Up till this I had been in two minds about whether to go for head-only or full-body suspension. It now seems that full-body is the better option, warranting the extra cost. Thanks.
This is a great day for me for at least three reasons:
1. I got a sensible response from someone on the Extropians list.
2. The Alexa traffic ranking for our website <http://www.buildfreedom.com/>
is up to #13,783, meaning that there are only 12,782 websites that get more
traffic. [<http://www.free-market.net/> ranks #23,891;
(Advocates for Self-Government) ranks #30,360; <http://www.lp.org/> (National Libertarian Party) ranks #30,859; <http://www.extropy.com/~exi/> ranks #49,280.]
3. Mike Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> posted the message below to the Advanced Freedom Solutions list <http://www.buildfreedom.com/afslist.htm?>, demonstrating not only that he's achieved what I call level-3 freedom but also that he can communicate effectively about it.
> It is interesting to note how pervasive the limiting and enslaving
>conceptual paradigm I shall call "civilization" truly is, even in the realm
>of ideas aimed at escaping or waking up from this "civilization". Various
>freedom "philosophies" abound- for many of us, these seemingly radical ideas
>were the first indicators that "civilization" is evil. "Libertarianism",
>"Objectivism", "Patriotism", and almost all other freedom oriented
>philosophies appear to help us leave the current "civilization" meta-model.
>A quick example could illustrate how exactly the opposite might be possible.
> Think back to "civilization": recall the activity identified as "voting".
>You could "vote" Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or for some other
>"independent" wanna-be bureaucrat. Or you could not vote at all. Now
>consider: which option truly furthers your freedom? Some might argue that
>you should at least vote Libertarian. Most on this list might consider not
>voting at all as the best route.
> Consider the possibility that there is no such thing as "voting"! You can
>go inside a box and make a few check marks on a piece of paper (or pull some
>levers); but what does this mean? Absolutely nothing, unless you view your
>actions from the context of the "civilization" paradigm. How would you
>explain that these check marks on paper constitute "votes" to an alien? The
>very concepts which we employ internally to describe our selves and the
>world we create/perceive are the basis of the "civilization" we are vaguely
>aware of and are trying to escape. Debating "voting", "laws", "philosophy",
>what is "right", or any number of absurdities only further ensconces your
>mind in an illusory "civilization".
> Back to "Libertarianism", "Objectivism" and the lot: the root concepts
>used to formulate these conceptual constructs only serve to continually
>enforce the "civilization" they aim to alter or avoid. It is possible that
>the level-1 freedom ideas that seem to be such beacons of clarity and hope
>at one point might actually be the most difficult hooks and blindspots to
>engage. These are the ideas that led many to consider the possibility of
>freedom, and as such, carry a great emotional, and perhaps intellectual,
>value to some. When you are determined not to "vote", you cannot see that
>"voting" exists only as an illusory and false construct in your mind....
> Freespeak involves much more than simply ceasing to use certain concepts
>as if they were valid (IMHO). It is the personal creation of a new internal,
>descriptive lexicon. It is perhaps the ultimate unlearning/learning process.
>To employ Freespeak internally might require a complete evaluation of
>perception, and then a new mode of thought, built with a bottom-up approach
>from this fresh perceptual perspective. The written and auditory symbolism
>we use store and convey this new conceptual model might resemble the
>language of "civilization", but the associated concepts cannot remain the
>same. Freespeak might not simply be a new and different paradigm to replace
>the "civilization" paradigm; what we refer to as Freespeak might be the
>absence of paradigms, as our minds have evolved to function.
[I don't think we can operate without paradigms. Freespeak reflects a paradigm different from Slavespeak -- #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07a.htm>.]
At 10:27 AM 7/12/99 -0700, "Lee Daniel Crocker"
<email@example.com (none)> wrote:
>> If the heart consists of 60-65% brain, what are the implications
>> for head-only cryonic suspension?
>Head-only cryonic suspension has always been dubious (beyond the
>level that cryonics itself is) even without this. This particular
>"thinking with the heart" story is almost certainly a meaningless
>extrapolation from a small discovery motivated by mysticism, but
>that doesn't mean all such notions are nonsense.
>The idea that "brains think, hearts just pump" is a black-and
>white dichotomy of function characteristic of designed systems,
>not evolved systems. Evolved systems don't work like that; every
>part interferes with every other part, everything has multiple
>functions and side effects, and everything works together for
>hard-to-see reasons, because that's just how it evolved.
>The properly skeptical viewpoint is that we cannot yet rule out
>the possibility that some interesting part of who we are exists
>below the neck. We have made a few observations: amputees can
>still speak and reason, so we can say with some confidence that
>it is very unlikely that some part of language and reason is
>perfomed in the limbs. Heart transplant patients wake up thinking
>that they are the same people with similar thoughts. But their
>personalities certainly do change--as do all of ours every day--
>and we have few ways to measure that or know how to find reasons
>Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
>"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
>are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
>for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC