40 replies to this topic

[modelcadet]

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?

[Live Forever]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

I am not understanding what you are asking here. Your question does not make grammatical sense.

[Luna]

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]

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.

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.

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?

nope. for cryonics you need to be cryopreserved, which should be organized before your dead and the other things most probably wont work.

[Luna]

I think I rarely ever posted in the cryonics forums but I must say, I just went to the site to read the FAQ and cryonics are cool (ha! double meaning ) and their dedication for their job is something worth respecting.

Good job you all and good luck :-)

[Shannon Vyff]

Cryonics is the only chance I have if I'm, say, hit by a car today. Although I'd much prefer ending aging, to actually dying and being dependent on the possibility of cryonics patients being re-animated--I still advocate that cryonics is a rational 'insurance' to set up, in case it works.

[jonano]

cryonics is worst than scientology. it's as bad as that, in my head now.

<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]

Jonano, that's enough, really.
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]

Let me try to clarify. At its core, cryonics is technology intended to die in a way that makes future reanimation easier. I understand the continuity argument. I don't agree, but since most of you cling to the construction, I'll refrain from pushing that (I'm sure it's already been debated to death here).

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]

rejection is a proof of sectarism, and cryonics is managed like every sects that I know of..

[Brainbox]

Hmm, didn't you reject cryonics just one post before?
You also expressed you didn't care anymore.

Stop your crusade please.

[Reno]

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.

[Live Forever]

Cryonics is currently expensive.

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.

[bgwowk]

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.

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.

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]

Ive always thought about that too, like eventually with some kind of really crazy future technology, thousands of centuries away even, whats stopping the ability to somehow someway revive a fairly decomposed corpse? I guess all we can do now imo is go with the best bet which is cryonics unless some drastic anti aging technologies come out soon which is pretty unlikely imo.

[Luna]

unless some drastic anti aging technologies come out soon which is pretty unlikely imo.

Think again.

[mike250]

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]

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]

20 years is not a long time.. 50 is maybe. but all relative
Bt you're right, the more it takes, the more people die :/

[mike250]

50 years is a very long time. even 20 years is a bit on the late side. 10 years would be awesome if that is to come by. I'm surprised that we have people who are opposing this. there are much benefits to be reaped.

[Cyberbrain]

I still don't understand why most of you are against cyronics. Many scientists and doctors are working hard to give us hope in the event of a premature death. Until 2030, I believe that cryonics will be our only insurance for immortality if we die prematurely.

[mike250]

thats good but we'd also hope for current diseases being cured/abolished. I guess this is something that strikes some people first.

[Cyberbrain]

thats good but we'd also hope for current diseases being cured/abolished. I guess this is something that strikes some people first.

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]

But after the year 2030, I would have to say that cryonics would be rendered useless.

[mike250]

LOL 2030? thats kinda like after 23 years later!! wouldn't something be at least produced after 10 years or so?

[Luna]

Uhh.. what?
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]

LOL 2030? thats kinda like after 23 years later!! wouldn't something be at least produced after 10 years or so?

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.

[mike250]

so I have to wait until i'm in my forties to reap the benefits. damn!!

[Cyberbrain]

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.

[Luna]

You gotta look at the whole picture.. around 200 years ago people died at age 40..

[ken_nj]

Well in another 30 years who knows what kind of preservation technologies will be being used in cryonics. Most likely something way better than vitrification, or even something that is at the time reversible.