Not really. I'm not quite sure how you get that from what I said, and I think you may in any case be confusing me with someone who thinks that cryonics is vanishingly unlikely ever to work (I could understand that, but I'm more in the camp of 'I do not have enough information to make an informed guess'). But breaking it down:
Are cryo patients information-theoretically dead? Probably, as the procedure stands at the moment, although I wouldn't be too shocked to find that they weren't. I can see easily-imagined extrapolations of the procedure (better vitrification techniques to reduce tissue damage; less time between 'death' and vitrification; possibly even vitrification while still 'alive') that make information-theory death less likely. I do think that this offers a better chance of getting back the original 'consciousness' than any currently conceivable method of brain scan, followed by brain rebuild. I'm not sure I'd go anywhere near 'very plausible' without a lot more data, including but not limited to successful vitrification and revival of something like a cat or a dog. (Before you refer me to page 11 of that PDF you linked to, I'm not saying it's 'not science' with out that, just that I don't think it's 'very plausible' without that.)
Is it very unlikely that the technology to return them to life will ever exist? I haven't a clue. I can debunk a specific claim such as 'Transmission Electron Microscopy offers a likely method for mapping a complete brain', but I can't debunk a claim like 'in the next 100 years, we will invent a form of microscopy that can scan the complete brain'. It's too far from what existing technology can do for it to be reasonable to say 'plausible' or 'busted'. The route to it navigates Ant Country through a set of technological developments that rely on each other and we can't even begin to predict beyond the first few steps.
no subject
Are cryo patients information-theoretically dead? Probably, as the procedure stands at the moment, although I wouldn't be too shocked to find that they weren't. I can see easily-imagined extrapolations of the procedure (better vitrification techniques to reduce tissue damage; less time between 'death' and vitrification; possibly even vitrification while still 'alive') that make information-theory death less likely. I do think that this offers a better chance of getting back the original 'consciousness' than any currently conceivable method of brain scan, followed by brain rebuild. I'm not sure I'd go anywhere near 'very plausible' without a lot more data, including but not limited to successful vitrification and revival of something like a cat or a dog. (Before you refer me to page 11 of that PDF you linked to, I'm not saying it's 'not science' with out that, just that I don't think it's 'very plausible' without that.)
Is it very unlikely that the technology to return them to life will ever exist? I haven't a clue. I can debunk a specific claim such as 'Transmission Electron Microscopy offers a likely method for mapping a complete brain', but I can't debunk a claim like 'in the next 100 years, we will invent a form of microscopy that can scan the complete brain'. It's too far from what existing technology can do for it to be reasonable to say 'plausible' or 'busted'. The route to it navigates Ant Country through a set of technological developments that rely on each other and we can't even begin to predict beyond the first few steps.