A view on cryonics (was Re: [extropy-chat] Bad Forecasts!)

[Hal Finney]

I always enjoy these discussions.  Issues of identity are difficult,
and as Brett's arguments point out, have actual relevance today for
those of us who might be considering signing up for cryonics.

To Brett I would ask, what is it about modern cryonics that makes you
confident that you would not survive?  More specifically, if there were
a treatment which put cells into suspended animation but did less damage
to them, would that be acceptable to you?

In Engines, Drexler described a hypothetical nanotech based form of
suspended animation.  Nanomachines would enter cells and shut them down
in a more or less orderly fashion.  Large molecules would be tagged and
attached to each other via sticky cross-links.  Light molecules like
water could be removed.  The whole thing could then be reduced to low
temperature so that chemical reactions would be effectively arrested.

In one sense, this does terrible damage to the cell.  Cells in this
suspended state would have little resemblance to living, active cells.
But in another sense, there is no actual damage, unlike modern day
cryonics.  Cells would no longer be ripped open and shredded to bits,
having to be reconstructed from scratch.  The actual molecules would
remain in the cells where they were before, at least the large molecules.
Water and other small molecules would be replaced, but they have a pretty
high turnover rate in biological cells anyway.

How would you evaluate this kind of treatment?  What are the specific
tests you would apply in any form of cellular transformation, to decide
whether it would preserve your identity?

Hal