• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Cryonics movement


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#31 boundlesslife

  • Life Member in cryostasis
  • 206 posts
  • 11

Posted 15 February 2010 - 11:07 PM

Now as for your statements.... correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be focusing on the "suspended animation" side of things. Right? If yes, then here is Thomas Donaldson's response (bolded parts courtesy of me):

------------

"We would all like "proof" that cryonics will work. There will never be proof that cryonics will work. Certainly, individual people will be revived. Some of them (we hope a very large percentage) will actually come back as the same people as those who "died." There will certainly be proof that we can successfully freeze human brains and definitively preserve personality, identity, the "soul", or what have you. But those things aren't cryonics, they're just particular technologies. They don't really embody the key idea. The really key idea in cryonics is the idea of freezing (or otherwise preserving) people when we don't know if we can ever revive them. Of course, we intend to figure out later whether we can do this. We intend to succeed in reviving them. But before we've actually done so, we certainly can't prove we will succeed. And funny thing, after we've done so, the proof will be irrelevant. If we know how to bring somebody back as a fully functioning human being after an hour of ischemia, why should we ever bother to go to the added expense and trouble of freezing them first? That would be bizarre and unnecessary."

------------


Thomas Donaldson once wrote a very poetic and beautiful short shory titled Travelling which explores the very outer limits of identity preservation when very little was left, and what life might be millennia from now, among distant stars.

#32 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 16 February 2010 - 12:22 PM

Listened to this today, was interesting to hear why "a quant" (statistics genius) signed up for cryonics because he sees it as a 2% chance, which is better than 0%: http://www.npr.org/t...oryId=123209339

#33 enoonsti

  • Guest
  • 81 posts
  • 10

Posted 17 February 2010 - 02:12 AM

@JJN: I don't want it to work 100%. I'd much rather have 200% :)


@boundlesslife: Thanks for the link! And thanks for your timing, since that story deals with JJN's gray area.


@Shannon: For being a statistics genius, I sincerely hope that he was joking about the 2% (and I think he was, given his 50-50 of being happy :p ). First off, you can't concoct some Drake-like equation when the conditions are NOT independent of what we do. Second, you have to approach cryonics in an individual by individual manner, making blanket probabilities irrelevant. Third, what exactly do we define as success? Some of those cancel each other out, but I'm not offering a peer-reviewed post here :~ . It's like when Arthur C. Clarke said, "Although no one can quantify the probability of cryonics working, I estimate it is at least 90% -- and certainly nobody can say it is zero." Sometimes I get the feeling that people skim over the first part of what he said.... :p

Edited by enoonsti, 17 February 2010 - 02:23 AM.


#34 JJN

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 17 February 2010 - 04:34 AM

@JJN: I don't want it to work 100%. I'd much rather have 200% :)

Ah, you may get the 200%... not just 100% retention of identity, but also indefinite life extension, being vaulted into a more interesting time in the future, and so on...

@boundlesslife: Thanks for the link! And thanks for your timing, since that story deals with JJN's gray area.

Yes, thanks for it! I really am trying to be something of a realist, and am trying to imagine: would it really be so bad if I didn't have 100% retention of identity? I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be the end of the world...

@Shannon: For being a statistics genius, I sincerely hope that he was joking about the 2% (and I think he was, given his 50-50 of being happy :p ). First off, you can't concoct some Drake-like equation when the conditions are NOT independent of what we do. Second, you have to approach cryonics in an individual by individual manner, making blanket probabilities irrelevant. Third, what exactly do we define as success? Some of those cancel each other out, but I'm not offering a peer-reviewed post here :~ . It's like when Arthur C. Clarke said, "Although no one can quantify the probability of cryonics working, I estimate it is at least 90% -- and certainly nobody can say it is zero." Sometimes I get the feeling that people skim over the first part of what he said.... :p


Yes, it's chances of degrees of success is not dependant upon some broad statistical means of assessment, or some 'cut of the cards'. It's chance of degrees of success is based upon our efforts in it.

I was having a 'discussion' with a friend today about cryonics. She thinks it's just crazy and strange. I brought up, that, ok, many things being considered, maybe there is a 2% chance it will work. She said it's probably more like .00000...........2%. Then I said, ok, but that is more than 0%, right? She didn't have a reply. I'm sure she'll come back with one...


#35 enoonsti

  • Guest
  • 81 posts
  • 10

Posted 19 February 2010 - 10:09 PM

@JJN: I don't want it to work 100%. I'd much rather have 200% :)

Ah, you may get the 200%... not just 100% retention of identity, but also indefinite life extension, being vaulted into a more interesting time in the future, and so on...

@boundlesslife: Thanks for the link! And thanks for your timing, since that story deals with JJN's gray area.

Yes, thanks for it! I really am trying to be something of a realist, and am trying to imagine: would it really be so bad if I didn't have 100% retention of identity? I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be the end of the world...

@Shannon: For being a statistics genius, I sincerely hope that he was joking about the 2% (and I think he was, given his 50-50 of being happy :) ). First off, you can't concoct some Drake-like equation when the conditions are NOT independent of what we do. Second, you have to approach cryonics in an individual by individual manner, making blanket probabilities irrelevant. Third, what exactly do we define as success? Some of those cancel each other out, but I'm not offering a peer-reviewed post here :~ . It's like when Arthur C. Clarke said, "Although no one can quantify the probability of cryonics working, I estimate it is at least 90% -- and certainly nobody can say it is zero." Sometimes I get the feeling that people skim over the first part of what he said.... :)


Yes, it's chances of degrees of success is not dependant upon some broad statistical means of assessment, or some 'cut of the cards'. It's chance of degrees of success is based upon our efforts in it.

I was having a 'discussion' with a friend today about cryonics. She thinks it's just crazy and strange. I brought up, that, ok, many things being considered, maybe there is a 2% chance it will work. She said it's probably more like .00000...........2%. Then I said, ok, but that is more than 0%, right? She didn't have a reply. I'm sure she'll come back with one...



Isn't it a wonderful feeling that both of us have outsmarted a quant in one area? :~ In all seriousness, even though I know you're just trying to be humble, don't say that you're 99% ignorant of cryonics. The fact that you're approaching this in terms of identity retention already places you ahead of most people :)

p.s. did she ever respond? I wouldn't push it if I were you, haha. You might get punched!

#36 JJN

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 18
  • Location:.

Posted 20 February 2010 - 04:34 PM

@JJN: I don't want it to work 100%. I'd much rather have 200% :)

Ah, you may get the 200%... not just 100% retention of identity, but also indefinite life extension, being vaulted into a more interesting time in the future, and so on...

@boundlesslife: Thanks for the link! And thanks for your timing, since that story deals with JJN's gray area.

Yes, thanks for it! I really am trying to be something of a realist, and am trying to imagine: would it really be so bad if I didn't have 100% retention of identity? I'm inclined to think it wouldn't be the end of the world...

@Shannon: For being a statistics genius, I sincerely hope that he was joking about the 2% (and I think he was, given his 50-50 of being happy :) ). First off, you can't concoct some Drake-like equation when the conditions are NOT independent of what we do. Second, you have to approach cryonics in an individual by individual manner, making blanket probabilities irrelevant. Third, what exactly do we define as success? Some of those cancel each other out, but I'm not offering a peer-reviewed post here :~ . It's like when Arthur C. Clarke said, "Although no one can quantify the probability of cryonics working, I estimate it is at least 90% -- and certainly nobody can say it is zero." Sometimes I get the feeling that people skim over the first part of what he said.... :)


Yes, it's chances of degrees of success is not dependant upon some broad statistical means of assessment, or some 'cut of the cards'. It's chance of degrees of success is based upon our efforts in it.

I was having a 'discussion' with a friend today about cryonics. She thinks it's just crazy and strange. I brought up, that, ok, many things being considered, maybe there is a 2% chance it will work. She said it's probably more like .00000...........2%. Then I said, ok, but that is more than 0%, right? She didn't have a reply. I'm sure she'll come back with one...



Isn't it a wonderful feeling that both of us have outsmarted a quant in one area? :~ In all seriousness, even though I know you're just trying to be humble, don't say that you're 99% ignorant of cryonics. The fact that you're approaching this in terms of identity retention already places you ahead of most people :)

p.s. did she ever respond? I wouldn't push it if I were you, haha. You might get punched!


Lol, I'll watch out for the right hook... All the people I mention cryonics to bring up mostly the same points of how it won't 'work'. I just try to point out that even though those points are valid, in some way, there is still some possibility that the points against it working have some degree of chance that they will not happen as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users