Cryonics as false science?

Spread the love

Okay, okay, not directly our thing, but I am just gearing up here again:

The False Science of Cryonics

No one who has experienced the disbelief of losing a loved one can help but sympathize with someone who pays $80,000 to freeze their brain. But reanimation or simulation is an abjectly false hope that is beyond the promise of technology and is certainly impossible with the frozen, dead tissue offered by the “cryonics” industry. Those who profit from this hope deserve our anger and contempt. More.

In case you knew someone who was thinking of doing this. Why not give the $80,000 to a health research outfit?

Also: That means the mind is something different from the brain.

One Reply to “Cryonics as false science?

  1. 1
    advancedatheist says:

    Cryonics operates on a progressing technological frontier, and some neuroscientists and cryobiologists think that it deserves development as a way to turn death from a permanent off-state into a temporary and reversible off-state by approaching the problem as a challenge in applied neuroscience. These scientists have set up the Brain Preservation Foundation (mentioned in the recent New York Times story about Kim Suozzi, and easily findable online) to educate the public about this prospect and to raise money for incentive prizes to encourage scientists to push hard on the envelope of current and reachable brain preservation techniques. Two prominent figures in the skeptic community – Susan Blackmore (UK) and Michael Shermer (USA) – have signed on to this foundation as advisers, so they apparently consider the idea scientifically explorable.

Leave a Reply