Talk:Cryonics

Earliest comments on Talk page

The "NPOV" edit by User:216.138.230.28 makes it look like he's an employee of Alcor. This article needs a large dose of skepticism reintroduced to it. It is way too credulous of the claims of this fringe profession. Tempshill 23:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - someone reading this would think the ideas presented have mainstream support - as far as I know they're only put forward by kooks and those employed by the companies in question. The last paragraph is particularly laughable.

User:206.124.156.155 replaced dashes and minuses with hyphens—without prior discussion. The "old browsers" argument is not acceptable when it comes to errors: confusing dashes with hyphens is not better than confusing commas with quotation marks. Marcus Beyer 02:41, 11 May 2004

Tempshill: I am the person you say comes off like an employee of Alcor. My writing certainly doesn't read like that to me, but I can understand that it might to someone already predisposed against cryonics. I certainly won't deny that I find Alcor's approach to be, overall, quite skeptical and rational. I have tried to keep this bias out of my writing, to the extent possible without misrepresenting things. But, of course, one cannot purge one's own writing entirely of bias. But this is the way Wikipedia works... I have made my best faith effort to restore some semblance of NPOV to the article (the way it was before was certainly far less NPOV, making little attempt to be neutral, with numerous blatantly anti-cryonics remarks, and mostly pretty silly, uneducated ones at that). The anti-cryonics crowd is now free to respond with further editing. So far, they have done very little. This may have something to do with the fact that there does not actually seem to be any serious, scientific attempts to formulate a skeptical and rational anti-cryonics position. The "large dose of skepticism" you would like to see reintroduced (on the anti-cyronics side) is, I suspect, not really out there to be had. If there is such an argument out there, I have not seen it... and if you know of one, I'd be very happy to have the reference. As for your labelling cryonics "fringe", and to the person who responded with the "kooks" comment, I recommend you both go to Alcor's web site and take a look at their Board... many of those involved in this are mainstream, respected scientists--some of them quite famous within the scientific community for their accomplishments--and to suggest otherwise is simply misrepresentation. (One Alcor Board member is also on the Editorial Board of Skeptic magazine, if that is the sort of thing that impresses you.) Allan Randall, 14 May 2005

Autopsy discussion

One important topic I think is sorely missing from this page is the legal consideration of autopsy with respect to people who wish their corpses to undergo cryonic storage. Autopsies frequently involve long periods of leaving the body, followed by acts such as sectioning the brain, etc,. It would probably be appropriate to either mention the "Society for Venturism" as an intentionally vague "religion" created for states that allow partial religious excemptions to autopsy laws. A link to a list of states laws on autopsy would also be helpful, if appropriate.

How to Reboot Your Corpse

Karlin, Susan (March 2010). "How to Reboot Your Corpse". IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 2013-05-03.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of adding a section devoted to a brief article written in 2010? There have been countless such articles written about cryonics since the 1960s. You could have linked to any of the countless other articles written in the years since this one was published. Taurus (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Taurus, Pardon me. I had come across this article and thought it might be useful. If you don't think so. Fine. I'll leave now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct current scientific view of cryonics

Section added to discuss the current scientific view of cryonics, and what should be said in this article.

The third paragraph of the article now says "The future repair technologies assumed by cryonics are still hypothetical and not widely known or recognized. Although 62 scientists have supported the idea of cryonics in an Open Letter, many other scientists regard cryonics with skepticism." (references suppressed to aid clarity during discussion)

A more accurate statement would be "The future repair technologies assumed by cryonics are based on existing scientific laws, and have not yet been demonstrated. Despite this, 62 scientists have supported the idea of cryonics in an Open Letter. At the present time, there are no known technically valid reasons to believe that modern cryopreservation methods (when carried out under favorable conditions) cause information theoretic death, and all published articles in the scientific literature that directly address cryonics support its feasibility."

Adopting this wording is likely to be controversial. However, there are no claims in the scientific literature that even a straight freeze results in information theoretic death, let alone that a modern cryopreservation (with its careful introduction of cryoprotectants and vitrification of nerves and synapses) results in information theoretic death.

Further, the current state of the art in neuroscience quite firmly establishes that long term memory involves substantial changes in synapses, changes that would not be obliterated upon vitrification. See, for example, “Synapses and Memory Storage” by Mayford M, Siegelbaum SA, and Kandel ER. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, April 10, 2012, page 10 (see http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/6/a005751)

The "skeptical" claims about cryonics are not in the scientific literature. They are in press accounts, or by individuals who appear on television or on radio, by individuals who make no technical arguments. They are unguarded statements that rather obviously cannot be supported. The statements that are actually in the scientific literature are either neutral or favorable to cryonics, or they have been shown to have major and rather glaring flaws. The reason for this is obvious to anyone who seriously considers what advanced technology is likely to able to do, and the level of damage that must be achieved if someone's medical condition is to be considered truly "irreversibly' beyond any future medical assistance.

"Critics" have had quite enough time to vent and make unsupported claims. It's time that we stick to the scientific rules, and state what is scientifically accurate: the existing scientific literature supports the feasibility of cryonics. Further, all the statements that cryonics won't work that have been made to date have been debunked.

If you can cite uncontested WP:RS reliable sources that state exactly what you want to put in the article, then we can put it in.

If anyone has any serious technical criticism, backed up by a reference to the scientific literature, let's have it. Otherwise, keep quiet.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RMerkle (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 

"At the present time, there are no known technically valid reasons to believe that modern cryopreservation methods (when carried out under favorable conditions) cause information theoretic death": Do you have a good citation for this? The CSHPR paper doesn't mention cryo nor vitrification, and anyway I'm skeptical a journal that has the word "perspectives" in the title does a very rigorous peer review. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"All published articles in the scientific literature that directly address cryonics support its feasibility": It's possible, but do you have a citation for this? Otherwise, it's not verifiable, as your fellow editors don't have time to review the entire literature to confirm whether that statement is true. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"The statements that are actually in the scientific literature are either neutral or favorable to cryonics, or they have been shown to have major and rather glaring flaws." Been shown by who? It's not Wikipedia's job to adjudicate which contradictory statements in the peer-reviewed literature are correct. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"If anyone has any serious technical criticism, backed up by a reference to the scientific literature, let's have it. Otherwise, keep quiet." There is a logical fallacy that may apply here, Burden of Proof. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof Also, asking other people to "keep quiet" looks harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.64.187 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References to "cryonics" in PubMed are available from this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?orig_db=PubMed&cmd=Search&defaultField=Title%20Word&term=cryonics

There are 11 references. Most discuss attitudes towards cryonics, the sociology of cryonics, the law concerning cryonics, editorialize about cryonics, or the like. There are 3 articles that directly address technical issues: "Vascular and neuronal ischemic damage in cryonics patients", "Scientific justification of cryonics practice", and "The technical feasibility of cryonics". All 3 of the articles that directly address cryonics speak favorably of its chances for success. The third says "The extant literature supports but does not prove the hypothesis that cryonics is a feasible method of saving the lives of people who would otherwise certainly die."

More recent efforts by Paul Crowley to find coherent criticisms of cryonics failed to find any. See http://blog.ciphergoth.org/blog/2010/02/14/an-open-letter-to-scientific-critics-of-cryonics/.

He said "Though many experts in cryogenics and other relevant fields are quoted in the media as condemning cryonics practice, none have written at greater length to explain their reasons. The closest thing to such a reason I can find is Michael Shermer’s article “Nano Nonsense and Cryonics”, but the reason he gave was one that he knew at the time of writing was contrary to scientific reality, and in response to my email asking where I could learn more he recommended three authors all of whom consider cryonics technically plausible." Note that Shermer's editorial appears in the PubMed references. An editorial is not a technical article, does not provide references, is not peer reviewed, and is generally acknowledged to offer simply an opinion. For anyone who might think Shermer's editorial had any significant technical arguments against the feasibility of cryonics, see http://www.alcor.org/press2001SciAm.html. Ralph, 2014-06-09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMerkle (talk • contribs) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RMerkle Thanks for the pointers to the three PubMed articles. The Merkle article in Medical Hypotheses was not peer-reviewed, so it doesn't carry much weight toward determining what the scientific consensus is. The two BP Best articles in Aubrey de Grey's Rejuvenation Research are presumably peer-reviewed, but Rejuvenation Research has been criticized as fringe according to its Wikipedia page, so I would say right now there's not a scientific consensus. If you have a quote from one of the BP Best articles, we can put that in as long as it's characterized as Best's opinion. I think long-term, the best solution is for Merkle, Best, or others to publish in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal if there's a scientific finding that cryonics is technically feasible; Wikipedia can't judge by itself whether that finding is correct in the absence of agreement in the scientific community. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a scientific consensus. The published articles on cryonics speak in its favor, and, as you can see by perusing the articles on "cryonics" from PubMed, none provide technical arguments against it. Even those who beg for articles providing coherent technical criticisms of cryonics are unable to find them (see the quote from Crowley, above, and follow the link to his longer discussion). You might not like the consensus, but the fact remains there is a consensus, and the consensus is favorable. You might want a broader and more in-depth consensus, and you would receive strong support from the cryonics community on that. There would be more articles discussing cryonics in the standard scientific literature had the Society for Cryobiology not deliberately suppressed their publication (see COLD WAR: The Conflict Between Cryonicists and Cryobiologists, http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/coldwar.html). But, as Max Planck famously didn't say, "Science progresses, funeral by funeral". Progress happens, despite the best efforts of those who seek to prevent it.

Ralph C. Merkle, 2014-06-20

Again, there are no peer-reviewed articles besides two articles by one author in Aubrey de Grey's Rejuvenation Research, which isn't enough to establish consensus in the face of multiple scientists who have gone on the record (albeit in non-peer-reviewed publications), to oppose cryonics. The clause in the Society for Cryobiology's bylaws against its members promoting cyronics does seem anti-reason to me, but the clause actually provides evidence against the thesis that "there's currently a scientific consensus in favor of cryonics". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Science is supposed to involve reason. The scientists who support cryonics give their reasons, and cite sources, and (when they aren't prevented from doing so) publish their results in the usual places, and when they are prevented publish their results elsewhere. Yes, the Society for Cryobiology's bylaws do "seem anti-reason", and not just to you. I have seen the reasons for believing that cryonics should work, but I have not seen the reasons for believing that cryonics, when properly done, should not work. Nor have the scientists who oppose cryonics shared any coherent reasons, even when asked. The Scientist's Open Letter on Cryonics (see http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/) lists quite a few scientists who support cryonics. But the fact remains, properly written technical articles which reference the literature are given more weight than simple head-counts. The current scientifically supported view on cryonics is quite clear: it's likely to work. This view is arrived at by the standard method: reviewing the scientific literature on the subject. Your observation that the scientific literature on cryonics is small is noted, and is a good reason for encouraging further research. But the conclusion stands: the current scientifically accepted view of cryonics is that it seems likely to work. RMerkle — Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you've done a literature search, what evidence is there besides the two articles from BP Best in Rejuvenation Research? Are there any direct quotes stating that cryonics is likely to work from any other peer-reviewed papers? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Society for Cryobiology bylaws say “… the Board of Governors may refuse membership to applicants, or suspend or expel members … engaged in or who promote … any practice or application of freezing deceased persons in the anticipation of their reanimation.”

Researchers who try to publish papers on cryonics have their papers rejected, their membership in professional societies threatened, their grants threatened, their salaries threatened, and their careers threatened. I know. I’ve talked with them. No, I won’t give you details.

And you’re asking me why there aren’t more articles on cryonics in the “regular” scientific literature?

RMerkle (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — RMerkle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Section 9 Popular Culture Expansion Talk

I'm adding this section for the benefit of any future additions and talk, I was originally going to express my surprise that no mention of Buck Rogers in this article but I double checked and realized I was mistaken because this culturally important American fictional character was not subjected to any obvious form of cryogenic suspension at all but instead the the 1920s author chose to use the more "mysterious" phenomenon of radioactive energy as an explanation for a suspended animation state that preserved his character for centuries. Therefore the character has no obvious place in this article, but maybe its still a good idea to have a talk section for this part of the article for the benefit of future editors of the popular culture section since its very likely the subject will be depicted in more popular culture media in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.234 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ON further review the movie serial of Buck Rogers story cited here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Rogers_(serial) should probably be construed as a revision in the Buck Rogers story that involves cryogenics having been marooned in a blizzard in the arctic wastes in a crashed dirigible and surviving with an agent called "Nirvano Gas" which might even be construed as a fictional reference to an inadvertant cryoprotectorant solution in the plot. Being not a seasoned Wikipedia editor and not having any further interest in the matter(though it would seem important to me, , , I'll just leave this here. 71.239.87.234 (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)