I'm not an expert on cryonics, but it seems obvious to me that simulating the body (to the level of detail needed to support cognition) is orders of magnitude easier than simulating the brain. Do you think a more substantial response than this is needed?
I think his objection is more about what body in particular is being simulated. As two examples, I've been doing martial arts for years, and massage for decades. I'm not sure how much of my somatic ability and characteristics is completely within my brain, and how much is in my peripheral nervous system, muscles, etc.
I don't know of any conclusive studies showing one way or the other whether Alcoring my entire body is worth twice as much as just doing my head.
Many approaches to cryonics assume that a detailed map of the neural patterns in a brain (via brain scanning technology) may be sufficient, using future technology, to bring that person "back to life." But cognition is greatly shaped by more than just the neural pattern: it is shaped by biology - by the body. (See Noe 2009; Pfeifer et al. 2006; Lakoff & Johnson 1999.)
I admit I'm pretty unfamiliar with the cryonics literature. I assume this is a standard objection, and has standard responses. Where can I find those responses?
Thanks!