Creator & director : email 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.  

LUKE PARRISH - April fools fiction piece ignored connectomes and Luke actually justifies

April 6 2013 at 7:07 AM
Rick55  (no login)

rick56 to commentary.. new.

I've been debating the finer details of the meaning and context of connectomes with LP over the past few days. He's a skilled debater and resilient in his demeanor despite my earlier borderline insults... which is admirable. (not the insults, the resiliance... although my insults are good too-- and meaningfull-- they're not just any old insult for their own sake).

It turns out that Luke actually justified leaving connectomes out of his April Fool's day fiction piece. I realize how corny that might sound but there is a deeper level of meaning here that is lost on most people-- but not on Luke. The trouble with Lukes position is that it gets into the heart of the problem in cryonics as I see it. So his story was significant and useful and should be featured in Cryonics magazine- (if that mag were a mag and not a propaganda piece)...

Here's were we left off
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   

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]