Date: 2010-02-15 07:40 am (UTC)
djm4: (Default)
From: [personal profile] djm4
This. You ([livejournal.com profile] ciphergoth) want to believe cryonics is plausible. That's fine; I don't want you not to believe. I think your passion on the subject may be blinding you to the fact that most people who don't think it's plausible aren't all that passionate about it.

I don't think it's plausible. I also don't think it's implausible, still less impossible. I don't think we know enough yet to judge. I think the path there navigates chaotic ant country, and involves speculation about proposed technologies that most certainly aren't science ... but I don't see most cryonicists claiming that they are in any way that can be debunked.

By and large - and this certainly goes for what I've read of any of the pro-cryonics documents that you've linked to in this discussion, the cryonicists get the current science correct. They also speculate abut the future science, but not in terms that allow debunking. This is fine, and presumably encouraging for you, because you want to believe that cryonics could work and you won't find anyone able to prove that it doesn't. But it doesn't make the absence of a debunking strong evidence for cryonics working.
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

ciphergoth: (Default)
Paul Crowley

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 11th, 2025 04:05 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios