I already stated that I disregarded the last link for lack of evidence that the source is trustworthy (published papers and the like).

I don't see where you said that. And even given that, I find that response to be deeply confusing. We are talking about this post http://lesswrong.com/lw/1rv/demands_for_particular_proof_appendices/) yes? That post has nothing to do with specific claims of evidence. It is a self-contained argument about what sorts of arguments are or are not valid when discussing cryonics, or for that matter, when discussing any future technology. I don't see what trustworthiness has to do with the arguments there. Can you point to specific claims in that post that you would want to be backed up by evidence that isn't there?

Actually to be fair cryonics has to many single points of failure yet to be avoided to make deciding about it any thing more then a total crapshoot.

I'll refrain from quoting The Princess Bride but what do you mean by "to be fair" in that sentence? Normally when that phrase is used people are mentioning an argument which goes against the position that they are arguing for, or to clarify that a position being argued against is not the position of some relevant source. How are you using that phrase?

In general, telling Bayesians that something is a "total crapshoot" isn't generally helpful. We can make estimates for technologies.

Who knows but this falls in the realm of a problem with to many unknowns making it impossible to answer. So I say anyone claiming otherwise is claiming based on blind faith not on reason.

But there are many things which aren't unknown. We have a pretty decent understanding of how brain tissue functions. We know that synapses (barring acousting fractures resulting in large sheering) are by and large intact. Many things aren't unknowns. And this really doesn't help given that even most proponents of cryonics agree that the chance of revival may not be very high. So where in any of that is there "blind faith?" Are you using the term "blind faith" in a non-standard fashion?

You guys like cryonics thats lovely I hope it works for you.

Another reason you are getting voted down may be the lack of grammar and spellchecking which reinforces the perception that you aren't putting much effort into your posts. One doesn't need perfect grammar and spelling. But many modern browsers have an option (often set as the default) so that words which are not in the spellchecker turn up with a red underline. "Thats" turns up red on Firefox for example. "That's" does not. Your sentence above could also use a few other punctuation marks. Two periods and a capitalization of the T would be nice.

Aside from the poor grammar, the most puzzling thing about this sentence is that it doesn't seem to fit in with your earlier attitude. I would find your remarks more believable if you switched from contempt to careful neutrally writing. But in this case, your sentence seems almost Pi radians from [your earlier position http://lesswrong.com/lw/2f5/cryonics_wants_to_be_big/28wx where you talked about "corpse popsicles" and talked about "popsicle people" being "e revived from popsicle land, which is the flip side of Mr Rogers neighborhood." Frankly, this looks like another attempt at emotionalism rather than rational argument, this time trying to appear like your attitudes are more sympathetic to pro-cryonics people than they are. Frankly, this attempt comes across as so clumsy it might be more damaging to the goal of getting people to listen to you than you would if you just kept up the "corpse popsicle" language.

Actually to be fair cryonics has to many single points of failure yet to be avoided to make deciding about it any thing more then a total crapshoot.

Are you stating a preference for allocating resources towards finding out whether it will work or not?

I can respect that. Let's make a deal. When you can get science to prove cryonics is not going to work, I will give up my intention to be cryopreserved.

As a side note, what if you knew the exact odds of it working, and it was say 1 in a million. Assuming that your life is worth 5 million dollars, would you put $5 towards cryonics?

Incorrect demanding further proof for an idea with as many single points of failure as cryonics is logical and sensible. The ability to make a rational decision means you need sufficient evidence of a sufficient quality to make you conclusions. Eliminate some more single points of failure from cryonics then maybe. Its like thinking you can solve a math problem with ten variables where you only have information and relations for two.

This paragraph seems very confused. You have made a decision, have you not? You have decided not to be cryopreserved. And you've made it with no more information than we have. The fact that your decision consists of deciding upon inaction, doesn't make it not a decision. Whether you choose to be cryopreserved or not, you have to choose one way or the other, albeit not necessarily explicitly. You are simultaneously claiming that a rational decision is impossible while arguing for your decision! It's not clear to me how that can be considered consistent. One of these choices is the "default" one, to be sure, but that's just a result of current circumstances; it's not inherent in the problem.

Furthermore you seem to be insisting that it is necessary to know cryonics works before considering it worthwhile. This is false; it is only necessary to assign it a sufficiently high probability of working to make it worth it. Ultimately, you look at the evidence you have, you assess a probability, and you make a decision based on that. Simply saying "we don't know" doesn't suffice to make a decision - in particular, it doesn't suffice to make the decision not to be cryopreserved any more than it suffices to make the decision to be cryopreserved. An actual probability is needed.

I also don't understand your claim that at sufficiently low levels of information, rational decision is impossible. What exactly do you propose as a way to make decisions at low information, how is it not rational, and how does it support the decision you've made not to be cryopreserved?

Incorrect demanding further proof for an idea with as many single points of failure as cryonics is logical and sensible. The ability to make a rational decision means you need sufficient evidence of a sufficient quality to make you conclusions. Eliminate some more single points of failure from cryonics then maybe.

You seem to be confusing matters. It might help to reread the essay about the particular proof demand. No one is arguing that more evidence wouldn't be a very good thing. I have my own list of things that I'd like to see. No one is arguing that one can't say "I want more evidence" or "A,B and C would convince me that this was worthwhile." What is a problem is when one your claims is "I want a demonstration of complete revival." And the problem with that is simple: no one is claiming that we are able to do that now or that we are anywhere near that capability. This would be as if we were discussing the possibility of eventually sending a very slow probe to Alpha Centauri fifty or a hundred years from now and one insisted that the only thing that mattered is whether you could see a working probe now. See the problem? One is making a demand for something which even if everything the tech proponent says is correct, they shouldn't be able to produce.

Incorrect demanding further proof for an idea with as many single points of failure as cryonics is logical and sensible. The ability to make a rational decision means you need sufficient evidence of a sufficient quality to make you conclusions. Eliminate some more single points of failure from cryonics then maybe.

Ok. So what are the single points of failure you want eliminated? Why don't you give a list of what you think the single points of failure are and then we can discuss whether those points are as severe as you think they are.

Moving on, you discuss the work with rat hippocampal material, you say:

This is very different then taking a dead brain and re-activating it. Just because the cells are viable doesn't mean you can restart the neural processes once stopped. Not to mention there is a huge amount of work to prove that which could be derailed easily.

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence. The first sentence is interesting because we know that neural processes can be restarted. For example, rats and dogs can be deprived of oxygen and brought to hypothermic temperatures so that brain activity is close to zero and then brought back up with minimal problems. Neural structure is pretty robust. To use what may be a weak analogy, it functions much more like a CPU than like RAM. This is well understood.

One organ revived and implanted in a living organism is a long way from some 100 year old corpse popsicle being revived from the dead. One in no way implies the other. (For gods sake have you ever actually studied biology)

The length of time of preservation is not very relevant. We know that at liquid nitrogen temperatures the vast majority of chemical reactions become negligible. So the "100 year old" part isn't relevant. I also don't think that anyone is claiming that these successful studies with rabbits imply that cryonics will work. To be very explicitly Bayesian P(cryonics working|rabbit kidneys can successfully be vitrified and revived with negligible damage) is greater than P(cryonics working).

(For gods sake have you ever actually studied biology)
In summary a swing and a miss from Roko.

It seems like you are personalizing this conversation unnecessarily. This does not help having an actual discussion where we each learn interesting things and come away with something useful. It is likely a major reason that you are getting voted down.

I have to wonder given your personal attacks above, and your apparent return to using the phrase "corpse popsicle" when even the simple "corpse" would get your point across, what are you attempting to accomplish? Are you trying to understand why some people here consider cryonics plausible or worth looking into? Are you trying to convince the individuals you are talking to that they shouldn't engage in cryonics? Are you trying to convince people who are not posting but might read that they shouldn't engage in cryonics? Are you trying to have an open exchange of ideas and information? It doesn't seem like your strategy would succeed at any of those things. So what is your goal?

I understand that there is work supporting the idea that cryonics/regeneration/etc. will eventually be successful. However, I don't feel the need to respond to this work very directly, because this work, after all, is very indirect, in the sense that it is only making plausibility arguments. As a cryonics skeptic, I am not attempting to rule out the plausibility or possibility of cryonics. After all, it seems fairly plausible that this stuff will eventually get worked out, as with the usual arguments for technological advancement. As a cryonics skeptic, I am only asserting that there is insufficient evidence that it will work for my personal freezing/revival to justify my substantial investment.

The response to this might be to claim that I am unfairly or erroneously making "demands for particular proof". I think that this point is an intelligent point, but that it is being somewhat abused or overused in this context. In areas like physics or biology, it is completely status-quo to believe nothing except that which has been shown by fairly direct evidence. You might even abstractly characterize the entirety of professional science as an area in which "demands for particular proof" are the centralizing, unifying, distinguishing feature. Seeing as how cryonics is essentially an area of physics and biology, I view it in much the same way. I expect to see more concrete proof of its ability before being willing to believe in it, invest in it, or rely on it for my supposed personal immortality.

The extent of qualification necessary to clearly convey a meaning on here is absolutely unfathomable. No, it's beyond unfathomable, it's really utter rubbish, it's exasperating and despicable how this happens almost every time one starts a substantive disagreement.

It's perfectly clear from context that I am referring to the entire cryonics refrigeration and revival process, but in case that wasn't clear, let that be clearly stated now. In case that was clear and it was intentionally or subconsciously disregarded, as I must shamefully and cynically suspect, then you can simply go fuck yourself.