They do. What else would we use the word 'reality' to mean? I'm not seeing any alternative here (infinite recursion on the concept of 'reality' doesn't count as a solution.)

Practical General: always shop around for a lawyer. Use google to find specialists in the relevant field, the more familiar he is with what you need done the more effective (including cost-effective) he will be in doing it.

Practical Specific: this area of law is likely unsettled and whatever is worked out beyond a garden variety will is likely to not have much practical effect on your remains getting where they need to be in a timely manner. To ensure expeditious handling of your remains you probably should make sure that you maintain close connections with reliable people who are well apprised of your wishes (and that those wishes are clearly documented, this is a simple matter of creating a will that a trust and estates lawyer should be able to advise you of cheaply).

Theoretical: Does one increase one's chances of reanimation more by signing up and planning for cryonization or by allocating an equivalent amount of resources to bringing about AGI?

So, right at the beginning of this thread, you meant 'direct'. And you never corrected this misunderstanding, even after I repeatedly talked about indirect realism in my replies?

If you have a point then lay it out. Set a context, make your claims and challenge mine. Expose your beliefs and accept the risks.

I lay out my claims to you because I want you to challenge them from your perspective. I will not follow your leading questions to your chosen point of philosophical ambush.

I assume you mean indirect realism, since that's what that quote is about.

Am I to take it, then, that you would approve of a statement revised to read:

"Indirect realism is broadly equivalent to the view that states that we can know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is, and cannot obtain any knowledge directly from reality."

This one line response seems generally repetitive to your others. It isn't obvious to me that you are making an effort to address my challenge to your claim that 'experience itself is certain to exist'. If you would like to address that please do, otherwise it seems that we are done.

The primary nature of first person experience

...

we do not and cannot perceive the external world as it really is but know only our ideas and interpretations of the way the world is. -- wikipedia article

Nope, that's exactly what is explicitly claimed.

I believe that the answer depends on the perspective I adopt. This is the answer that makes sense from my current perspective.

If I model what I understand of your perspective within myself I would say that of course all my learning proceeds from some form of sensory experience, other claims are nonsensical.

With another model: The brain structures related to learning depend on more than just sensory experience, they also depend on the action of our DNA, gene networks, the limits of energy availability along with many other factors.

But why does the answer have to sensical from your perspective?

With another model: There is a process called MUP which is imparts knowledge in any form to the human mind. This is a process that by definition is any possible process not included by 'sensory experience' as defined by shiftedShapes. In other words MUP is any possible process, or perspective on a process that leads to learning beyond your claims about 'sensory experience'. Not being about to think of any examples of MUP does not disprove that MUP exists.

With another model: Blue hat.

Without full access to all possible perspectives of my implementation, how would I know for certain?

I can certainly adopt a perspective that describes how all learning proceeds through my sensory experience. But the identification of this pattern from my adopted limited perspective does not actually exclude other possible perspectives.

I'm not arguing that your model of sensory experience is wrong; I actually believe it has great descriptive value. I'm arguing that it is limited by and dependent on the context from which it appears to emerge.

I am arguing against your claims of certainty, in their various forms.

Thinking that you have the ability to give up magical thinking might be magical thinking...