= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
passive_fist comments on Why I haven't signed up for cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (249)
So are you saying that this key data includes delicate fine molecular information, which is why it cannot be preserved with current tech?
Nope, I'm not saying that. There are many systems that both don't depend on fine molecular information, and also are easier to restore from being vitrified than to restore from being burned to ash.
Would you agree with shminux's reply then?
Certainly shminux's reply isn't what I had in mind initially, if that's what you mean.
As for whether I agree with it on its own terms... I'm not sure. Certainly I lack sufficient neurochemical domain knowledge to make meaningful estimates here, but I'm not as sure as they sound that everyone does.
No one yet knows what the data substrate includes or how much of it has to be preserved for meaningful revival. For all we know, a piece of neocortex dropped into liquid nitrogen might do the trick in a pinch. Or maybe not even the best current cryo techniques would be enough. But it is not really possible to give a meaningful estimate, as cryonics does not appear to be in any reference class for which well-calibrated predictions exist.