You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Mitchell_Porter comments on Alcor vs. Cryonics Institute - Less Wrong Discussion

27 Post author: prespectiveCryonaut 09 April 2012 01:49AM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 30 April 2012 09:13:06AM 1 point [-]

I am a cryoskeptic because I don't believe the pattern theory of identity, but in any case, it seems that this is a rather important issue for people who do, and who are seeking cryonic suspenstion. This thread (and Mike Darwin's blog) are full of detailed histories and analysis about numerous aspects of cryonics. But I don't see an analysis anywhere of how the organizations rate, when evaluated specifically from the perspective that atomic-scale mapping and reconstruction/simulation of the suspended brain will become possible, and that this is enough for personal survival. If we assume this to be true, and if we put aside considerations about the relative ability of cryonics organizations to keep their patients frozen - just focusing on the specific suspension procedures that they apply - how do they rate? Are any of them "not good enough", even by these assumptions? Or do they all get a pass?