If my brain were preserved, would there still be a person in there to bring back?

They are arguing about different objects and on different clocks. More is arguing about what a declaration of legal death means and what a technology not yet invented might do with what remains, which is a question about the next several decades. Hendricks is arguing about the information content of a preserved brain, which is a question about what today's preservation methods destroy. Ramakrishnan is arguing about what is in the tissue now and what today's science can read out of it.

None of them is addressing a person who is currently dying: all three are writing for a healthy reader with money, deciding now whether to make an arrangement. More's reader has already taken the question seriously; the other two are writing for a reader who probably has not.

More than the register suggests. All three accept that no revival has ever been demonstrated and that nothing available today could revive anyone.

All three hold that the question turns on whether the information that constitutes a person survives preservation, rather than on whether cold storage is technically achievable. More concedes explicitly that the odds cannot be calculated and that many people are reasonably deterred, which is not a concession the other two are arguing against. More and Ramakrishnan also reject the idea that legal death is a simple biological fact, and reach that from the same CPR example, and both, from opposite ends, tell you to worry about the institution rather than the physics.

For Hendricks and Ramakrishnan: a demonstration that the memory-bearing molecular state of a preserved brain, not only its anatomy, survives and can be read back, or a revived mammalian brain with recognisable function.

For More, the honest answer is his own position: he holds that the odds cannot be objectively calculated, so nothing short of a demonstration settles it, and in the meantime the failure modes he himself catalogues, organisational collapse, inadequate funding and family opposition, are the near-term evidence to watch.