I think the problem is that the root questions are unanswerable in current science because we don't know the answer to any of the hard questions about consciousness. The important question (for me) is can my consciousness be revived (by whatever means) from information in my "dead" brain. Whether the technology is some sort of "jump start" on the same tissue or scanning and complete software emulation is an interesting side issue but it is a side issue.
The thing is that for the moment we don't know really any of the important answers about consciousness. We don't know if it can be emulated. We don't know what properties of the brain or its process cause consciousness to arise.
In this sense the sceptics and the believers in cryogenics are somewhat in the position of a specialist in AI (in the strong Turing test passing sense) or a medieval expert in the nature of dragons (I can't remember who first compared AI experts with dragon experts, possibly Dennett). We can't yet answer questions about the possibility because the answers are not yet known because we simply don't know what information/algorithm/biological process is necessary for consciousness. Indeed we don't even know if it is necessary that there is a biological process or if simply the execution of a certain algorithm (whether in wetware or "the book of Einstein's Brain") is sufficient.
Any guesses about whether it would be "the same" consciousness or a different one are pretty much guesses. We can be pretty clear that if we put our brain in a liquidiser or in the ground to rot or in a furnace then it is going to be harder to recover such information.
I'd be sceptical of anyone making hard claims about where the cut-off for "any possible future technology" reconstructing your consciousness comes in either pro or anti. We just don't know right now.
no subject
The thing is that for the moment we don't know really any of the important answers about consciousness. We don't know if it can be emulated. We don't know what properties of the brain or its process cause consciousness to arise.
In this sense the sceptics and the believers in cryogenics are somewhat in the position of a specialist in AI (in the strong Turing test passing sense) or a medieval expert in the nature of dragons (I can't remember who first compared AI experts with dragon experts, possibly Dennett). We can't yet answer questions about the possibility because the answers are not yet known because we simply don't know what information/algorithm/biological process is necessary for consciousness. Indeed we don't even know if it is necessary that there is a biological process or if simply the execution of a certain algorithm (whether in wetware or "the book of Einstein's Brain") is sufficient.
Any guesses about whether it would be "the same" consciousness or a different one are pretty much guesses. We can be pretty clear that if we put our brain in a liquidiser or in the ground to rot or in a furnace then it is going to be harder to recover such information.
I'd be sceptical of anyone making hard claims about where the cut-off for "any possible future technology" reconstructing your consciousness comes in either pro or anti. We just don't know right now.