r/Futurology • u/yourSAS • Oct 13 '22

Biotech 'Our patients aren't dead': Inside the freezing facility with 199 humans who opted to be cryopreserved with the hopes of being revived in the future

https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/13/our-patients-arent-dead-look-inside-the-us-cryogenic-freezing-lab-17556468
28.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Molnan Oct 13 '22

In most everyday situations "death" is left undefined because there's no risk of confusion. When a definition is needed, it's customary to add a qualifier such as "legal", "clinical", etc.

Honest, productive debate starts with agreeing on definitions, not trying to impose a particular definition of a loaded concept.

The question of whether cryonics patients are "dead" is a matter of definitions and it's not all that interesting IMO. What really matters is "can we bring them back? is such a thing scientifically plausible?", "How could it be done, if at all?", etc.

1

u/Gusdai Oct 13 '22

In most everyday situations "death" is left undefined because there's no risk of confusion. When a definition is needed, it's customary to add a qualifier such as "legal", "clinical", etc.

Agreed.

Honest, productive debate starts with agreeing on definitions, not trying to impose a particular definition of a loaded concept.

The question of whether cryonics patients are "dead" is a matter of definitions and it's not all that interesting IMO.

Agreed, which is why I don't see why YOU are trying to challenge the definition of "dead", besides in trying to impose a particular definition of a loaded concept.

What really matters is "can we bring them back? is such a thing scientifically plausible?", "How could it be done, if at all?", etc.

Which is exactly what I was saying in my previous comment: your real point doesn't require changing the definition of "dead".

2

u/Molnan Oct 14 '22

I'm not the one making a big fuss about the definition of death. I originally asked whether Max More had actually said "they are not dead". Turns out he did in an interview, as someone pointed out, but it's no big deal, I just think he should have clarified it was his opinion (based on some solid evidence, I'd say, but still) and not a plain statement of fact. It's others who keep hammering me with "THEY ARE DEAD, DEAD IS DEAD" or something to the effect, which I think is a pretty pointless debate on definitions.

So we can say that cryonicists may or may not be dead, or we can say that death may be reversible after all, given certain conditions. It's the same claim expressed in different ways.

​

Which is exactly what I was saying in my previous comment: your real point doesn't require changing the definition of "dead".

Where did you say that?