From: Max More (max@maxmore.com)
Date: Fri Jul 12 2002 - 09:39:36 MDT
At 04:08 AM 7/12/2002 -0400, Eliezer wrote:
>Actually, if we're allowed to do a postmortem of the talk - not that I'm
>saying anyone could have done better on-the-fly - one thing that stuck in
>my mind was in the beginning, when you were asked "Why do you believe in
>cryonics?" and you replied "Well, I try not to 'believe in' anything" or
>something along those lines. I thought about this afterward, searching
>for a response that wouldn't trigger 'nihilism' cues; the best I could
>come up with was: "Cryonics is not a matter of faith or believing in
>something. It's a calculated risk."
Yes, that's a good approach. There is also the old standby -- cryonics is
the second worst thing that can happen to you. However, the latter is
better when you can follow up with more explanation, otherwise an audience
might be left with the impression that it's just about *as* bad as the
worst thing.
I also like the analogy to an ambulance ride, where suspension is
essentially an ambulance ride through time rather than space. I'm not sure
that would have been particularly effective in the Crossfire context though.
Max
_______________________________________________________
Max More, Ph.D.
max@maxmore.com or more@extropy.org
http://www.maxmore.com
Strategic Philosopher
President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org <more@extropy.org>
_______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:22 MST