The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. with no prejudice for or against a merge discussion on its talkpage. J04n( talk page) 00:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Information-theoretic death

Information-theoretic death (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are insufficient independent reliable sources with which to construct a Wikipedia article on this topic. It is a FRINGE hypothetical notion held by advocates for cryonics based on unscientific analogies that the brain is like a computer and can be powered up again after it has been powered down. Jytdog ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (strike this; it is distracting people from the NOTABILITY argument Jytdog ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

As a coherent scientific notion that stands on its own, this article needs to stay. This term is not limited to cryonics, but applies to other forms of biostasis (of the brain) as well, such as chemical fixation.

The analogy to a computer is scientifically valid enough for the purposes of this term, as it does not depend on whether the information is stored digitally or by some other method, the only assumption is that it is stored physically, and it stands in contrast to widespread fringe ideas of the mind as something nonphysical. Please don't stand in the way of progress by removing this article.

Your language about "powering up" a cryopreserved brain is indeed scientifically laughable, and substantially misrepresents cryonics, perhaps as an attempt at humor. Obviously extremely advanced technology would be needed to infer the original state prior to death/cryopreservation. Having inferred that state, the technology would need to exist to reconstruct it physically or within a computational framework (both of which are plausibly easier than inferring the original state, something that depends on the degree of damage which can be avoided). Strike, since the text it was responding to was struck. Lsparrish ( talk) 14:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

A chemically fixed brain cannot function and is very, very dead. That is just bizarre. But we are not here to discuss how FRINGEY this is; the AfD is about a lack of independent sources with which to build an article. Jytdog ( talk) 14:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Please note the topic, "information theoretic death". Not "biological death". Nobody said a chemically fixed brain could function, nor that a brain could simply be "powered on" -- that's your own bias at work. And if you didn't want to discuss how "fringe" it is, you shouldn't have brought it up in this AFD. For crying out loud. Lsparrish ( talk) 15:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I am not going to argue the FRINGE thing here; I understand the notion is something you hold dear. Jytdog ( talk) 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep (I just know this is going to blow some people's minds that I'm not 'mindlessly attacking anything that disagrees with my personal ideology') I managed the find the following with a simple google scholar search:
  • The Arrest of Biological Time as a Bridge to Engineered Negligible Senescence
  • Ethics review: Dark angels – the problem of death in intensive care
  • CRYOETHICS: SEEKING LIFE AFTER DEATH

That, to me, seems to be enough to establish that the term is used in the sense in which it was coined in mainstream journals. I think it satisfies WP:GNG, but the article should probably be given a once over and these sources added, as it currently relies almost entirely upon the individual who coined the term. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

User:MjolnirPants please note that the nomination discusses a lack of WP:INDY sources that will allow us to create an NPOV article; you are going to find sources from the cryonics crowd; you will not find this discussed outside that circle. Jytdog ( talk) 15:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The middle link isn't about cryonics (though it does use cryonics as an example in the abstract, along with a Monty Python quote to my delight), but even though the other two do, cryonics is a fringe subject with a lot of people writing about it. I'm pretty sure one can publish on cryonics while remaining independent of one particular big name in the subject. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

look and look. What i mean is that the only people you are going to find using this term are cryonics advocates; it is not part of mainstream discourse and we are not going to be able to create a neutral article. Jytdog ( talk) 15:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The publications linked there are Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Critical Care, and Bioethics. Those are WP:independent sources. "Independent" means something like "the New York Academy of Sciences doesn't get any extra money or other tangible benefits from promoting a particular POV about this". It doesn't mean "an author is employed in this field". Unless you seriously think you can demonstrate that NYAS is going to benefit from holding a POV on this subject, then I think we're going to have to agree that this subject is getting attention in independent publications – just like Time Cube got some attention in independent sources (mostly to say what garbage it was). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I hear that WAID but we also read INDY as I described it - we need sources with a range of views on X, not just one choir singing. A few months ago I went digging and I found just a few sources on this topic (the same ones cited above plus a couple others) and not a single one of them was by a mainstream neurologist. Not a single one. You try - I would love to see you write a neutral article on this topic. Jytdog ( talk) 16:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand what you're saying, but a cryonics article that makes it through peer review and into a mainstream publication is still just that. I don't think the article requires expansion, and I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect to a subsection in Death or something like that (hence the weak keep !vote). I just don't see this as useless information, the way many similar terms can often be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The definition of neutral is one that accurately reflects the extant sources – not one that reflects POVs that editors wish existed. When there's truly only "one choir singing" on a subject (which is unlikely in this case, as there's quite a lot written on the general subject of cryonics), then a neutral article should give a summary of what that choir is singing. The rules for neutrality are the same regardless of whether that subject is "let's pretend I won't have to die" or "children should be taught how to read" or "addition is commutative". We need to follow the sources that we have. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

User:WhatamIdoing as I noted above I challenge you to write a an article on this that actually complies with WP:NPOV including WP:PSCI. You will not be able to. We do not create articles when we have insufficient independent sources on things that would just replicate a bubble universe. There is nothing encyclopedic about that. This is where judgement comes in. Jytdog ( talk) 03:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Cryonics is actively marketed as a "medical procedure", so WP:MEDRS applies. Single studies aren't sufficient. I note your non-cryonicist study merely mentions the term quoting a cryonicist (in a non-reviewed paper) - David Gerard ( talk) 19:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not so sure MEDRS should apply to cryonics, as the potential for harm is negligible ("Oh dear, I broke his arm off!" "Bah, by the time they can fix the massive tissue damage caused by freezing, growing back an arm will be no problem. In fact, I'm just gonna borrow his foot as a paperweight..."). But if it has been decided it does, then I'd have to admit that none of the sources I provided would pass. None of them are even studies, just peer-reviewed discourses; sort of a high-brow 'letter to the editor'. Again, I only offer them as evidence of notability. The fringe-iness of declaring a formal name for something that already has a million names (oblivion, nirvana, brain death, death, the great beyond, pushing daisies, getting gacked/fragged/kakked/geeked, kicking the bucket, and every other euphemism that isn't a direct reference to an afterlife) is pretty strong. If anyone else agrees, I'll happily change my !vote to "make it a subsection or a paragraph in Death." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete I must agree with Jytdog. WP does not lead, we follow. This is a fringe theory at best, and at least until mainstream reliable sources pick it up, an article here is premature. DoctorJoeE  ^{review transgressions}/ _{talk to me!} 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Are we really unable to write an encyclopedia article that describes this idea? It seems to me that we have managed to do so in much more complicated cases before, so I don't really see why it would be impossible here, and it might be an important service to people who want to learn what this science-y sound stuff is about. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a niche topic, not a fringe theory. Debate has been refocused to notability. The Seung reference supports that this is an idea that is at least talked about among some neuroscientists, although it technically fits more under physics and computer science, and has strong philosophical implications as well. The interdisciplinary nature explains the relative lack of attention in neuroscience journals. In my experience, this page has great practical value for clarifying what the arguments for (for example) cryonics are, and has utility in countering supernatural claims about death by presenting multiple rational alternatives. I dislike pointing people to cryonics advocacy sites for the purpose of simply clarifying the meaning of a term, and the literature references contain too many digressions to be very useful for this purpose. The Wikipedia page seems to me a good place for a succinct, neutral presentation of this abstract concept. I think moving it to another Death or Cryonics related page would make it less convenient for this purpose. If it must be moved, then perhaps it belongs on Ralph Merkle, since it boils down to a clever quote from him that has gained a bit of currency (certainly within the cryonics community). Lsparrish ( talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

NB: Lsparrish is a WP:SPA for cyronics topics, per its contribs. I had placed the spa tag here but it was removed by Lparrrish here. hence this larger and more obtrusive note. Jytdog ( talk) 20:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I deleted the SPA after reading it. I don't see the point of a large and obtrusive note here. Lsparrish ( talk) 20:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The tag was for the closer, not for you. Jytdog ( talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize that was the intent, and I'm not sure of its importance in any case. I've made non-cryonics-related contributions to other topics like George Dvorsky, but I was actually surprised at the relative lack of non-transhumanism related edits in my history; it isn't intentional, and I have no intent to compromise the neutrality of Wikipedia. I have contributed to other Wikimedia projects under the same username, in case there are any doubts. In any case, I'm removing another attempt to add this tag on me by another user, since the above note from Jytdog makes it redundant. Lsparrish ( talk) 00:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is mainly a definition of a concept. As such it is not transgressing the scope of medical claims. It may well be entirely mistaken that there is a physical mind-state that is even theoretically restorable, but that has not been proven either way to the best of my knowledge. If someone wants to know what Information-theoretic death means, let them be informed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• dalete per DoctorJoeE rationale-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - two of the sources are non-peer-reviewed Merkle papers (a couple of papers that advocates have been putting into a number of places on Wikipedia as if they're real sources) and the third doesn't mention the term at all. If this neologism is worth noting, then it needs independent sourcing from non-fringe sources. WP:MEDRS fully applies, as cryonics is actively marketed as a "medical procedure", so single studies aren't sufficient either. Failing that: redirect to Cryonics as a cryonics jargon term. If there are RSes they can go in that article. Cryobiologist is actually working on a properly-sourced text on information-theoretic death, which could be a good section in Cryonics or a standalone. Redirect until then - David Gerard ( talk) 22:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep. I agree with Lsparrish that this is not a fringe theory. I also agree with Peter that it is a definition of a concept and not transgressing the scope of medical claims. I don't like the ridicule towards the article content that I detect in this AfD. For me it comes down to the sources and Google Scholar confirms my impression of the article sources that we have enough to meet WP:GNG. DeVerm ( talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• You are not !voting based on NOTABILITY. I have struck the statement about FRINGE as it distracting from the NOTABILITY argument. A hand-wavy claim about what you found on google is not sufficient; you have to bring actual sources to make the claim that there are sufficient indepedent reliable sources. Jytdog ( talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  It seems that you are somehow changing your nomination halfway this AfD. Your mention of FRINGE was not just a distracting argument but rather a core part of your nomination. I was about to modify my arguments above but noticed other changes and reading what is below here, I am getting the impression you are on some sort of crusade against this or related subjects. This may explain your unfounded accusations about "hand-wavy claims" at me but I do not engage in your wars and strike my !vote and leave you at it. It is not me who must come with detailed references but rather you who needs to be clear in your nomination and list the exact reasons for deletion, i.e. which sources are not good and why not. To be plain: what a mess this AfD is. DeVerm ( talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It is as I said. The core of the nomination is based on the policy WP:NOTABILITY as all AfD discussions must be. My reason is clear and well defined - there are insufficient independent reliable sources on this topic with to create a neutral article. The FRINGE discussion was the reason why I believe there are insufficient independent sources. That is a distraction from the core reason. This is a mess because cryonics advocates are here making non-policy based arguments to keep; I own responsibilty for some of that due to my giving my reason why I think there are insufficient sources. Jytdog ( talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete / merge to Death#Diagnosis I guess the question is there enough sources to go at the section listed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The waters have by now been thoroughly muddied. It is no longer clear whether the objections to the existance of the article are based on Fringe, Notability, MEDRS or a combination of two or more of these. In my opinion, Fringe was clutching at straws, MEDRS is scope-creep, and sooner or later scope-creep is going to end in backlash. For a non MED subject, MEDRS does not apply. A single mention of cryonics, even if misspelled, does not make the article MED. This is a philosophical subject, a biological subject, an information theory subject. Only peripherally medical. So quoting MED notability criteria is unjustified. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  The objection was always per the first sentence. The second sentence was my opinion as to why there are not independent sources about this. You will find literally nothing critical of this blatantly absurd and FRINGE notion in the mainstream neuroscience literature because is is an untestable hypothesis based on the analogy of the brain as hardware/software and driven by the hope of waking up people who are dead with their personalities intact. Jytdog ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  Is neuroscience the only field in which things can be notable? Are subjects discussed in the field of bioethics inherently non-notable? Many of them involve untestable hypotheses, analogies, and hopes for the future.
  One of the sources listed above is Bioethics (journal), which looks pretty mainstream to me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

bioethics are ethics of biology, not the ethics of science fiction. Yes this bioethicist had drunk the cryonics "a brain =hardware and software" koolaid. Jytdog ( talk) 03:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep In addition to the peer reviewed articles above, there is about a page on the topic in the book Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are, a book on neuroscience. While the notion of an information theoretic death may have initially been discussed in the context of cryonics, Seung points out in his book that information theoretic death is really an aspect of the topic of mind uploading. I think there are enough RS in enough depth to marginally pass notability thresholds per WP:GNG guidelines. If the consensus disagrees, merging to mind uploading may be a good target for this topic. -- Mark viking ( talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Again that is not a serious mainstream science source. It is in the bubble of cryonics people who analogize the brain to hardware and software which is lovely in sci-fi but has almost nothing to do with the RW of neuroscience. Jytdog ( talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

This appears to be false. Sebastian Seung is a neuroscientist who studies the connectome and memory. Lsparrish ( talk) 16:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

He is actually a physicist turned neuroscientist who treats the brain like a computer, and mainstream neuroscientists take issue with his approach. See for example Christof Koch's review of his book in Nature. (paywalled) Jytdog ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't have access to the paywalled article at the moment, but it seems pretty absurd to say human brains are not "computers" in the sense relevant to this term, i.e. physical processors and stores of information -- unless one were to adopt a blatantly supernaturalist point of view. I would be very surprised if that is a mainstream view in neuroscience, even among critics of Seung's connectomist position. Lsparrish ( talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

sure on a very high level the analogy is somewhat useful. on a high level, as an analogy. the subject of this article takes the analogy as reality and tries to apply it in detail. it science fiction. Jytdog ( talk) 19:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It's not really an analogy. The brain is a Computer. Most physical systems are. It is only loosely analogous to the digital computers we are familiar with. For ITD to be inapplicable you would need to show where the analogy breaks down, but as I've said it is a physical processor of and storage mechanism for information. I do think this is slightly past the realm of neuroscience as commonly understood, and (as the name implies) more in the realm of thermodynamics and computer science. Lsparrish ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Facepalm Jytdog ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

In a Wikipedia deletion discussion: if you're at the point of arguing the actual details of a topic from first principles, rather than just bringing the high-quality sources that demonstrate notability, then you're probably conceding - David Gerard ( talk) 20:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Clearly I'm not conceding; moreover this point had bearing on the reliability of the Seung source, and Jytdog is the one who brought up the issue of whether it follows from first principles. Lsparrish ( talk) 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

No, you are wrong. I was a computational neuroscientist and at one point worked with Sebastian Seung on modeling oculomotor dynamics of smooth pursuit, a mainstream computational neuroscience topic. I've also worked with Christof Koch on his comp neuro book. Both men are mainstream scientists who are unafraid to engage speculative or philosophical topics in neuroscience; Christof himself is well known for some out-there ideas on consciousness. The Human Connectome Project is sponsored by NIH and is very mainstream. Seung's connectome book is right in there giving an account of topic, including discussion of now mainstream topics like mind upload and, yes, information theoretic death. Ken Miller, another mainstream computational neuroscientist, had an op/ed in the New York Times discussing, from a skeptical POV, mind upload, cryogenics, and reconstruction of a mind from a connectome and associated brain tissue. Like it or not, this topic has entered the mainstream. The connectome book is thus a reliable independent source, and I'd argue, as Miller is an acknowledged expert, the Miller article has bearing on the topic too. I stand by my keep recommendation. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

so glad you are separating actual neuroscience from "speculative or philosophical topics in neuroscience". happy. yes, science fiction is very mainstream. I agree with that. Jytdog ( talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• I'm changing my vote to Delete. After extensive further searching, I can find no use of this term absent any reference to cryonics, which makes it jargon, and as such, unsuitable for an article title. This is compounded by the fact that it is a jargon term for exactly the same concept as Death. I think mention of this term can be made at the death article, but no more is warranted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Not exactly the same. Currently the lede on Death states that "Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism." Information-theoretic criteria relates to reversibility of this cessation, making it more specific. Furthermore, the majority of the human population believes in an afterlife, implying a further distinction from information-theoretic death (which is not compatible with an afterlife). Lsparrish ( talk) 16:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Can you define a difference between being dead and being information-theoretic dead without glossing over the fact that Resuscitation requires continued biological functions or making reference to Billy Crystal's greatest role? Wait, forget the second clause. I'm always open to those sorts of references.

I'll answer for you: No. There's no functional distinction. This term may be more specific, but it's only useful when discussing cryonics. Hence why I referred to it as jargon and suggested mentioning it in the death article. For the vast majority of uses, the two terms are completely synonymous. The notability of the term is thus non-existent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The distinction you are denying is one that shows up quite vividly as soon as we include the capabilities of advanced future technologies that obey the laws of physics as we know them. It is a futuristic topic, but not one that lacks grounding in material physics, putting it in sharp contrast to non-materialistic handlings of Death. It is also distinct from the pragmatic compromises surrounding Legal and Medical death criteria -- which also don't invoke futuristic technological revival as a possibility. Rather than glossing over the biological requirements of resurrection, it questions them as absolutes that will necessarily hold under all technological conditions. Lsparrish ( talk) 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Do you have any evidence of these capabilities? No, and neither does anyone else. They're entirely speculative. In fact, we have very good reasons to believe (not even suspect, but straight up accept and believe) that once necrosis sets in to a given tissue, that tissue is not able to be resuscitated by any means. These reasons run from theoretical to to experimental to oh-come-on-seriously?-common-damn-sensical. So even with your highly speculative appeal to what we might be able to do in the future, you have to ignore the fact that resuscitation requires continued biological functions. So, do you want to try again? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Continued biological function (goalpost) is not the same thing as avoiding necrosis (different goalpost). Necrosis is the process of cellular degradation. It isn't a sudden event, but a process. Tardigrades, C. elegans, and many other organisms, survive dessication and cryopreservation directly, with no speculative technology involved. Clearly they aren't undergoing necrosis, because biological function isn't strictly a matter of not undergoing necrosis. Cryonics tries to avoid necrosis, as does mainstream Histology and Cryobiology. Even if all you want is to get a good picture of the cells with no intention of returning them to life, necrosis is bad because it causes artifacts. And there are obviously varying degrees to which these artifacts can be avoided.

As to the capabilities of science within the known laws of physics, there is nothing especially speculative about saying some processes can be modeled in reverse with finite/realistic computational power whereas others run into hyperexponential complexity and noise issues. Where reversing the damage of cryonics is concerned, there are definite physical questions which can be researched (and are being, primarily by people within the cryonics niche/"bubble"). One of the primary considerations is how redundantly the data of the brain is stored. If it is highly redundant, particularly if something relatively durable is involved, a computationally feasible extrapolation of a complete (or nearly complete) set of the person's memories becomes more likely. Therefore there is grounds for informed speculation on this topic.

I also doubt that your plausibility argument matters. Even if we knew for a fact that the brain turned to a homogeneous goo at the moment the heart stops (or the brainwave flatlines, or whatever), we should still be able to engage in discussions about counterfactual forms of death where that is not the case. Lsparrish ( talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Necrosis begins to set in once biological functions cease except in purely sterile environments, which only exist in theory. Nice try, though. It's funny: I love the idea of cryonics. I support research into cryonics. But I'm ashamed to admit it, because arguments like yours usually take the forefront in the public eye. You are engaging in twists of logic to avoid conceding a point; shifting goalposts while accusing me of doing exactly that, based on the semantic fact that I didn't mention a key detail (though I know damn well you're aware of it). Also, my "plausibility argument" is that you rely on speculation to make your case, which absolutely matters. In order to make the case that there is a meaningful distinction (which you've gotten way away from, thanks to the mote in my eye you can spot through the log in yours) between death and information-theoretic death, once must speculate about the abilities of medicine in the future. One must speculate that the damage done by necrosis is reversible. Kudos on managing to so smoothly shift from "There's a distinction between X and X'" to "I'm allowed to talk about X'", however. It was skillfully done, even if you didn't gain any traction with me by doing so. Finally, I'm going to quote you to make sure you know exactly what I'm responding to below:

there is nothing especially speculative about saying some processes can be modeled in reverse with finite/realistic computational power No, there isn't. But modeling something and doing it are two completely different things. For example, we can model the Alcubierre metric with tons of precision and confidence. But we can't build a warp drive. In this particular case, there is a real physical principle which says we can't recover a mind from a necrotic brain, and might not even be able to recover a mind from a functioning brain. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

You are using what is either wrong or imprecise language to describe this, and I'm having a hard time figuring out where you are really coming from as a result. It probably seems like nitpicking, but the misunderstandings you seem to have are central to the point in question: Is there a plausible situation (such as, but not limited to, cryonics) in the current world where ITD does not apply where more common definitions of death (specifically, legal and medical) do apply? For one thing, necrosis (as well as apoptosis) refers to the process of cellular degradation, not bacterial decay. It does still happen in a sterile environment! What it doesn't happen in (as quickly) is cold environments. See the Arrhenius equation. It also does not happen to fixed tissues, which are also sterile because fixatives halt all biological activity including that of microbes. The idea of chemical fixation as a cryonics substitute was suggested by Drexler in Engines of Creation, and appears to have occurred to Benjamin Franklin at one point as well. Cooling also effectively stops biological activity when you get to cryogenic temperatures, but this effect is reversible (so germs survive, for example, and necrosis resumes), and can cause damage (inevitably causes considerable damage in large scale mammalian tissues). This cryopreservation damage is for the most part not itself "necrosis" as the term normally would be applied, but it does result in necrosis after thawing occurs -- under normal (non-futuristic) circumstances.

You also apparently missed the point that ITD concerns itself directly with the second law of thermodynamics. If you are saying patients who experience clinical death always reach the point where the second law renders the damage computationally irreversible, you are simply saying that ITD always occurs. Which is still a claim about ITD which is usefully distinct from other definitions of death because it's fundamentally stronger and more detailed.

As for the distinction between being able to model it in reverse (to infer original state) and being able instantiate it physically, I think this distinction is thinner than you realize. From my perspective, the bulk of the probability of cryonics not working has to do with inferrability of information, not ability to make use of the information. If a given death were only contingent on inability to manipulate matter on the nanoscale and/or simulate human personalities based on their memories, that would be a major advance over having to speculate about inferrability to begin with (something no cryonicist really wants to have to do), and the case for cryonics would be much stronger as a result. Lsparrish ( talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

You're wrong about a lot of things there, and I was going to respond point by point, but I realized that this was either your tactic to begin with, or that we'd both be missing the point if I did. The problem is, it takes a wall of text for you to make a case (a case which has numerous problems, but still) that there is a distinction. If it takes a wall of text to explain the distinction between ITD and death, then it's blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't invested in the keeping of this article that the distinction isn't enough to warrant a new article for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The distinction should be fairly obvious from the Merkle quote. ITD is where the information in the brain which defines memories is too thermodynamically scrambled to be accessed by any future technology. Death is nowhere near as specific. Lsparrish ( talk) 20:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

ITD is where the information in the brain which defines memories is too thermodynamically scrambled to be accessed by any future technology. In other words, ITD is all dead. As opposed to mostly dead. That's fine for cult-favorite romantic-comedy fantasies, but in the real world (which Wikipedia is in) the distinction has no real meaning. Even if it did, it certainly doesn't require more explanation than a single sentence. Maybe a paragraph, if you want to mention cryonics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

(Overdone comedic references aside) I think the distinction between "mostly" and "thermodynamically" is pretty important. Vague "mostly" or "completely" talk isn't helpful for forming an opinion on whether future technology can eventually solve a problem, whereas if I'm pointed to information theory (and thermodynamics, etc.) and do a little research I find out about combinatorial explosions and so on. There is an important concept at play where an initially solvable problem (death?) can become hugely more complex (death!) over a short time, to the point of having no reasonable solution (DEATH!!!), if permitted to do so. You should be able to see the pedagogic value of this even if you are convinced (despite my walls of text) that no real example of a dead person not meeting ITD criteria exists. Lsparrish ( talk) 00:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

here we go again, arguing minutiae instead of admitting there's no practical difference. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

There is a practical difference. It is useful when talking about cryonics. It is useful for understanding information science. It is useful for lots of things. I don't care if these topics are boring to some people. This isn't fiction, it isn't metaphor, it isn't unimportant, and it isn't stupid. Please stop pretending it is. Lsparrish ( talk) 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm sure if you insist upon the same disputed claim enough times, you'll convince someone. It won't be me, but I'm sure there's someone out there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• There has been considerable discussion of this topic in several reputable journals including Critical Care (IF:4.476) [1] [2], the Journal of Critical Care (1.995) [3], and the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [4] (IF: 4.383). The strongest argument supporting the notability of this topic is that:

"We will soon need to scrap the brain death standard in favor of a much more tentative, probabilistic, information-theoretic understanding of death as the loss of identity-critical information."

—  Brain Death and Disorders of Consciousness (pg. 86)

Finally, the topic was extensively reviewed by Princeton neuroscientist Sebastian Seung in his 2012 book Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are. Since this is closely related to but distinct from integrated information theory, it should have its own page. Keep. RoseL2P ( talk) 20:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

And User:A1candidate is back again - I am making this disclosure for you, since you to continue to fail to disclose this on the User page of your new account. Yes those are from inside the bubble, very much so. Seung's book was already discussed above and I provided the mainstream neuroscience perspective on those chapters. There are no sources - zero - that treat this concept critically in the way that actual scientific subjects are treated. None. Mainstream neuroscientists don't use it Jytdog ( talk) 20:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure, and mainstream reliable sources about the efficacy of most surgical procedures are from "inside the bubble" of surgeons. That doesn't mean that reliable sources aren't talking about the subject. Notability doesn't require that a subject get attention from opponents, and it doesn't require that a subject be treated like real science. It only requires that multiple sources talk about it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Not a valid comparison, and a scary one. Jytdog ( talk) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Points of order first, as it seems necessary.

1. That information-theoretic death (ITD) is a weird concept, pseudoscience, plain stupid etc. is irrelevant. If the topic is notable, we should cover it. Both sides: please stopdiscussing cryogenics except when it is directly linked to the subject at hand and necessary to the understanding of a notability argument. See WP:NOTFORUM.
2. More generally, stay on topic - this is not an RfC about banning all cryogenics or mind uploads from Wikipedia, this is about ITD and ITD alone.
3. Even if one understands "independent" in the restricted meaning of "does not directly receive money or fame" it works in tandem with "reliable". A Bernie Sanders supporting group will not get direct benefits (except the joy of "winning") if Sanders ends up in the White House, but it is either not independent or not reliable when it comes to reporting on the Democratic primaries, no matter how serious its press releases look like. One cannot argue that researchers supportive of cryogenics are independent because their paycheck does not depend on their views and reliable because they have a lab position; if they have strong personal views about the subject their are either not independent or not reliable.
4. That the nominator switched deletion rationale through the AfD is inconvenient but it is not relevant to the outcome (and certainly does not warrant a premature close). See Argument from fallacy.

I think WP:MEDRS does not really apply, but of course WP:N does, and the difference is not huge - though one could argue that MEDRS is more restrictive just as WP:BLP because of the potential for harm (even with the "no medical advice" disclaimer). In any case we need independent reliable sources addressing the subject to a reasonable level of detail.

Onto the notability: I could see two claims of notability, one as a minority viewpoint in the scientific community, and one as a notable fringe subject ( "fringe" as in "not validated", not as in "utter bollocks").

It seems clear to me that the scientific community at large rejected the idea or even did not care. Moreover, "theoretically retrievable information" is a very dubious concept; I guess the idea behind it is that you could have a soulmeter scan the 10^14 neuronal connections to retrieve the "mind" of the subject (or its memories, or...), but thermodynamics postulates that such a machine will never exist for reasons more fundamental that "it is hard to make" (see Maxwell's demon), and so WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. If someone does not see how Maxwell's demon is relevant, I can discuss it, but WP:NOTFORUM so I will not type ten paragraphs if it is not absolutely necessary.

As a notable pop science subject, there is Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are, assuming it does discuss ITD (not merely cryonics attempts to preserve the brain in general); note that it is irrelevant that the author is not-RS, if crowds bought the book and believed it, it is a notable topic just as Creationism is. But as far as sources go, that is about it. For instance, the NYT opinion piece does not discuss ITD, but only "copying the mind"; it does not suggest to use the feasibility of such a process as a criterion for death.

As a consequence, I say to merge and redirect to Ralph Merkle - though I have no strong objection to outright deletion. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The points of order above are spot-on. There is nothing about the subject specific to humans, in fact the firsts will likely be found in something like PMID  25750233. We already have biomimetic artificial neural networks, it is only a matter of time until they reach the complexity of c. elegans. Even before that, it will be possible to replace the function of a worm's individual neurons in a Ship of Theseus, or kill them off one cell at a time to experimentally determine the threshold for their ITD. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect over to Ralph Merkle as this bit of jargon is an outgrowth of his arguments and his beliefs while not having legs in broader science. If that can't/won't happen, then just delete this as something without the necessary sourcing for a stand-alone page. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo ( talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Whether or not the concept has scientific merit is irrelevent, ditto points of order above, simply if there can be some reliable secondary references used then keep as a stub. It is a much stronger article than many many stubs around the place. If the time and effort into arguments about ITD above (note not about the article about ITD) had gone into the article with references we would have a GA article by now. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Definite keep now that it has been WP:HEYed; even perhaps now a SNOW keep ! Aoziwe ( talk) 13:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• New article version published Note that all previous discussion has concerned a much shorter poorly-referenced article. Cryobiologist ( talk) 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep lots of reliable secondary sources, even if they're dismissing it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep Cryobiologist's new version ... it's still pretty darn fringey, but this is much better - David Gerard ( talk) 11:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• After reading the new version yesterday a few times and pondering it, I have moved almost all of it to the talk page. There was an enormous amount of WP:SYN and outright WP:OR there, not to mention handling of refs in a way that there were a ton of duplicates. Not to mention padding with all kinds of background and tangential content. Jytdog ( talk) 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep As documented in my long version of this article from yesterday, information-theoretic death credited to Merkle appears in five papers about death in peer-reviewed medical journals, and two scholarly (not popular) books about death in medicine, whereas the term occurs in only three papers about cryonics in peer-reviewed journals. I think there's a bit of a "fruit of a poisonous tree" problem here. Mainstream venues that consider the information-theoretic concept of death worthy of mention, discussion, or utilization (e.g. such as considering extent of information-theoretic survival of recipients of stem cell therapy for severe neurodegenerative disease), and that reference cryonics for originating the concept, seem to taint the idea as "just about cryonics." In my defense re repeated references, every repeated reference in the long version of the article was necessary to support statements that would otherwise have been challenged, usually with unique quoted text from the reference to support the statement citing it. I have no simple defense against the claim of WP:SYN in my long version because while I may be a subject matter expert, Jytdog is a Wikipedia expert. Time permitting, I'll engage Jytdog on the Talk page sometime to sort all that out. As far as WP:OR is concerned, the background I gave on information-theoretic death, and how it's a refinement of preexisting debates about brain structure and brain death, relied heavily on secondary sources (books and review articles). I believe I could rewrite that section to cite such secondary sources exclusively. That's something else I'll have to sort out with Jytdog when I have time. In the meantime, I'm glad that Jytdog was able to salvage at least some useful material from all that work. Cryobiologist ( talk) 02:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The version as it stands now just incorporates the sources discussed above. In my view this should still be merged to Merkle. It remains a FRINGE notion that is not widely used in the ~25 years since it was proposed; I view this standalone article as just advocacy for cryonics. It was a believer who kicked all this off by undoing the redirect that we had previously agreed on and as you acknowledge, Cryobologist you too are one of the faithful. Jytdog ( talk) 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep From the references of the article and the news articles etc that can be found via a Google search this is clearly notable enough. (I'm also opposing a merge with Ralph Merkle as that's not needed and the it being better kept as a separate article.) -- Fixuture ( talk) 19:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.