomenon (which I've linked to from Ben Best's page).





People who are medically educated enough can grasp what Dr. Wowk meant when he said you can't simply replace lost blood. In this instance, if you clean up the mess shown in the above picture.... well, then that means blood can flow freely through that blood vessel. So with such tangibility in mind, I bust out laughing when you said "arranging the molecules" is a "simple issue," and then went on to break down over starting up respiration. Instead of sticking in the real world, you are word gaming this discussion into a level of abstraction that nobody can penetrate.... until, again, you supply us with your glossary (preferably starting with your definition of the word "dead"). Then all will be well.


Let's end this off with a smiley face....

thus are the pitfalls of being an adult, versus a 12 year old.

...and a list of child prodigies.

Edited by enoonsti, 10 November 2010 - 08:58 PM.

[Luke Parrish]

Yeah CryoBurger, show some humility.

So here's the thing. Most people have religious or other beliefs that at least imply a form of Vitalism. Heck even Adventists (who believe the dead are unconscious) think resurrection is a matter of God breathing the breath of life back into your nostrils. People just don't think of the brain as a structure that can be frozen in place, or the problem of death as being one with an engineering solution.

How can Vitalists be convinced to try cryonics? Must we take the war to them -- attack Vitalism itself? Or should we simply go on with the defense that cryonics doesn't exactly contradict Vitalism?

I'm not sure which is the right answer, honestly. It seems wrong to make cryonics anti-religious, because it is really just medical. But on the other hand, the fact must be faced that many religious people tend to be against cryonics for reasons linked (in their minds) to their religion.

[enoonsti]

Yeah CryoBurger, show some humility.

Yeah, let me just stress that whenever I type something, just assume I am laughing on the other end. I have no ill will towards anybody (even in my upcoming response to richie over at rick ross), and I understand that my writing sometimes can be misinterpreted. All miscommunication is entirely my fault; I am simply a bad writer.

Edited by enoonsti, 11 November 2010 - 02:05 AM.

[bgwowk]

My entire point, was that a stimulant of some sort needs to be present, to revive a dead organism.

If by "dead" organism, you mean an organism that doesn't spontaneously exhibit vital functions, then what is necessary to revive that organism is repair, not stimulation. An organism in a chemically healthy state will function spontaneously without any external stimulation. The reason that some clinically dead people don't spontaneously recover when superficial injuries are repaired is because the interval of clinical death causes deleterious physical and chemical changes inside cells. It's not because something has gone missing that requires re-stimulation.

Despite several people including yourself, telling me that I am wrong, your last post first outright denies that electricity might be needed, then turns right around and admits that in fact some electrical stimulation may in fact be needed to revive a dead person.

I didn't say that. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that the purpose of electricity in resuscitation is to erase bad heart rhythms, not restart stopped hearts. Electricity does not "jump start" hearts. If a heart is asystolic, not exhibiting any movement or electrical activity at all, then administering an electric shock to the heart is useless. Electric shocks are only used in medicine when the heart has an abnormal rhythm, especially a rhythm called ventricular fibrillation in which the heart shakes like a bowl of Jello and doesn't pump any blood. An electric shock erases this bad rhythm, essentially "killing" the heart, allowing the heart to boot itself up again into a normal pumping rhythm. A heart that isn't too badly damaged will naturally do that. If a heart is truly stopped, the only way to start it again is to keep perfusing it with blood by CPR, and administer drugs to try to reverse the chemical changes that are preventing it from resuming normal rhythm. Electricity is of no help unless there is a bad rhythm that needs to be erased.

I already stated very clearly that you dont need to believe in a spirit, in order to acknowledge that a *technology* needs to be developed which animates a person who has been dead for 600 years. Whether that technology is a chemical cocktail or a combination with electrical stimulation - the technology still is a HUGE part of reanimation. And that was the point I was making in my very first post. Which you took issue with several times, but eventually agreed with me about.

What I take issue with is your apparent belief that something other than molecular repair is required. The difference between sickness or health, life or death, is how atoms are arranged. Nothing more. There is no unsettled question in science about whether restoration of a healthy pattern of atoms is sufficient to restore life functions to an organism. For an organism to have cell structure and chemistry restored to a normal healthy state, and not spontaneously and immediately function as a normal healthy organism would, is physically impossible.

I agree that advanced technology is required to restore anyone cryopreserved today. However that is solely because of the magnitude of the repair problem. If a person were cryopreserved with a more advanced technology that did not cause damage, there is no reason they could not be revived after 600 years with almost no technology at all on the other end. There are no fundamental scientific uncertainties or problems with metabolically inactive states other than making sure biological structure and chemistry is the same on both ends of the process.

The issue of reanimation is not a simple issue of warming the body and arranging the molecules. Something must start respiration. If its a simple machine, fine. If its someone pushing on someones chest, then fine. But I believe it will be a bigger deal than that.

That is not correct. In a healthy person-- a person with everything where it is supposed to be on a molecular scale --breathing is spontaneous. A warm healthy heart will spontaneously develop a pumping rhythm. Rising carbon dioxide levels in the blood will cause the brain to send nerve impulses to the diaphragm causing the lungs to breathe. It's all automatic and part of what a healthy organism does. Anyone who needs CPR or a ventilator to breathe, by definition, has something wrong on a structural or biochemical level in their body that needs to be fixed. Their atoms and molecules are not arranged properly.

Thank you for acknowleding that Vitalism has not in fact been proven wrong. Your statement was incorrect. Its impossible to prove Vitalism is wrong. Just like it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist. Its nothing more than your opinion based on the evidence you are aware of. And when you've got a person who believes theyve got "answered prayers" piling up, their "evidence" is just as compelling to them. So please be more careful before you call a belief system "proven wrong". That is a common mistake of many in the science world. Just like in the religious world. Taking their own personal opinions and making them a fact simply because its currently accepted knowledge.

It's my opinion that there is no Santa Claus, even though I can never prove it. It's my opinion that phlogiston doesn't exist either, although I could never prove that to a believer. Scientists can only present models that are more explanatory and more compelling in their empirical utility. I believe that there are laws of physics and chemistry that we ignore at our peril. These laws say and require that vital functions of an organism depend only on the pattern of physical matter within the organism. You call this an assumption, but that is a very misleading use of the word. In any other medical or engineering context, the "assumption" that physical law holds is considered fact. Only in arguments about cryonics do logical inductions that underpin our technology and civilization suddenly become mere assumptions of nerd materialists.

[Luke Parrish]

Yeah CryoBurger, show some humility.

Yeah, let me just stress that whenever I type something, just assume I am laughing on the other end. I have no ill will towards anybody (even in my upcoming response to richie over at rick ross), and I understand that my writing sometimes can be misinterpreted. All miscommunication is entirely my fault; I am simply a bad writer.

HAH! Bad writer, my left foot.

Please, keep teasing those who deserve it. You seem to have a knack for keeping the humor at appropriate levels.

[enoonsti]

HAH! Bad writer, my left foot.

Please, keep teasing those who deserve it. You seem to have a knack for keeping the humor at appropriate levels.

And you better keep up the fine work too, sir

[Brafarality]

I have a zombie in my basement: dug him up from a nearby graveyard and ran a few electric shocks through him and he sprung right up!
Kidding!
This discussion is really about establishing what is being spoken about before any determinations can be made.
Some are frustrated that this is the case:
Why not just delve into the subject with a minimum of basic assumptions that can be modified at a later time if the discussion suggests it?
Let's call death this: ______________
And reanimation this: _____________
Etc.
And then get on with it!

Edited by Brafarality, 13 November 2010 - 12:48 AM.

[CryoBurger]

what is necessary to revive that organism is repair, not stimulation. An organism in a chemically healthy state will function spontaneously without any external stimulation.

Can you point me to some evidence that backs this theory? I am always open to learn. But I have yet to hear of any real-life example we can point to that establishes this theory as fact. We could probably eliminate everything else we've discussed thus far, and focus on this one issue.

My opinion, based on limited education, is that you are making an assumption here. In fact we've got tons of evidence that is currently being ignored, which implies the very opposite. Like the entire history of the human race: dying. Show me otherwise, and I will be a very happy camper!

In the past you have stated theories as facts. Even to the point of stating that they've been proven, when they absolutely have not. I hope this isn't another one of those. !

-CB-

Edited by CryoBurger, 10 December 2010 - 01:43 AM.

[Luke Parrish]

Read some biology. We're made of cells. Cells are made of mechanisms. If those mechanisms aren't broken, the cells are alive. It's really simple.

[bgwowk]

what is necessary to revive that organism is repair, not stimulation. An organism in a chemically healthy state will function spontaneously without any external stimulation.

Can you point me to some evidence that backs this theory? I am always open to learn. But I have yet to hear of any real-life example we can point to that establishes this theory as fact. We could probably eliminate everything else we've discussed thus far, and focus on this one issue.

Fair enough. I'll try to explain. Living things are bags of chemicals arranged in certain ways. The function (or lack of function) of a living thing is always found to correlate with the state of atoms and molecules within in. No exceptions. Entire sciences, such as biochemistry and molecular biology, are based on this. It is what the laws of physics predict, what scientists expect, and what is observed.

I'm not sure of an example that will hit close enough to home for you on the living vs. dead issue. Why are you not persuaded by successful recovery of human embryos, cryopreserved tissues, some organs, and small animals from a stone-cold-dead solid state after rewarming and restoration of normal chemical conditions?

[CryoBurger]

Read some biology. We're made of cells. Cells are made of mechanisms. If those mechanisms aren't broken, the cells are alive. It's really simple

This just restates the theory. Doesn't give me any explanation or examples I needed.

It may be that I am just not familiar with this concept. In which case this entire thread is embarrassing But ... if there is any basic biology reading anyone can point me to which states this as (what I would assume to be) a law of nature, please point me to it so I can learn. I'm always open. Something as incredible as this should qualify as one of the laws of physics shouldn't it? Surely there is a lot of reading on the concept that if something has all its parts, it must just suddenly be "alive" on its own. Yet I've never heard of such a thing.

[bgwowk]

Surely there is a lot of reading on the concept that if something has all its parts, it must just suddenly be "alive" on its own. Yet I've never heard of such a thing.

How about the creation of active viruses starting from simple non-living chemicals?

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/2122619.stm

[N.T.M.]

There's a really large assumption in Cryonics that seems to be overlooked.

Its the assumption that something which has died for an extended period of time, can be brought back to life.

This here shows that you likely don’t really know what you’re talking about (respectfully) as any cryonically-suspended entity is completely static, and therefore time is irrelevant.

Plus, as Aubrey’s said, it is likely that resuscitation will be done via a scan, followed by the person's “molecular reconstitution,” so to speak. This follows the lines of what is commonly called corporeal continuity.

[kismet]

bgwowk, I know you are being diplomatic and, hell, are you doing an outstanding job. Still one can be eloquent and wrong: of course cryonics has implications on religion - esp. the religions that presume god-given knowledge about the universe (which can be falsified), but not exclusively - as does any form of science or its application.

Science makes religion as we know it irrelevant, it is corrosive to the very tenets of religion. Anything else is just diplomacy and accomodationist naiveté. Therefore I vehemently disagree, science and religion do conflict. In some case more than others, but nonetheless.

And, no, I do not think it makes sense to appease people like CBurger (?) who might believe in dualism, religion, vitalism or any other fairy tale, only educate them. Esp. if your long term goal is bettering the human condition, incl. promoting cryonics, then the intellectual dishonesty of accomodationism really will not help: telling people that cryonics, evolution, archeaology, etc. is compatible with their faith, even if it were true, does not solve the core problem that lead to the initial assumption that faith must be right and science wrong; and people will go to deny the importance of related advancements based on this assumption again and again. Only debunking faith as the post-modern, ignorant philosophical wankery and sophistry it is will solve this problem:

What I fear is Christianity perceiving it as a threat. The power that religion holds over governments and thier policy can have severe ramifications for us. The religious right in the US has already set back medicine 20 years thanks to thier misguided beliefs. I can't pick on Christianity specifically though, many of the most evil acts man has ever inflicted upon one another has been done in the name of a 'god'.

And your solution is what, Stockholm Syndrome? Appeasing the hostage takers? Intellectual cowardice? Enabling these monsters as the moderates do? It is exactly this path we do not want to go down.

NB: as much as I disagree I do not really mind the accomodationist stance for plurality's sake; I just think it is not good enough as our main strategy

Edited by kismet, 15 December 2010 - 10:28 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

What I fear is Christianity perceiving it as a threat. The power that religion holds over governments and thier policy can have severe ramifications for us. The religious right in the US has already set back medicine 20 years thanks to thier misguided beliefs. I can't pick on Christianity specifically though, many of the most evil acts man has ever inflicted upon one another has been done in the name of a 'god'.

And your solution is what, Stockholm Syndrome? Appeasing the hostage takers? Intellectual cowardice? Enabling these monsters as the moderates do? It is exactly this path we do not want to go down.

Kismet, I am not arrogant enought to propose to have a solution to this... much better men than me have tried. I was simply stating my fears.

[bgwowk]

And, no, I do not think it makes sense to appease people like CBurger (?) who might believe in dualism, religion, vitalism or any other fairy tale, only educate them. Esp. if your long term goal is bettering the human condition, incl. promoting cryonics, then the intellectual dishonesty of accomodationism really will not help: telling people that cryonics, evolution, archeaology, etc. is compatible with their faith, even if it were true, does not solve the core problem that lead to the initial assumption that faith must be right and science wrong; and people will go to deny the importance of related advancements based on this assumption again and again. Only debunking faith as the post-modern, ignorant philosophical wankery and sophistry it is will solve this problem:

And how has that been working for you? There are a very large number of religious scientists, but practically no scientists in this century who are vitalists. There are even religious cryonicists, some of whom have participated in this discussion. It's entirely possible to have discussions about whether the structure and composition of matter determines the behavior of matter without bringing up religion. People of faith have already comes to terms with procedures similar to cryonics, such as hypothermic circulatory arrest surgeries. They didn't have to abandon their religious beliefs to do so. All I'm saying is that cryonics is not qualitatively different.

People can discuss questions of medicine and science in a mostly rational framework. If a discussion turns political or religious, forget it. The dialog will be effectively over.

[Fundie]

Science makes religion as we know it irrelevant, it is corrosive to the very tenets of religion. Anything else is just diplomacy and accomodationist naiveté. Therefore I vehemently disagree, science and religion do conflict. In some case more than others, but nonetheless.

That may be true about science.

But I thought the goal of cryonics was personal survival so that the survivors can pursue their own personal goals. I didn't think the goal of cryonics was the advancement of science or the end of religion or whatever. Science might be the personal goal of someone who intends to survive through cryonics, but other cryonicists might have completely different goals. (I've given the example elsewhere that a hundred extra years of Bible study might sound like a great thing to me and completely horrible to other people, meanwhile, a hundred extra years of, say, watching major league football might sound wonderful to some people but sounds like torture to me.)

The triumph of science over religion might be your personal goal but that does not mean it is the goal of every cryonicist. Other cryonicists may simply be indifferent to religion or may actively embrace it.

The question you have to ask yourself is if you want to further your more immediate goal of personal survival through cryonics through cooperation with cryonicists who don't share your longer term goal of the triumph of science over religion to achieve your shared goal of personal survival through cryonics. Maybe you think that is a good partnership. Maybe you do not. I think either decision on that is fine, and it is yours to make.

And, no, I do not think it makes sense to appease people like CBurger

I think I've heard this same use of the word "appeasement" by political leaders who wanted me to support empowering them to pursue certain goals without questioning for myself whether I wanted to achieve those goals or not.

(?) who might believe in dualism, religion, vitalism or any other fairy tale, only educate them. Esp. if your long term goal is bettering the human condition,

You know, what constitutes a better human condition is very subjective, individual, and personal. Take my football example above. More, or less of it? The only objective criteria I know to measure on the question is the degree to which people get to make the decision for themselves.

What I fear is Christianity perceiving it as a threat. The power that religion holds over governments and thier policy can have severe ramifications for us. The religious right in the US has already set back medicine 20 years thanks to thier misguided beliefs. I can't pick on Christianity specifically though, many of the most evil acts man has ever inflicted upon one another has been done in the name of a 'god'.

And your solution is what, Stockholm Syndrome? Appeasing the hostage takers? Intellectual cowardice? Enabling these monsters as the moderates do? It is exactly this path we do not want to go down.

My proposed solution is a truce where nobody gets to force their way on other people and nobody gets what they want at the expense of others. I abhor and repudiate control by religious people and non-religious people. People ought to have the freedom to not be hitched to other people who are radically different from them.

In the context of cryonics that means anyone can start a cryonics org with inclusive or exclusive policies if they choose, and you can pick the org that you feel best matches your concerns. That might mean everyone flocks to an atheist-only org and the handful of religious cryonicists are left in the cold. I mean left in the warm. Whatever. If that is the case, so be it, they certainly don't have the right to their personal survival at your expense.

But it might also mean you have to cooperate with people who don't share your long-term goals in order to meet your more immediate goals of personal survival.

[kismet]

As far as I can tell, there is no empirical evidence that the most uncompromising (science) educators and/or atheists of recent times have been the least effective in the promotion of science and reason. As for example, Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, Hitchens; Harris*, Dennett*; Hawkings ; ORAC & co, Thunderfoot and even Condell. Which argues that such an approach might work for the promotion of cryonics as well as for this debate.

*presumably, they are still on my reading list

Personally, I feel I'm quite effective when I am uncompromising - usually bashing and debunking supplement hype - and most of all I enjoy intellectual honesty. I would have to lie to be diplomatic.

The pros have been aptly summarised for atheism, but it will apply to attitudes towards all irrational beliefs:
"[They] are telling it like they see it. They are speaking what they believe to be the truth, and refuse to self-censor.

Many other advantages have been postulated for having an uncompromising attitude:

- The shifting of the Overton Window;
- The slow dismantling of the reflexive societal “belief in belief”
- The tactical value of playing the role of the “boogeyman” in negotiations;
- The enhanced visibility and how that presents opportunities to discuss topics that were once taboo;
- The strength that similar-minded individuals can gain from a sense of community
…and so many more." (stuartvo)

Neither do I see evidence that you have to be ineffective by compromising, accomodating, appeasing...
Two things can go wrong, though, one is to exclusively or overly rely on this approach and the second is to insist that it is the only viable approach and telling the truth as you see it should be prohibited, that "we" should shut up.

But there are reasons why I actively favour the uncompromising approach more often than not, as it pertains to this thread:

1. I maintain that your argument in favour of compatibility between cryonics and faith is wrong for a number of literal and semi-literal world views or would be at least non-sensical in that context
2. Even if you are right for a particular belief system (e.g. mainstream catholicism), many people will dismiss your view out of hand
3. If they accept it, you will not have changed much at all about the underlying ideology - this will come back to bite you.

Note, the issue is political, religious or at least it has such underpinnings. Especially for the common believer, which people like you, sophisticated and educated believers, philosophers and theologians, seem to completely forget. A lot of people do believe something along the lines of what the vatican says plus a mischmach of many different ideas including very unscientific notions, literal interpretations of 'holy texts', conservative and outdated ideas. None of them ever heard your argument in favour of compatibility and when they do it they may simply reject it out of hand by a technique called doublethink, eh, I mean compartmentalisation and fear.

We must destroy the source of and reason for doublethink. That would solve most of the problems.

"People can discuss questions of medicine and science in a mostly rational framework. If a discussion turns political or religious, forget it. The dialog will be effectively over."
As I said, in many a case the discussion is ideological per definition or will be taken as such. However, I can echo your sentiment, but paradoxically this does not mean invoking religion loses your argument!
It is the classical fence-sitter counter-argument: if your mention of religion is justified, you may lose the person you were talking to, but they probably set out to make their opinion heard and convert others, not to be converted in the first place. No, we should simply make a sound argument. Period. The lurkers probably outnumber the responders 1:10 to 1:100 and our argument aims to convince readers who may be "on the fence", which it might do if it reveals the ignorance, helplessness and irrationality of a believer.

Ad. 3:
Mainline religions are anti-scientific, this thread is just one facet. Just see what the religious have done when in power and, yes, a lot if not most of this is ideologically driven and harms both cryonics and life extension:

Bans on research involving embryos (stem cells)
illegalisation of voluntary euthanasia
defunding science in general, esp. anything that may be loosely defined as "playing god"
embracing so many anti-scientific beliefs ex cathedra - the vatican, for example, has NOT come to terms with evolution nor cosmology nor epistemology nor philosophy in any meaningful way, only watered down versions of them and cherry-picked aspects.

intricate links between Abrhamitic religions and strong conservative, far right and luddite beliefs (cannot get one w/o the other, actual causality is irrelevant)
including almost all Neo-Luddite and conservative beliefs, what do you think the monstrous Bush and Kass era was about? They are mentally deranged *and* depend on religious votes and have always made it clear that their policies were driven by their beliefs either directly or indirectly

diversion of resources towards holy wars (incl. the "war on terror" for the most part, as per Bush himself) and worship
exploitation and abuse of developing countries (e.g. pro-AIDS propaganda, missionizing)
degradation of half the populace to subhuman beings, "women ain't shit" policies - very popular among the Abrahamitic religions

The crimes are innumerable.

--

So by being nice and diplomatic, in the end, you will have changed very little. Perhaps only aiming for the destruction of organised religion and superstition, without losing your current goal out of sight (!), will advance cryonics as much as you would like: I would tell it as it is "religion as you currently practise it, is fundamentally incompatible with science and therefore cryonics; [if being diplomatic say:] at most the compatibility w/ your is partial or superficial"
"if your belief conflicts with cryonics or reality for that matter, shed it!"
"if your belief makes you support organised religion and superstition you are implicitly supporting their crimes against cryonics, science and humanity"

So much for debating strategy.

Edited by kismet, 22 December 2010 - 11:35 AM.

[Fundie]

Just see what the religious have done when in power

The problem, then, would be in allowing those people to have power.

[Fundie]

Bans on research involving embryos (stem cells)

Lack of public funding is not a ban.

defunding science in general,

I missed the part where you proved why science should be funded at other people's expense.

[kismet]

I am not sure I understand what you are arguing, much less what you think I am arguing. The gravest misconception should be cleared up to begin with:

That may be true about science.

But I thought the goal of cryonics was personal survival so that the survivors can pursue their own personal goals. I didn't think the goal of cryonics was the advancement of science or the end of religion or whatever.

Most cryonicists will be into science, but it really does not matter. Cryonics is science and does and will continue to rely on science. Medicine, philosophy and political science, cryobiology, biogerontology, engineering. All of this must fall in its place if your goal is survival.

You know, what constitutes a better human condition is very subjective, individual, and personal. Take my football example above. More, or less of it? The only objective criteria I know to measure on the question is the degree to which people get to make the decision for themselves.

No, not really as you went on to show yourself. Either you take the fact that humans are individuals and absolute moral standards can't exist as a reason in favour of absolute relativism (nothing can ever mean anything in any sense of the word - eternal war and torment must be indistinguishable from peace). Or you concede that some things are objectively right or wrong, good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, desirable or undesirable for some people at some times. Or for most people at most times.
What are these things? Human biology, nature and history provide evidence (note: not mere speculation). And you could not be more mistaken if you believe it is just freedom. It is plain happiness and well-being; freedom is necessary but not sufficient. We know a lot about the factors that make people happy, through science. We also know that science has been a driving factor for improved well-being and more freedom.

Given this knowledge we ask the question whether religion is a net benefit or negative? And specifically we ask the question about its relationship with science (cryonics), which I tried to answer in the above post.

Bans on research involving embryos (stem cells)

Lack of public funding is not a ban.

First, there is a world beyond the USA(!)
Second, semantics do not matter. Hindering legitimate research based on religion is tyrannical, illogical and may well be a breach of the First Amendment or the spirit of the law. (and it is highly on topic as it harms science, life extension & cryonics)
Third, even a mere ban of public funding would be tyrannical and diametrically opposed to a free society where people themselves can choose whether they fund research (if they personally invest money) or want to benefit from certain research.

I missed the part where you proved why science should be funded at other people's expense.

So did I. Who argued for that? (unless you mean taxes)

And the same goes for your first response to my post. Perhaps I was really unclear, but you argued against quite a lot of things I never said explicitly nor even implicitly.

Edited by kismet, 22 December 2010 - 07:06 PM.

[Luke Parrish]

I like the approach of Luke M. on Common Sense Atheism. He is non-confrontational but not accomodationalistic. He is also a follower of the empirically based theory of morality called Desirism, which he explains pretty well.

[bgwowk]

Perhaps in this discussion there needs to be a distinction between the macro vs. the micro. On a macro level, it may be true that there would be more support for cryonics in a society of atheists rather than theists. For someone whose goal is to transform society in such a manner, perhaps uncompromising atheism serves that objective.

However on a micro level, the level of educating individual people about cryonics or life extension, attacking religion is completely unproductive. I've convinced at least two religious people to sign up for cryonics through personal dialog. They certainly would have had no interest in the idea if explanations of it began with challenges to their religious beliefs. The same is true for all the people with religious beliefs whom cryonics organizations must deal with on daily basis to function. Framing cryonics as a challenges to religious beliefs rather than a medical idea would create completely unnecessary social obstacles.

Edited by bgwowk, 24 December 2010 - 09:12 AM.

[Luke Parrish]

It seems like the empirical evidence points to organized religions being slightly negative (though not necessarily hostile) to cryonics. For example, see this 2007 thread on Catholic Answers forum. At the minimum we can say that religion takes away from one's motivation to accomplish much in the transhumanist movement.

Most people I talk to about cryonics are not openly religious. A few like Fundie are. I'm not sure if his is a soul sleep denominational background. I would imagine a denomination favoring soul sleep which does not specifically favor a near-term second coming would be ideal.

Just like prayer is expected to help with cancer recovery, prayer would also be expected to help ensure a good cryopreservation and reanimation with less memory loss. Maintaining one's faith in God would be a great concern, and a Christian would tend to write letters and make videos encouraging their future self to believe. Christian theology would also tend to predict that on the final resurrection day any missing memories will be replaced, just as with any form of brain damage such as Alzheimer's. However their painful memories would be made less painful to them after resurrection, according to a passage in Revelation where God wipes all their tears away.

Some specific religious ideas to challenge would be the belief in instant transport to heaven for the dead (which Seventh Day Adventists have some compelling scriptural arguments against, based on the book of Ecclesiastes) and the near-term second coming (which is scripturally speaking unknowable to any of us, as only the Father knows the day or the hour). Reanimation should be emphasized as a mundane medical continuation of life, not a theological event -- the resurrection of the dead should be considered a distinct event further in the future. Near term reanimation would be a wonderful blessing to a Christian (like cancer going into remission) but not a supernatural miracle.

I'm speaking of the mainstream Christian perspective. More fringe groups and possibly cults will probably arise who think Cryonics is a form of Resurrection or the Singularity is the same as the Second Coming. However I think most mainstream Christians will consider these to be theologically bankrupt and unbiblical positions.

[Mind]

I shouldn't be amazed by this, but I am. Cryonicists are sooooo far ahead of the general public and medical community regarding the definition of death that it is emabarrassing.

Recent article in Newscientist expressing surprise that a cold body can come back to life.

Edited by Mind, 21 October 2011 - 06:29 PM.