Creator & director : email rick_potvin@yahoo.com Cryonics-for-Connectomes or Connectome-Cryonics are equivalent terms for CryoConnectomics or cryoconnectomics. It's now the only cryonics that matters and it has not yet been proven viable-- but it's urgent to do so. It can also potentially falsify the entire cryonics thesis. It is to be distinguished from plastination, uploading and A.I. which is NOT cryonics and is of no interest to cryonicists qua cryonicists. Many cryonicists are also uploaders or transhumanists but cryonics itself is not interested in uploading by definition but rather reversible suspended animation which does require proof of survival of connectomes through vitrification. WAS MUHAMMED ALI FROZEN??? --- Rick Potvin along with Channel 5 in Phoenix will find out! -----Stay tuned!
 

 Return to Main forum page.  

Why luke didn't put conectomes into story

April 6 2013 at 12:11 AM
Rick55  (no login)


Response to Hayworth test

 

Flag this message
Re: Breaking News in ScienceSaturday, April 6, 2013 3:31 AM
From: "Luke Parrish" View contact details
To: "Rick Potvin"
I am a stronger supporter of Wowk and Fahy because they work on preventing damage such that neurons can come back to life. Hayworth and Seung do have a valuable point that connectomes are something you can test for by scanning, but that in and of itself isn't proof that the connectome is all that you need to survive.

You could say there is a controversy about the way to test for survival: is it better to test for a connectome by scanning, or for survival by thawing and measuring biological activity? I support both approaches because they are empirical, and either form of evidence is helpful to the cryonics cause, but I lean towards testing by thawing and measuring biological effects because it is stronger evidence overall.

You may be thinking that connectomics research supports suspended animation possibility and that nontoxic vitrification supports pattern-uploading possibility. And you'd be right... up to a point. The fact is both of these kinds of evidence support both kinds of revival possibility. However they are not equal in the support they give. If successful, connectomics research supports uploading stronger than it supports suspended animation revival, whereas nontoxic vitrification supports suspended animation stronger than it supports uploading.

So if you are inferring that my lack of mentioning Seung and Hayworth, or connectome means that I've given up on suspended animation, you have it backwards. I didn't mention it precisely because (I think) it distracts from suspended animation, which is to me more interesting.




***Emails to me are subject to publishing in my public forum at my discretion---RPotvin****
*********************************************************************************************************

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  

[Cryonics Observer][CryoTalk][Chronopause]