From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Medicine related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Pascal's Wager Section[edit]

David Shaw has a paper on Pascal's Wager and cryonics which could be used to expand the section on that subject:

If Pascal's Wager is work, which choice is more rational and wise ? Cryonics or Religion (e.g. Christianity) or Both (but you may be seriously punished by God because God don't like people practice cryonics) ?

/r/ELI5 thread, includes an extensive writeup on the history and science of cryonics[edit]

We can probs crib some of this. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article seems a bit harsh.[edit]

The people and organizations involved in cryonics are not cranks and charlatans promising that frozen people will wake up in a future of flying cars. They acknowledge that the frozen corpses are probably irretrievably dead but figure that a small chance of revival is better than the no-chance of burial or cremation. The article makes it sound like they are as bad as Sylvia Browne going up to desperate grieving parents and offering to let them talk to their dead child for 20 minutes in exchange for 700.00 U$D when the cyonicists themselves admit that it is an extreme gamble, not likely to work. The article makes it seem like cryonicists are out-and-out con artists, selling immortality when this is not true. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That argument is addressed in the article. It deals with it pretty well I think. Christopher (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
'Small chance'? Once 'your yourness' (personality, soul etc) has left your body how is it possible to 'get it back in there'? And who would want to be revived as a very sick/old/damaged person (which is what most of the cryonicised persons are)? The most that could probably be done is creating a clone (which does work, if poorly) - for which 'a suitable tissue sample' would suffice (and be much cheaper to store). (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a small chance in that nothing is ever 100% certain (which I think is trivial, it's not certain there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn in the room but I happily assume there isn't). Also, a soul? There's no evidence for a soul or anything of that sort. Your personality is encoded in your brain. Christopher (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
They acknowledge that the frozen corpses are probably irretrievably dead They do a lot of not acknowledging this, actually.
The article makes it sound like they are as bad as Sylvia Browne going up to desperate grieving parents and offering to let them talk to their dead child for 20 minutes Reread the bits on Kim Suozzi, you've correctly assessed them there - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I was catering for all preferences. We all know that we have 'a your-ness' (and most of us assume that others do as well) - but some people call their 'your-ness' a soul).
And when the energy sources run out, the cryogenics set ups will go pretty early. (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a case of a frozen, living human being revived?[edit]


Possible breakthrough for cryopreservation.[edit]

I'm thinking about adding this to the article to address some of the 'holes' in cryonics, at least as a possible starting approach for unfreezing people. Basically before an organ is frozen it is surrounded by metallic nanoparticles that will react to electromagnetic fields. When the organ needs to be unfrozen it is placed in a chamber where these fields are generated by coils and the heat is then evenly distributed throughout the organ. Preventing the formation of ice crystals and damage. I admit to not having an adequate background with this sort of thing but it is something to vet for the article. Recent version can be found on the verge.--That Imbecile (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting (speculatively) and relevant for the article, absolutely. Whatever the cryo people are up to is relevant to our coverage of it. That being said, cryonics still has a long way to go in practice before it could reasonably be called anyting more than a 'pipe dream' of sorts. And stuff like thisWikipedia's W.svg will hardly cease to be relevant to the whole discussion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that this would just replace the problem of ice crystals forming in the brain matter with the problem of every neuron being impregnated with foreign, conductive nano-particles. You might not get a grey slushie, but I'd think that there would still be considerable damage; manifesting as sustained epilepsy, perhaps. Daev (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
When all is said and done with cryonics #Elvis has left the building/the mustard jar is empty#. (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


You cannot by cryonised until 'that which sits behind the eyeballs' has left the skull.

How will the cryonicisers locate 'the eyeball-mover' and, having defrosted the body (or created BodyMark2) shove it back in? Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable quality of references cited[edit]

Reference #14 is just an anonymous Internet comment from an unverified source. That is not good.

The site is cited a few times, but the trustworthiness of this site feels dubious.

Professormagic (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Your attempts to shit up the intro with special pleading are probably unsuitable for a cover article - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Rabbit kidney example STILL 100% wrong after 9 years[edit]

Look at the source. Full text is free, anyone can do this. Control-F "euthanized for histological follow-up on day 48".


This is often referred to in the media as "cryogenics". Should the article say a bit more about that confusion? Also should cryogenics redirect here? --Annanoon (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)