User talk:Lsparrish

Cryonics sources

He’s banking on technology — the idea that brain scanning will someday become sophisticated enough to map an entire brain and all its neural circuits. Then the brains that have been cryopreserved can be thawed, mapped and digitally downloaded. The people who once lived with those brains might live again, as software. http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/293801-170586-frozen-in-time-oregon-firm-preserves-bodies-brains-in-hopes-that-science-catches-up

Cryonics proponents refer to what we normally call “death” as “information-theoretic death” — the idea that death is irreversible. Clinical death, on the other hand, will become a reversible state when the tech catches up with what the mind can conceive. Cryonics supporters know the odds are not good. They put it this way: With death, there is a zero percent chance of resuscitation. With cryonics, there is at least a chance, however infinitesimally small it might be. http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/reddit-help-me-find-some-peace-in-dying-young-cryonics-futurology/

It's called the information-theoretic definition of death: there is a point of decay of the brain at which death would become irreversible by any technology, simply because the brain no longer contains the data that made you. But until that point, in theory, you could be revived, given better medical technology. http://web.archive.org/web/20150906061444/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100122576/on-larry-king-and-an-atheists-fear-of-death/

A key part is that cryonics attempts to justify itself on rational, non-religious grounds. According to cryonic belief, enough information about the original bodily state is hopefully retained at the end of the suspension process (acknowledged as being damaging to tissues and dependent on certain biomedical assumptions) that conceivably future technologies could extract it and repair the body. The reasons for this are partially based on empirical investigations in cryobiology (e.g. how tissues are affected by different cryoprotectant formulas and cooling regimens, the effects of different suspension methods, how thawed tissue samples function, decay rates in storage, etc.), but also a set of hazier assumptions about the future (e.g. the limits of technology, the likelihood of restorative medicine becoming powerful enough, that suspension companies can remain viable long enough, that future generations will have motivations to resuscitate suspended people etc.) http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/08/freezing-critique-privileged-views-and-cryonics/

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Cryonics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I am not involved in an edit war, nor do I intend to engage in such a thing. You may not have been following, but the removal of the Hoppe reference was preceded by several days of discussion during which Nils Hoppe himself weighed in and clarified that he has not characterized cryonics as quackery. The reference to corpses that I reverted were added recently, and do not significantly affect the content apart from the tone of the article, which now appears more sympathetic to the view that it should be referred to as quackery. I believe the disputes already on the table should have been resolved before any such changes to the tone of the article would have been appropriate. Lsparrish (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Lsparrish:, you made the same edit 4 times today and a very similar edit on June 26. You were reverted by by 4 different editors. Your edit warring is unequivocal. If this is not obvious to you, it's a problem. By the way, edit warring has nothing to do with who is right. So the next step is to use the talk page of the article and gain consensus. If you revert again without consensus, the next step will be at the Edit warring administrator noticeboard. --McSly (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I have explained, the edit that I made, and reasons for it, was discussed in Talk beforehand, at length. I have no time for edit warring, nor intention to engage in such an activity. The person who was being misleadingly quoted even came by himself and clarified, twice, in addition to his twitter comment to the same effect. I'll try to avoid making the same edit three times in a day, but be aware that this did not happen in the absence of significant discussion among involved parties. Lsparrish (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)