I'm a biomedical scientist with expertise in preservation and storage of neural tissue. Have you considered that maybe it is you who is wrong and not the scientists? Look scientists can and have been wrong. It's a tradition in science! And maybe us scientists are wrong in this case, again, wouldn't be the first time! But I have not seen compelling evidence. The one actual peer-reviewed study you linked was just combining fixation with cryopreservation, nothing particularly interesting or novel. It preserves the microstructure pretty well, as one would expect. But there is no evidence that preserving a snapshot of the structure of a dying brain will actually be able to be recreated in any capacity. When sceptics of cryonics call it pseudoscience, this is what they mean. Where is the evidence for this?
I mean really it all comes down to this question: How can the dynamic system of the brain can be recreated from a static image of a dying brain? I mean let's assume that the best current techniques perfectly preserve the brain at some state. And let's assume that this was done while the individual was still alive, so it's a live brain at the time of fixation. This is a best case scenario. How does one take this static image of the brain and use it to recreate the actual dynamic system?
It's like trying to recreate an entire 2 hour video from a single frame, except, ya know, many MANY orders of magnitude more complex and with preservation techniques that are definitely imperfect (at least a still frame from a video can be easily preserved 1:1 from the source material).
Does it bother you at all that this particular line of reasoning would fit 1:1 on a site like NaturalNews if you replaced "Cryonics" with... basically any alternative medicine treatment?
I think that's a vedetta by some biased Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia has quite a lot of biased articles these days - and the cryonics article is one of them.
I'm a biomedical scientist with expertise in preservation and storage of neural tissue. Have you considered that maybe it is you who is wrong and not the scientists? Look scientists can and have been wrong. It's a tradition in science! And maybe us scientists are wrong in this case, again, wouldn't be the first time! But I have not seen compelling evidence. The one actual peer-reviewed study you linked was just combining fixation with cryopreservation, nothing particularly interesting or novel. It preserves the microstructure pretty well, as one would expect. But there is no evidence that preserving a snapshot of the structure of a dying brain will actually be able to be recreated in any capacity. When sceptics of cryonics call it pseudoscience, this is what they mean. Where is the evidence for this?
I mean really it all comes down to this question: How can the dynamic system of the brain can be recreated from a static image of a dying brain? I mean let's assume that the best current techniques perfectly preserve the brain at some state. And let's assume that this was done while the individual was still alive, so it's a live brain at the time of fixation. This is a best case scenario. How does one take this static image of the brain and use it to recreate the actual dynamic system?
It's like trying to recreate an entire 2 hour video from a single frame, except, ya know, many MANY orders of magnitude more complex and with preservation techniques that are definitely imperfect (at least a still frame from a video can be easily preserved 1:1 from the source material).
Does it bother you at all that this particular line of reasoning would fit 1:1 on a site like NaturalNews if you replaced "Cryonics" with... basically any alternative medicine treatment?
Well done on the introduction, but you forgot to post the actual piece.
I think that's a vedetta by some biased Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia has quite a lot of biased articles these days - and the cryonics article is one of them.