Arran_Stirton comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 2 - Less Wrong

15 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 20 April 2012 07:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (208)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 22 April 2012 12:44:36AM 9 points [-]

Well, that doesn't seem too difficult -

(one that doesn't originate with a cryonics institute)

Oh.

So, who exactly do you expect to be doing this analysis? The most competent candidates are the cryobiologists, and they are ideologically committed to cryonics not working* and have in the past demonstrated their dishonesty**.

* Literally; I understand the bylaw banning any cryonicists from the main cryobiology association is still in effect. ** eg. by claiming on TV cryonics couldn't work because of the 'exploding lysosomes post-death' theory, even after experiments had disproven the theory.

Comment author: Arran_Stirton 22 April 2012 06:49:39PM *  0 points [-]

So, who exactly do you expect to be doing this analysis?

No idea. Particularly if all cryobiologists are so committed to discrediting cryonics that they'll ignore/distort the relevant science. I'm not sure how banning cryonicists* from the cryobiology association is a bad thing though. Personally I think organisations like the American Psychiatric Association should follow suit and ban all those with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.

I just want to know how far cryonics needs to go in preventing information-theoretic death in order to allow people to be "brought back to life" and to what extent current cryonics can fulfil that criterion.

* This is assuming that by cryonicists you mean people who work for cryonics institutes or people who support cryonics without having an academic background in cryobiology.

Comment author: gwern 22 April 2012 06:58:39PM 2 points [-]

This is assuming that by cryonicists you mean people who work for cryonics institutes or people who support cryonics without having an academic background in cryobiology.

No.

Comment author: Arran_Stirton 22 April 2012 07:31:13PM 0 points [-]

So the by-law bans anyone sympathetic to cryonics?

Comment author: [deleted] 22 April 2012 07:36:53PM 2 points [-]
Comment author: Arran_Stirton 22 April 2012 08:17:27PM 0 points [-]

Thanks!

I'm starting to suspect that my dream of finding an impartial analysis of cryonics is doomed to be forever unfulfilled...

Comment author: David_Gerard 23 April 2012 06:15:37PM -1 points [-]

There are cryobiologists who are cryonicists, e,g. the authors of this paper.

Comment author: gwern 23 April 2012 06:49:13PM 1 point [-]

The paper does not mention cryonics, nor does the lead author's bio mention being a member of the Society for Cryobiology.