Anti-cryonics links

[ciphergoth]

I may not reply to everything in that 159-comment thread but thanks to everyone who participated. I hope people don't mind if I carry on asking for your help in thinking about this. I might post articles on specific areas people raised, but first I thought to ask this: my Google-fu may be failing me. I'd appreciate any links anyone can find to good articles arguing against signing up for cryonics, or pointing out flaws in arguments made for cryosuspension. I don't mean South Park, thanks :-) I'm looking for something that really intends to be persuasive.

thanks again!

Update: here's some I've found

• Ebonmuse, On Cryonics
• Ebonmuse, Who Wants to Live Forever?
• Why we'll never be downloaded
• Why Minds Are Not Like Computers - actually there's quite a lot of scholarly writing arguing that the idea of simulating a brain on a computer is not merely impractical but impossible in principle.
• Michael Shermer on cryonics
• Skeptic's Dictionary on cryonics
• Cryonics–A futile desire for everlasting life
• Quackwatch - Is Cryonics Feasable?
• Ben Best - Debates about Cryonics with Skeptics (Best is President/CEO of the Cryonics Institute, but this is a snapshot of a debate on the James Randi forums, with a link to the original forum debate)
• Frozen Stiffs, Ruth Holland, BMJ 1981

If you find any of these articles at all convincing, let me know and I'll point out the problems with them. Update: while I am definitely interested in continuing to read your arguments, I'm really really keen to know about anyone anywhere on the Internet who seems well-informed on the subject and writes arguing against it. Such people seem to be strikingly few and far between, especially on the specific question of the plausibility of recovery. There's a hypothesis here on why that might be, but I'm not sure it's enough to wholly account for it.

Comments

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Can you point me to anyone on the Internet who seems well informed on the subject and writes arguing for it?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

My problem is that when I google "cryonics" nearly all the hits are from people arguing in favour, and the top-ranked ones are full of details that *seem* plausible to the non-expert. Of course just because they seem plausible doesn't mean they are - lots of arguments that global warming isn't real seem plausible if you don't know the counterarguments. But unlike with AGW (or with many other things that I'm a skeptic about) there doesn't seem to be even one blog or even one article by someone turning their biological/medical expertise on explaining why all this plausible-seeming stuff isn't really plausible. If that blog or article is out there, I'd really like to find it and read it.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Yes, that seems very sensible. But it seems like maybe an intrinsic part of the problem - if the technology is just not there or almost all speculation how to test plausibility?