nawitus, I can't reply to your other comment, which is probably a good thing :-)
You are taking me literally, when you shouldn't - I was being flippant. Of course it is unlikely we will ever make the technology that can take the dust that, decades ago, used to make up a human brain, and somehow retrieve information from it.
The point I am making is that you said:
> On the other hand, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a cryopreserved brain preserves a lot of the information in the brain.
I flippantly argued that if your argument is "it's reasonable to assume science will solve the problem for us", you could apply that to essentially anything.
It used to be reasonable to assume that the world is flat, or that the world was the center of the universe.
I do not think we will somehow invent a machine that turns dust in to a working brain.
I do think that "it's reasonable to assume" is faulty logic when talking about something that is beyond the current reach of science, and should be questioned at every possible opportunity.
Now, you might say "but Mike, I provided links that back up my assumption" - and if that's the case, you are no longer "reasonably assuming" that this is true, but basing your belief of the scientific literature that outlines how such a thing is done. :)
>I flippantly argued that if your argument is "it's reasonable to assume science will solve the problem for us", you could apply that to essentially anything.
Well, I don't believe that anything is reasonable, that applies merely to reasonable things.
>I do think that "it's reasonable to assume" is faulty logic when talking about something that is beyond the current reach of science, and should be questioned at every possible opportunity.
Just because it's beyond the reach of technology, doesn't mean it's faulty to talk about it. It's clear that it will be possible in principle to travel to other planets, cure aging etc., but we don't have the technology for that yet.
You are taking me literally, when you shouldn't - I was being flippant. Of course it is unlikely we will ever make the technology that can take the dust that, decades ago, used to make up a human brain, and somehow retrieve information from it.
The point I am making is that you said:
> On the other hand, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a cryopreserved brain preserves a lot of the information in the brain.
I flippantly argued that if your argument is "it's reasonable to assume science will solve the problem for us", you could apply that to essentially anything.
It used to be reasonable to assume that the world is flat, or that the world was the center of the universe.
I do not think we will somehow invent a machine that turns dust in to a working brain.
I do think that "it's reasonable to assume" is faulty logic when talking about something that is beyond the current reach of science, and should be questioned at every possible opportunity.
Now, you might say "but Mike, I provided links that back up my assumption" - and if that's the case, you are no longer "reasonably assuming" that this is true, but basing your belief of the scientific literature that outlines how such a thing is done. :)