Talk:Cryonics

Remove Citation #5 (2024-01-29)

I read "The Skeptics Dictionary" and cryonics is not found anywhere in the book. Subsequently, I confirmed via search on the Kindle format there is zero reference to Cryonics. Citation #5, said book, needs to be removed from this article. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Errrrrrm.[1] Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You were likely reading a different edition than the one cited. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

No, same ISBN. I ordered both the physical book and the Kindle just to make sure. The citation (#5) needs to be removed. I'm new to this, not sure on procedure. How to handle? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You were reading the 2003 print edition? Because that's the one that was cited. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

And if not, we can just correct the ref since this is something Carroll has written about. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the '03 print. 70.171.228.224 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the '03 print.

I have it sitting next to me on the table, and there's no reference to cryonics. I literally bought both the print and Kindle copies specifically to read the citation. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, then it sounds like we need to correct the cite, if Bon courage has another source for the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response/investigation.

Since I'm new to this, can you set my expectations on how long the correction may take? Is it usually a days or weeks long process? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really any rush, since this isn't a critically harmful issue. Bon courage indicated there's likely an alternative source, but it's a volunteer project, so hopefully we'll have that fixed in the next few days or so. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Few days, cool. A week, fine. Thanks for updating. (removal or new citation). I'll watch the process. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bon Courage has updated the reference accordingly as of this morning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I've read the updated reference. Another change is warranted to the citation.

"Cryonics" itself is not a business by definition, and the quote in the citation states, "A business based on little more than hope for developments that can be imagined by science is quackery. There is little reason to believe that the promises of cryonics will ever be fulfilled."

Sure, there are organizations in the "business of cryonics", but this article is not about business, and therefore, the quote is inappropriate.

I propose quoting Carroll's opinion based on the technology, which is more applicable to this article that an opinion on business. Quote follows, second paragraph:

"The technology exists to freeze or preserve people and that technology is improving and will probably get better." Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Cryonics only exists as a business, selling you the idea that you'll be thawed out and healed in the future. No one is freezing these bodies for free. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect, that is a strawman.

Medicine exists as a business. Delivery services exists as a business. Even Wikipedia exists as a business, and the list goes on.

This article is not about business.

So, a 10+ year old quote from Carroll, who is a philosopher, narrowly focuses on business? How does that make sense?

If the editors feel the need to cite a philosophy PhD, then shouldn't the quote/opinion/citation focus on their specialty rather than a cherry-picked quote outside of their domain? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The quote is a representative sample of the source in question, which is in turn accurately summarized by our article. That's really all that matters for the purposes of Wikipedia. That you personally disagree with the source about whether or not Cryonics is a business isn't particularly relevant. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The sealioning here is evident. You stripped all the nuance out of my comment, reduced it to absurd degrees, then declared it a strawman.

My point was that the business of cryonics is to sell a lie. They cannot do what they promise, they're just fleecing people for money.

And now you're back on the "10+ year" bit, as if that's some damning bit of logic. It only exposes that you're not arguing in good faith, and I'm done interacting with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"My point was that the business of cryonics is to sell a lie. They cannot do what they promise, they're just fleecing people for money." Cryonics providers do what they promise: they cryopreserve people. Most of the cryonics providers are non-profit, and Cryonics Germany does it for free. Dogah (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

They're not freezing people for the hell of it.

They're offering an unproven service that is almost entirely faith-based.

Not only do you have to have faith that some future peoples will invent the second half of the process, you have to have faith that the first half is even being done correctly, because it can't be validated until the whole process is tested from start to finish.

That is not science, but it's being presented as science. It is pseudo-science. ApLundell (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if cryostasis revival is unproven, as long as it's not disproven. If you are buried or cremated, you will stay dead forever. If you want to stay alive, the most logical way is to be cryopreserved, because cryonics might give you a chance to continue living.

Not only future peoples will try to solve the revival problem. To prevent further injury from happening, many cryonicists are developing better preservation practices or rewarming practices right now. Dogah (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, By that standard we can't say with 100% certainty that we won't be able to revive a person without bothering to freeze them, say from a bone or hair sample. This isn't a convincing argument because relying on future uncertainty like this is an inherently unfalsifiable claim, which is the main hallmark of a pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Chopping the quote off there would be misrepresenting the source, which goes on to say that This seems like wishful thinking and without a complete isomorphic model of the brain it will be impossible to return a mushy brain to the exact state it was in before death occurred. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Admins: Call to replace editors.

I need help from Admins with authority to change editors entrusted with this article. I looked back through the records and, on 2019-June-24, editor David Gerard fabricated false information with current citation #5. This could only have been an deliberate act, and per Wikipedia self-governance, is a gross violation that should carry severe consequences. Further, editor Bon courage expressed personal bias with a "bullocks" response on 2024-Jan-31 when someone else simply pointed out the page is sorely outdated. The other user is correct, this article is sorely outdated and the data has been willfully falsified. It needs a detailed review and rewrite, and there's a global community willing, able, and well informed, many of which will volunteer to collaborate on this article. What's the process to entrust this article with new, neutral editors? Entered into the permanent record this 1st day of February, 2024. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

**** Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion this is about advertising.

It is not a matter of advertising. It is a matter of fact. Information was deliberately falsified.

This is not a matter of advertising. This is a matter of fact. The information falsified, deliberately.

The Wikipedia community must self-govern, address gross violations, and find editors that will present truth.

Back to my original, unanswered question.

What's the process to entrust this article with new, neutral editors? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't one. This is a volunteer project, you don't get to just eject editors because you're mad at them. Plus, dragging out a five-year-old edit in order to accuse an editor of "fabricated false information" is just ridiculous. Calling the page willfully falsified is a WP:NPA personal attack. Dial it down. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks intended. I stated facts.

Fact: Information was falsified.

Fact: The information which was falsified could only have been done so willfully. My pointing this out is not intended to be a personal attack, it's an attack on the behavior of falsifying data, which I assume is a severe violation that demands some resolution.

Fact: As resolution, I asked for Admin support with finding editors who will write/maintain the article from a neutral point of view. I should reasonably assume the Wikipedia community supports truthful and neutral editors.

Thank you for responding quickly and professionally. If there are no Admins then, when violations occur, how do existing editors get replaced with truthful and neutral editors? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Skeptics Dictionary has an online edition and an (old) print edition. The content was in the online edition and the cite was to the print edition. This is at worst a minor clerical error, not deliberately falsified information.

You have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia works here. Admins have no special authority over article content, they do not select editors to write and maintain articles. In fact there is no list of editors who have responsibility for any particular article - they are maintained by whomever happens to show up. There is a class of users called 'Admins', they are responsible for blocking vandals, deleting spam articles, and so on. They are more akin to custodians than kings of the wiki. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The information which was falsified could only have been done so willfully

And that's repeating the personal attack. Continue that, and I'll seek to have you blocked on those grounds.

how do existing editors get replaced with truthful and neutral editors?

First, see WP:TRUTH. Second, you don't "replace" editors. Either they got blocked for reasons like making personal attacks, or else you just calmly discuss changes and get WP:CONSENSUS. If you fail to gain consensus for your changes, you let it go and move on. That's it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ironically the user you are (stupidly) accusing of a 'gross violation' is David Gerard, who is ... an admin. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to make changes to this article, you can, you just need the reliable secondary sources to cite. Unfortunately this is a volunteer project and one can’t simply “replace” editors as there are no assigned editors; if you have a compelling source, it won’t be edited away. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk - Citation & article reformatting

The opening paragraph of this Article states, "Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery."

The citations are from 2002, 1992, and 2013, respectively. Said opinions, quotes, and citations belong under the History section as they range from 10 to over 30 years old.

A more recent citation from 2020 follows (Google "Elon Musk Cryonics"). It's about 2 minutes of your time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+cryonics&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sca_esv=9b41ab9b54a73dba&source=android-home&sxsrf=ACQVn0_iPjx49FuRDEv7qDOuC6anGB89SA%3A1706814842412&source=hp&ei=eu27ZeHmFruckPIP0L-IqAQ&udm=&oq=&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIAKgIIAjIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzINEC4YxwEY0QMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJ0joDlAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEByAEAqAIP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:17e6285a,vid:MSIjNKssXAc,st:0 Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been raised before. Elon Musk is not a reliable source for anything except Elon Musk's views. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I could argue historical quotes from lesser known, less influential, and less educated people on this subject from 10-30+ years ago is a less reliable source than Elon, who is more known, more influential, and more educated on this subject...and, therefore more credible.

Matter of fact, that is my argument.

That's mainstream.

I'm not recommending removal of the existing antiquated citations/opinions, those should certainly be perserved...under History. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not "educated on this subject." The fact you think so is extremely telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources for anything. And neither is Elon Musk.

The suggestion to move citations to History is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are those citations not history?

I'm attempting to collaborate with all of you to update, and maintain, truth in this article.

Selective omissions because individuals hold an opinion that Elon is not reliable shocks me.

As for "non-starter", please show me your willingness to collaborate by telling me what counts as a starter. Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs? No problem, just let me know so we can get to a neutral and truthful article. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to get some clue. Like, read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge. There is nothing to show the accepted knowledge on cryonics (it's a load of old fraudulent crap) is dated. That is the view now. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources as outlined in WP:RS. For a topic like this, to make the article say what you seem to want to make it say, that would mean peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. We don't do testimonials, celebrity, MBA, or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your professional response, relative to other responses I've received. The rules of engagement (WP:RS) are helpful as I learn how to collaborate with you.

Please review this book/information.

Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine

© 2022 Robert A. Freitas Jr.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Cryostasis_Revival.html?id=MzbozgEACAAJ

It has been made freely available as a PDF download to the public as part of a US 501c3's mission to educate the public, available at this link:

https://www.alcor.org/cryostasis-revival/?noamp=mobile

I'm not trying to hide my identity, you likely already know who this is. I do NOT represent the publisher/Alcor Life Extension Foundation ("Alcor"), a tax-exempt 501c3. I do NOT receive financial benefit from this book or from Alcor; however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public. I argue this ENTIRE "Cryonics" Wikipedia article needs a full review and rewrite in light of new information provided herein.

Please find these quotes in the free copywrite book:

"These results suggest that, when cryonics is carried out under favorable conditions, and when ice formation is prevented by vitrification, it has every appearance of preserving the structure and the molecular inventory of the brain."

- Gregory M. Fahy, Ph.D.

January 2022

(Current President of the Society for Cryobiology)

"There is now an emerging scientific consensus on the feasibility of cryopreserving complex mammalian tissues, and the Society for Cryobiology is no longer openly hostile to cryonicists, though still eschewing cryonics as part of its professional mission."

-Society for Cryobiology

The sources of these quotes meet the definition of published, context of the facts weighs heavily in favor of reliability, and a rewrite of the entire article is warranted due to the age of this freely available book citation (which I notice it's not currently listed).

I appreciate your guidance by pointing me to WP:RS, as I am still new to Wikipedia.

How do we start the process of review and rewrite to present non-biased truth to the world?

Thanks in advance for your response.

<Overton Window> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A self published book is not a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal is not the requirement under WP:RS.

My submitted citation exceeds citation #3 (1992) from a non-scientist on every measure per WP:RS.

<Overton> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. We do not use self published books as sources. If you read WP:RS and came away thinking that meets the requirements you have gravely misunderstood WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I did not publish the book, so that's moot. The author did not publish the book, so that's moot.

Yes, a US 501c3 freely published the book as part of their mission to educate the public.

That does not meet the definition of self-published.

Time's up. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at WP:RSN, they will tell you the same. There is no way we can use that as a source. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take for that book to be published? Ty in advance. <46> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public

Per WP:COI, you need to declare this on your user page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want a User Page, but ok.

Disclosed, COI not an issue. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is just a question for you (the one behind the screen). I'm not asking specifically about editing the article... I'm asking why you think/thought COI was important? Educate me, please...

Did you think there was potentially a benefit for me?

Ty in advance for your answer. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter why someone chose to remind you of the rules.

The rules apply whether or not someone reminds you, so you should just thank the person who reminds you and move on.

ApLundell (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:COI it explains why. We are concerned when people have personal ties to a subject, as it makes it more likely they are editing with a bias to promote said subject beyond what is reasonable for Wikipedia's purposes. Sometimes that means a financial benefit to said editor, but other times it's just because they're friends/co-workers who want to make the subject look better in the public eye. And Wikipedia is not here for promotional purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a non-starter because you're unilaterally trying to move quotes for reasons not based in Wikipedia policy. As Bon courage and MrOllie say, you need to familiarize yourself with our core policies and editing guidelines before making such suggestions.

Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs?

No. We want reliable sources per that policy. Independent, secondary sources (not "statements" from individuals), preferably those with a history of fact-checking and reliable reporting. Not speeches from UFO proponents & their mouthpieces. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And since this is a fringe topic sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk once said that aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. But for some reason they won't let me add that to Great Pyramid of Giza. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

or that some guy was a pedo? Bon courage (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Help w/refuting cit 3 plz

I know there are outstanding tickets already, but I need help from this Wikipedia community to refute the original 1992 (Butler) source.

Rumor has it if the original source is successfully refuted this article can be rewritten relatively quickly. By asking for help, I'm not asking for someone to tell "me" how to refute the original source or direct me to the rules. I've already spent my personal $, T, and mental E in an attempt to contribute to this article, and help from experienced Wikipedians (sp?) is needed now, please. I'm asking for experienced member(s) of this community to help refute cit 3 so this article can get closer to current truth(s)/facts.

To be brief, Butler ('92) knew nothing about this subject when he wrote his book and lacks any credibility today. The original source contains <2 pages about Cryonics, Butler presents a personal opinion in his book, and the book is over 30 years old.

I've been told my profile has been marked as "tainted", I've been called bias, and I've been warned not to be annoying (whatever that means). That's fine, judge me as you wish. I think I've been patient enough to earn the right to request your help.

What matters more than how others see me is for others to have access to superior, current information on this Cryonics article. Even though the information presented herein is not "perfect", Wikipedia has built a great platform. I hold to the belief this community wants Wikipedia to present the most accurate information available. I don't sense my belief in this community is misplaced.

Is there an experienced leader in this community willing to be a fearless champion and refute the original source? Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

No, per WP:FORUM. This is a page for discussing improvements to the article, not for people to discuss the subject itself (including efforts to refute a source on your own).

If you do refute a source & get that refutation published, that would be relevant to discuss here. Until then, we can't do anything for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

understood, ty Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

That does seem like a weak source. The problem with your objection to that source is that there are many other good sources where a reputable scientist has claimed that cryonics is quackery. Removing that source won't achieve your obvious goal. You could improve the article by finding a better source that says the same thing. Lord knows, there are plenty to pick from.JordanSparks (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protect edit request

The second paragraph uses patients in scare quotes, which seems to be editorializing. I don't like the use of the word patient anyway, as it implies that that cryonics companies have a medical duty of care, which they do not. I would propose changing "patients" to either "person" or "body", such as "the "patients" are clinically and legally dead." to "a person is clinically and legally dead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.131.196 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Reverted. These are not "scare quotes", but delineate the term "patient" as one used (erroneously) by the vendors. Bon courage (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)