> 1) Cryonics is mostly a pseudoscientific money making scheme. "In theory it could work" (maybe) if we get around a lot of huge hurdles. Calling it the best idea we have is just an opinion.

Name any other that could work for people dying now.

> 2) Explain to me what a frozen mind is. Explain to me how a mind can be frozen, present evidence.

Frozen mind is a frozen brain. Unless you believe mind is somewhere else, if you freeze the brain you freeze the mind.

> Present evidence that the mind is present and intact in a frozen brain. Explain how the mind can be restored, present evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation#Temperatur... Worked with dogs so far. Just for a very short time (3 hours), but it's a start.

> Also "reprogramming viruses -> nanotech that can do everything": Non sequitur.

Why? Reprogramming viruses is a start and a way to possibly bootstrap our own nanotech. There is nothing blocking us in principle except "it sounds too crazy to be true".

> 4) Again, you are just asserting things. You are making a positive claim and you need to present evidence.

Evidence that nanotech works? Every single living thing around you. Evidence that we already can use it to build stuff? Just google around. Some random things I was refering to in previous comment:

http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_belcher_using_nature_to_grow...

http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_...

> 5) I understand that you claimed that before. But you are just pulling that out of the air without evidence or even a good explanation or any reasoning.

The line of reasoning is like this: we will most likely need some form of nanotech to repair damages done to brain cells by freezing, unless you can think of another method that would preserve the structure. This technology is based on manipulating stuff on molecular level. Since dirt contains most of the things we need to build pretty much anything (what do you think living organisms are built from?), then cheap assembly of non-living things a) seems a much easier problem than fixing living stuff, and b) can be done by simpler versions of the said technology.

The detailed lines of reasoning can be found in Drexler's "Engines of Creation 2.0" (http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=503) and other works referenced there.

> 6) I have a canvas with the original painting of the mona lisa that was made before the one we can now see at the museum. You're lucky! I would like to sell it to you! Please note that you can not see the painting at the moment because it has been preserved by a sophisticated technique called "meh". So the canvas might look empty at the moment but future nanotechnology will be able to restore it. Interested?

Explain to me how "meh" method works. How it preserves information contained in the painting. If it makes physical and information-theoretical sense, then maybe I'll consider buying it :P.

It's hard to present examples for technology that we don't really have right now, but there's this concept of reasoning from first principles, and the said principles do not prohibit molecular nanotechnology better that the one already existing (that is, life).

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Examples_of_...

http://www.cosmolearning.com/courses/richard-feynman-lecture...