[ExI] Cryonics is getting weird

[samantha]

Dave Sill wrote:
> 2010/5/17 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:
>   
>> Dave Sill wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think they're primarily making the point that you can't block them
>>> from doing their thing simply by delaying the process. They're also
>>> doing what they contractually agreed to do.
>>>       
>> No.  They agreed to cryonically preserve his brain to the best of current
>> art.
>>     
>
> So any delay in preservation means Alcor can just refuse to do it's
> job? I don't think so.
>
>   
Depends on what "its job" is defined to be doesn't it?  You don't show 
up if you contract to fight fires after the house is burned down.
>> That brain is now useless mush.
>>     
>
> We don't really know that, do we? Properly embalmed and stored in a
> sealed casket, it seems *possible* that sufficient structure could
> remain. Do you really want Alcor to just assume it's useless mush?
>
>   

Give me a break.  Scientifically we very much do know that.

>> This is the equivalent to digging up
>> a corpse because you agreed to marry the person before their untimely
>> death.
>>     
>
> No it isn't. You can't marry a dead person.
>   
You can't reanimate a person whose brain has already decayed away 
either.  Precisely my point.


>   
>>   It is gruesome slime smeared on cryonics.  I do not consider this a
>> "victory" in the slightest.
>>     
>
> Yeah, it's gruesome. So what? Cryopreservation shouldn't be skipped in
> cases where it's particularly icky.
>
>   

When it is utterly pointless and only gruesome is left it should.


- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100518/31d93521/attachment.html>