[extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch (commenting on some of my comments)
wrote some of the following:

[I'm leaving in the comments between ==== for the sake of recreating
context as Brett has requested.]

> =============================================
> > [Background:]
> > > >> >... what separates cryonics (that posits that the self can survive
> > > >> > the disassembly of  the brain in which one currently experiences
> > > >> > it) from religious systems that believe the same thing?  Isn't it a
> > > > > > case of pick your belief-poison?
> >
> > > [Robert]
> > > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Therefore:
> > >
> > > Your asserted that:  "cryonics does *not* strictly require the
> > > dissassembly of the brain".
> > >
> > > I asserted that it does.  That's binary. You've taken one position
> > > with your "perception".  I have taken the other with mine.
> > >
> > > Do we agree on this much?
> >
> > Yep, we agree that there are (at least) two positions.
>
> Robert's chosen online dictionary:
>
> ================================================
> >  [One could get into complicated hair-splitting with regard to what
> > "disassembly" means that might produce more positions.]
>
> Quite so. This is true of many words so I want you to find and provide
> the link to an online english dictionary of your choice in your next post
> to this thread. Then put it above the = line. We can use the definitions
> in that as a common base and improve or coin words between us as
> we need to.

I would generally prefer wikipedia.org for complex topics.  For simple
word definitions I use www.m-w.com, or sometimes dictionary.com.  I
have not checked any of these sites to see whether I agree or disagree
with definitions related to this conversation.

> The average voter might have time to look at an online dictionary if
> your talking to them and they ask you to provide it help keep you on
> track. The average voter won't let you redefine ever word you and
> they use while they put their life on hold indefinately.

I'm not going out of my way to redefine things.  There are a whole host
of variables with respect to cryonics that make it an inexact science
at this point (how long the patient was "dead" before they were cooled,
the precise cooling protocol used, the amount of damage the cooling protocol
entailed, the reanimation technologies that will be available at various
times in the future, etc.).  I believe this conversation revolves around
your assertion that the brain must be disassembled in order to either
(a) be reassembled; or (b) have its information extracted from it.
It is my assertion that there are likely to be circumstances and/or
technologies which eliminate the need for disassembly.  That is not
the same as asserting that disassembly will *never* be required.

... regarding different knowledge bases ...
> Then one would have one's own view of those things. And if many did
> and agreed with you your problems might be substantially over - but
> that ain't happening.

We have been living with the fact that people have not done their
homework (with respect to nanotech *or* cryonics) for decades.
I was in the primary auditorium at NIH on May 4th and it was
abundantly clear that the people managing the construction of
the NIH Roadmap on Nanomedicine as well as most of the 400
PhDs and MDs in the room had *not* read the fundamental literature
on nanomedicine and nanotechnology.

So if we are going to debate this, let us start with the dictionaries
and extend the definitions (such as "disassembly") as required.  It
might perhaps be useful to look at this from the framework of writing
a paper to serve as a guide for both people considering cryonics as
well as an educational tool for the "disbelievers".

Robert