Necessity of cryonics?
modelcadet 11 Aug 2007
But I agree that cryonics may indeed be a useless endeavor. Essentially, if a future civilization is technologically advanced enough to revive you and cure you of whatever you were dying(and whatever you weren't dying but would have died), why couldn't a future civilization just as well revive a buried body or less preserved body. Hell, a virtual simulation of all matter, run backwards using the grand unified theory of physics for all subatomic particles n stuff, would be able to determine 'you' and revive you.
I guess an argument can be made for being revived earlier rather than later, but what I'm wondering is if just indicating in your will that you'd like to be revived if technologically possible cryonics enough?
Live Forever 11 Aug 2007
A buried body will break down and not be revivable in a short amount of time. What do you mean by a "less preserved body"? Cryonics preserves the body pretty well; I don't know how you would preserve a body "less" and still have it viable.Not to unnecessarily keep this thread going...
But I agree that cryonics may indeed be a useless endeavor. Essentially, if a future civilization is technologically advanced enough to revive you and cure you of whatever you were dying(and whatever you weren't dying but would have died), why couldn't a future civilization just as well revive a buried body or less preserved body.
Well, I suppose if you could have a society advanced enough to do that, then maaaaaybe it might be possible. However, running such an advanced simulation of all matter would 1) be far, far more advanced than what would be required to revive a cryonically suspended individual, 2) would still be a simulation, and therefore a "copy" of "you" and not the real you (a big problem for those of us worried about continuity, for the same reason I see a copy of myself as someone different), and 3) is far, far more speculative as to if it would even be possible than cryonics is.Hell, a virtual simulation of all matter, run backwards using the grand unified theory of physics for all subatomic particles n stuff, would be able to determine 'you' and revive you.
I am not understanding what you are asking here. Your question does not make grammatical sense.I guess an argument can be made for being revived earlier rather than later, but what I'm wondering is if just indicating in your will that you'd like to be revived if technologically possible cryonics enough?
Luna 11 Aug 2007
Not to unnecessarily keep this thread going...
But I agree that cryonics may indeed be a useless endeavor. Essentially, if a future civilization is technologically advanced enough to revive you and cure you of whatever you were dying(and whatever you weren't dying but would have died), why couldn't a future civilization just as well revive a buried body or less preserved body. Hell, a virtual simulation of all matter, run backwards using the grand unified theory of physics for all subatomic particles n stuff, would be able to determine 'you' and revive you.
I guess an argument can be made for being revived earlier rather than later, but what I'm wondering is if just indicating in your will that you'd like to be revived if technologically possible cryonics enough?
Well, we can be sure that the other tactics will work, don't forget.. people in the graveyard decay and stuff.
And about the simulation, didn't we end up saying it's a clone/replica and not the real person? I wouldn't like to die and have a replica insteads of me.
I don't wanna die @@..
bob_d 11 Aug 2007
You can never revive a burried body body, because once you are rotten, the only information present( until the worms or the rain kick in) is the approximate chemical composition of your body, while there are almost no features of its structure preserved. less preserved bodies is a problematic expression. the more of your brain is preserved the more of your personality and memories will be there. everything that is lost cannot be reconstructed, so there will be some sort of default parts filled in, that most probably differ from your own configuration. if to much of your brain is lost, it is impossible to bring you back. cryonics has another advantage. you can unfreeze people pretty easy. but you can't revert chemopreservation at the moment at example. furthermore chempreservation still alows decay.. who knows what future brings. but it is still safest to rely as much as possible on technologies, which are already present and at least partially working.Essentially, if a future civilization is technologically advanced enough to revive you and cure you of whatever you were dying(and whatever you weren't dying but would have died), why couldn't a future civilization just as well revive a buried body or less preserved body.
nope. for cryonics you need to be cryopreserved, which should be organized before your dead and the other things most probably wont work.I guess an argument can be made for being revived earlier rather than later, but what I'm wondering is if just indicating in your will that you'd like to be revived if technologically possible cryonics enough?
Luna 11 Aug 2007
Good job you all and good luck :-)
Shannon Vyff 11 Aug 2007
jonano 11 Aug 2007
<removed ad hominem attack after you were warned...> Please try to remember your past..
--Jon
Edited by brainbox, 11 August 2007 - 09:34 PM.
Luna 11 Aug 2007
I don't know how you came to your counclusions but if you believe you are correct, there is a better way to show your opinions on the subject, other then direct insults and saying nothing matters.
If you believe you're correct, please just give scientiftic and reasoning arguements insteads of just expressing your emotions.
modelcadet 11 Aug 2007
Cryonics is currently expensive. Of course, early adopters of such technology will drive down the price and also increase demand for reanimation technologies. More meticulous cryonics will obviously provide the greatest chance of being revived earlier. However, it's safe to assume demand for reanimation technologies would expand to include the recently deceased or less well preserved humans. Like... instead of paying a lot of money for cryonics technology, would it be just as well to invest that insurance money in a portfolio to be won by the company able to revive you? Like, might it be just as well to specify they dump your body on Antarctica (although, according to Gore, that might not be a long term solution).
These are just thoughts. I too would rather invest in living longer and fuller than in cryonics. I think we're really close to AGI (even closer than the most prominent researchers realize), and I'm confident that as soon as that exists, it'll solve the problem of reviving my not-so-well-preserved cadaver. But yeah, I don't really care about my body that much anyway (and, to a lesser extent, my self-preserving self-identity).
jonano 11 Aug 2007
Brainbox 11 Aug 2007
You also expressed you didn't care anymore.
Stop your crusade please.
Reno 12 Aug 2007
Imagine nanomachines slowing down a person's metabolism so that a person could hibernate extended periods of time. Imagine the nanobots increasing the time by which you can remain in hibernation by using stored reserves of energy to manufacture the necessities of the body.
The ability to freeze one's self in time is a handy ability to have when one intends to travel vast distances using todays transportation technologies.
Live Forever 12 Aug 2007
I disagree with this point specifically (moreso than the rest of your argument). If funded through life insurance, the cost is less than my cable bill every month. (a few dollars a day, depending on your age and health, and less than $100 a month, sometimes much less, for most other people like me) It is cheaper than most people think, and for the cost of it, is one of the best backup plans that you can get for your money.Cryonics is currently expensive.
bgwowk 12 Aug 2007
The objective of any comprehensive resuscitation technology is to infer and restore the specific healthy brain state that existed before ischemia or biostasis. If neurological information is lost due to ischemic injury or poor preservation, the inferred initial state becomes less specific. In other words, more and more possible initial states become compatible with the observed state as more information is lost. As information loss escalates, the revived person will have less and less in common with the original person until at some arbitrary point we will be forced to acknowledge that the revived person isn't the original person anymore.Essentially, if a future civilization is technologically advanced enough to revive you and cure you of whatever you were dying(and whatever you weren't dying but would have died), why couldn't a future civilization just as well revive a buried body or less preserved body.
Culture and law may adopt the convention that anyone revived from any condition is still the original person. ("They saved Bob, but he lost all his memories," as Thomas Donaldson used to say.) But that is hardly an outcome that any rational person should be content with if better outcomes are possible.
ken_nj 12 Aug 2007
Luna 12 Aug 2007
unless some drastic anti aging technologies come out soon which is pretty unlikely imo.
Think again.
mike250 12 Aug 2007
Nanotechnology which is probably closer at hand then cryogenics could accomplish the same goals,... in theory. If you have nanomachines coursing through your body mapping out the arrangement of molecules in your body then it would be possible to rebuild you if an accident were to befall you. Imagine getting shot in the face by a madman with a 10 guage pump shotgun. Your head would be blasted open. But hey, wait a second your nanomachines have the ability to arrange matter in an atomically precise fashion. You find yourself up and walking about after your army of nanomachines rebuild your head.
Imagine nanomachines slowing down a person's metabolism so that a person could hibernate extended periods of time. Imagine the nanobots increasing the time by which you can remain in hibernation by using stored reserves of energy to manufacture the necessities of the body.
The ability to freeze one's self in time is a handy ability to have when one intends to travel vast distances using todays transportation technologies.
hopefully someday soon we can move out from the ''imagination'' zone and into the ''reality'' zone. I can't wait for that.
ken_nj 12 Aug 2007
unless some drastic anti aging technologies come out soon which is pretty unlikely imo.
Think again.
Oh the anti-aging technologies will come around, but within the next 20 years? Hopefully :/
Luna 12 Aug 2007
Bt you're right, the more it takes, the more people die :/
mike250 12 Aug 2007
Cyberbrain 12 Aug 2007
mike250 12 Aug 2007
Cyberbrain 12 Aug 2007
Yeah I'm not going to disagree with that. I hope that I will never have to be cryo-preserved. I hope to reach the singularity perfectly healthy due to advances in medical technology. The only purpose cryonics will serve for the next 20-30 years would be for people who want to be immortal, but have died by causes that can not be cured just yet. [lol]thats good but we'd also hope for current diseases being cured/abolished. I guess this is something that strikes some people first.
But after the year 2030, I would have to say that cryonics would be rendered useless.
mike250 12 Aug 2007
Luna 12 Aug 2007
And agreed, many doctors are doing alot for us so we have a chance in the event (hopefully never happen) of death.
Note, I do not say pre-mature death because.. by the new definitions, we can't say there is really such thing.
Hopefully, none of us will EVER die.
Cyberbrain 12 Aug 2007
Nah, I doubt we will find a cure to AIDS, HIV, Cancer, Diabetes, Aging, etc in the next 10 years. I'd give it 20 to 30 years.LOL 2030? thats kinda like after 23 years later!! wouldn't something be at least produced after 10 years or so?
Cyberbrain 12 Aug 2007
so I have to wait until i'm in my forties to reap the benefits. damn!!
Not exactly. As time passes we will find more and more cures. It won't be until 2020-2040 until we have ALL (or at least most) of the cures.