[extropy-chat] Cryonics Without Comprehensive Brain Disassembly? (was cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly?-No)

[Brett Paatsch]

> > =============================================
> > > [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
> > > > disassembly 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 Nominated Dictionary:
> >  www.m-w.com
> >
>>  [Other online ref material to be added here]
> >
> > ================================================

> 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.

Ok, Thanks. I've added the dictionary. Lets see if by using this dialog
approach we can both get at the truth. Let's also see if we can do it in
a way that lays a trail that an interested but sceptical person with an
IQ of 100 could follow. I am that interested sceptical person. And I
really do not think that it is possible for cryonics to work without
comprehensive brain disassembly, although I am willing to be persuaded
if you can do it. There IS skin in this game for both of us.

Your role is to be the sole maker of your case. You can use any online
resources you can show me because they are online and checkable
relatively quickly (not just by me but by readers) and any arguments
that others may have given you or helped you formulate in the past
(or indeed, as we go but outside the thread please). Because we want
a sort of Socratic dialog that is easy to follow. Not just the truth but
the clear truth.

If we are going to do this we need to start the dialog at a beginning.
Perhaps we should let this post be the beginning (readers may not
go back).

If this is okay with you lets get into it with the understanding that
both of us have to stop from time to time. Its not important to get
a fast answer - we both have lives.

> 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 have a problem right off the bat. I think cryonics is not a science.
I note the reference dictionary says

"cryonics - the practice of freezing a dead diseased human in hopes
of restoring life at some future time when a cure for the disease has
been developed."

We may agree on a more satisfactory definition of cryonics to you
than that, but I can't agree that cryonics is a science. It is a purported
potential procedure.

> 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. #1  That is not
> the same as asserting that disassembly will *never* be required. #2

#1 Agreed on our respective assertions. Except, within reason, you
have the burden of proof not me. If cryonics is not meaningfully
differentiated from other options offered by religious traditions
then the default optioms will continue to be chosen.

#2 Perhaps not. I don't really understand what you are getting at there.
 If your conceding that at some point every currently living person that
undergoes a cryonics procedure will require comprehensive biological
brain disassembly at some stage after the commencement of that
procedure when the decision is made to commence it, then this is
pointless as you are agreeing with me before we begin. If you are
simply seeking to make clear that your not claiming comprehesive
disassembly won't be required in some cases that's fine and understood
and we've a reason to proceed. My contention is it will be required in
all cases where one starts with biological brains in living people like
we have now.

> We have been living with the fact that people have not done their
> homework (with respect to nanotech *or* cryonics) for decades.

I don't think thats the problem. But if your right I'm giving you an
opportunity to show it with respect to cryonics. I'm giving you a
person willing to do reasonable homework (look at online refs etc)
and listen to your arguments.

> So if we are going to debate this, let us start with the dictionaries
> and extend the definitions (such as "disassembly") as required.

Let's. You have a willing, listening audience (me). And a chance
to make your case.

> 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".

Yes. That's the idea.

Regards,
Brett Paatsch