[ExI] Cryonics is getting weird

Dave Sill sparge at gmail.com
Tue May 18 19:55:10 UTC 2010


2010/5/18 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> 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?

Sorry about the typo. Yes, it does depend. I haven't seen this man's
Alcor contract. Have you?

> You don't show up if
> you contract to fight fires after the house is burned down.

If the contract says that once notified the house is on fire that I'm
to get there ASAP and spray water on it until it's out, then that's
what I'll do. If the house is still burning when I get there, I'm
gonna spray, regardless of whether it's "obvious" that the house is a
total loss and I'm wasting my time, making a mess, and embarrassing
the firefighting profession.

> That brain is now useless mush.

Almost certainly.

Almost.

If it was *my* almost certainly useless mush, I'd still want it preserved.

>> 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.

I disagree. Do you have any evidence for your claim?

> You can't reanimate a person whose brain has already decayed away either.
> Precisely my point.

And my point is that nobody knows if the brain has "decayed away"
until it's exhumed and examined.

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

You presume it's utterly pointless without actually examining the
brain. You also ignore other possible benefits of this action, such as
discouraging other families from blocking cryopreservation, that make
it less than pointless.

-Dave




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list