The theology of cryonics is fatally flawed in this new era of physics where increasing numbers of physicists and philosophers are reviving the notion that consciousness is primary. Cite 10 writers, authors or websites that I can offere as evidence of this trend.




Okay, here are 10 writers, authors, or websites that could be used to support the idea that there's a growing trend in physics and philosophy towards the notion that consciousness is primary, and which could be used to argue against the materialist underpinnings of cryonics:




**Writers, Authors, and Websites Supporting a "Consciousness-First" Perspective:**




1. **Bernardo Kastrup:** (Author, Philosopher) A leading proponent of idealism, arguing that consciousness is fundamental and the physical world is a manifestation of it. His books, like "Why Materialism Is Baloney" and "The Idea of the World," are widely cited. His website, [bernardokastrup.com](https://www.bernardokastrup.com/), features essays and resources.



2. **Donald Hoffman:** (Cognitive Scientist) Known for his "Interface Theory of Perception," suggesting that our perception of reality is a species-specific user interface, not a direct representation of objective reality. His work challenges the idea that consciousness is solely a product of the brain. His book "The Case Against Reality" is a good source.



3. **Rupert Sheldrake:** (Biologist) Controversial but influential, Sheldrake's work on "morphic resonance" suggests a non-local interconnectedness of consciousness and a departure from strictly mechanistic views of biology. His books, like "A New Science of Life," explore these ideas. [sheldrake.org](https://www.sheldrake.org/) is his website.



4. **David Chalmers:** (Philosopher, Cognitive Scientist) Known for his work on the "hard problem of consciousness" and his advocacy for panpsychism (the view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality). While not necessarily arguing for consciousness *before* matter, his work challenges purely materialist explanations. Search for his papers on philpapers.org



5. **Philip Goff:** (Philosopher) A prominent advocate for panpsychism, arguing that it provides a more parsimonious explanation of consciousness than materialism. His book "Consciousness and Fundamental Reality" is a key text.



6. **Amit Goswami:** (Theoretical Physicist) Advocates for a version of quantum physics that integrates consciousness as a fundamental element. He often discusses this in the context of spirituality and healing.



7. **Deepak Chopra:** (Author, Speaker) Popularizes consciousness-based approaches to health and well-being, often drawing on interpretations of quantum physics and Eastern philosophy.



8. **The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR):** [issr.org.uk](https://www.issr.org.uk/). While not explicitly advocating for "consciousness-first," this organization provides a platform for exploring the intersection of science and religion, including discussions about consciousness, mind-body problems, and the limits of materialism. You can often find articles and conference proceedings that touch on these themes.



9. **Scientific and Medical Network:** ([https://scientificandmedical.net/](https://scientificandmedical.net/)) This organization explores science and spirituality, often with a focus on consciousness research, near-death experiences, and the mind-body connection. They host conferences and publish articles that challenge purely materialistic viewpoints.
10. **Open Sciences:** ([https://opensciences.org/](https://opensciences.org/)) This group fosters open dialogue and research on topics that challenge mainstream scientific paradigms, including consciousness studies, parapsychology, and alternative medicine. They provide a platform for ideas that often challenge purely materialistic worldviews.




**How to Use These Sources to Critique the Theology of Cryonics:**




The core argument would be that if consciousness is fundamental, and not simply an emergent property of the physical brain, then the assumptions behind cryonics are flawed. Here's how you can use the cited sources:




* **Challenge the Assumption of Materialism:** Cryonics is predicated on the idea that preserving the physical structure of the brain is sufficient to preserve the "self" or consciousness. These authors challenge that assumption by arguing that consciousness is either more fundamental than matter, or is deeply intertwined with it in ways that cannot be reduced to mere physical structure.



* **Question the Nature of Identity:** If consciousness is primary, then identity might not be solely localized within the brain. If consciousness is fundamental and non-local, then simply preserving the brain's structure might not be enough to restore the individual's subjective experience.



* **Highlight the Limits of Current Science:** The revival of consciousness-first ideas indicates that our current scientific understanding of consciousness is incomplete. Cryonics is a gamble based on a particular *materialist* worldview, and if that worldview is incomplete or incorrect, the gamble may not pay off.



* **Suggest Alternative Models:** If consciousness is fundamental, then other avenues for preserving or recreating the "self" might be possible, avenues that are not currently considered within the framework of cryonics.




**Important Considerations:**




* **Nuance is Key:** The debate about consciousness is complex and ongoing. It's important to represent these authors' views accurately and to acknowledge the counterarguments.



* **Avoid Oversimplification:** Be careful not to present a straw man argument. Cryonics proponents may acknowledge some of the challenges to materialism but still argue that it's the best (or only) hope for future revival.



* **Focus on the Theological Implications:** The goal is to show how these scientific and philosophical ideas challenge the *underlying assumptions* of cryonics, not to definitively prove that cryonics *cannot* work.




By using these sources thoughtfully and critically, you can build a compelling argument that the theology of cryonics is based on potentially outdated or incomplete scientific and philosophical assumptions.