Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 21:34:40 EST
Posted: Mon Mar 11 21:34:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 22:46:43 EST
References: <804@topaz.ARPA> <509@ahutb.UUCP>, <4237@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
REFERENCES: <804@topaz.ARPA> <509@ahutb.UUCP>, <4237@ucla-cs.ARPA>
> In article <509@ahutb.UUCP> leeper@ahutb.UUCP (m.leeper) writes:
> > ... The at-death-experience is one of the least interesting
> >implications they could follow. ...
> Oh, come on now. The question of what happens when a man dies can
> hardly be considered uninteresting.
No, but it is less interesting than any number of other ideas they
touched on but passed up. What it would do to our understanding of
animal intelligence and psychology would have been more interesting.
What it would do to human relations, what it would do to defense
technology, what it would do to psychiatric treatment, to the
entertainment industry, all these were ideas picked up and then
abandoned. By rights, this should have been BRAINSTORM I, first of a
long series to how the world would be completely transformed by this
one tool. I do find the at-death experience of some interest, but
there is so much more that could be done with the premise given time!