4 ms·

The difference as I see it (as a non-believer) is if I could just choose to believe in God, I would as that would be much easier and probably make me feel bette

The difference as I see it (as a non-believer) is if I could just choose to believe in God, I would as that would be much easier and probably make me feel better. I can't force myself to believe something, but I can just choose to sign up for Alcor

analog31 9y ago
But I'm not asking for belief. Just prayer. Or maybe even just money. In my view, cryonics is just a synthetic religion that has been constructed to replace supernatural stuff with technological-sounding stuff. It should appeal to people who have rejected the supernatural but are still afraid of the finality of death.
- apsec112 9y ago
  This is the fallacy of Bulverism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism): "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly." - C.S. Lewis In this case, the real issue (how likely cryonics patients are to be revived) is replaced with the alleged motives of the debater ("fear of death", although I'd argue that almost everyone is afraid of death; most people would feel fear if a gun was pointed at them).
  - analog31 9y ago
    That's fair. It's a puzzling situation. I don't think it's possible to prove that cryonics is wrong, because it strikes me as a non-falsifiable proposition.
    - ggreer 9y ago
      I can think of several things: - If neuroscientists find that long term memory is encoded in something not preserved by cryonics. (Such as pH levels around certain neurons, or some weird quantum phenomena.) - If small animals such as mice are trained to perform some task, then fail to demonstrate that training after being cryopreserved & revived. This requires technological advances, but not as much as human-level revival. - If scientists discover a theory of consciousness that precludes its resumption after cryopreservation-like circumstances. (This would also mean that philosophical zombies are possible.) Some of these may seem like a tall order, but if cryonics doesn't work, then that would tell us something new about biology, physics, and/or the nature of consciousness. So far, we've seen all the evidence you'd expect to see if cryonics works: Memories are preserved even after cessation or disruption of electrical activity in the brain. Embryos and other tissues are cryopreserved and thawed without problems. Small mammal organs have been successfully cryopreserved and thawed, and remained functional. SEM micrographs of cryopreserved brain tissue show intact structure, including axons and synaptic vesicles. Most of the problems seem to be in the implementation, not the principle itself. (eg: avoiding warm ischemia when people die suddenly)
      - evgen 9y ago
        > Small mammal organs have been successfully cryopreserved and thawed, and remained functional Wow, nice rhetorical dodge there. No one cares too much if small mammal 'organs' have been successfully cryopreserved and revived because we can replace your kidney and you are still you. Tell me about the small mammal BRAINS that you have cryopreserved and revived with any evidence of retention of memories or prior training. Tell me about any nervous systems at all which you have successfully preserved and revived. Doesn't have to be a mammal, I would settle for an insect. Tell me about those please. Until you can do this you are just selling another version of snake oil.
        ggreer 9y ago
        > Tell me about the small mammal BRAINS that you have cryopreserved and revived with any evidence of retention of memories or prior training. Nobody has revived a small mammal brain because unlike kidneys, we don't yet have the technology to transplant brains. Brains are easier to perfuse with cryoprotectant than kidneys, so they tend to be preserved better. Cryoprotectants seem to be tolerated well by neurons. It is currently possible to cryopreserve & thaw rat hippocampal slices while keeping structure intact and over 90% of cells viable: http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf > Tell me about any nervous systems at all which you have successfully preserved and revived. Doesn't have to be a mammal, I would settle for an insect. Tell me about those please. People have cryopreserved & thawed nematodes with an 84% survival rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23995406 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23995406 The cryopreservation of many kinds of insects (usually in larval or embryonic form) is doable as well. Some of these organisms have thousands of neurons. The whole point of cryonics is to take advantage of the difference in technology required for preservation versus revival. Saying, "Cryonics is snake oil because revival doesn't work yet." is demanding evidence that can't yet exist even in the case that cryonics works.

analog31 9y ago

But I'm not asking for belief. Just prayer. Or maybe even just money. In my view, cryonics is just a synthetic religion that has been constructed to replace supernatural stuff with technological-sounding stuff. It should appeal to people who have rejected the supernatural but are still afraid of the finality of death.

apsec112 9y ago
This is the fallacy of Bulverism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism): "You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly." - C.S. Lewis In this case, the real issue (how likely cryonics patients are to be revived) is replaced with the alleged motives of the debater ("fear of death", although I'd argue that almost everyone is afraid of death; most people would feel fear if a gun was pointed at them).
- analog31 9y ago
  That's fair. It's a puzzling situation. I don't think it's possible to prove that cryonics is wrong, because it strikes me as a non-falsifiable proposition.
  - ggreer 9y ago
    I can think of several things: - If neuroscientists find that long term memory is encoded in something not preserved by cryonics. (Such as pH levels around certain neurons, or some weird quantum phenomena.) - If small animals such as mice are trained to perform some task, then fail to demonstrate that training after being cryopreserved & revived. This requires technological advances, but not as much as human-level revival. - If scientists discover a theory of consciousness that precludes its resumption after cryopreservation-like circumstances. (This would also mean that philosophical zombies are possible.) Some of these may seem like a tall order, but if cryonics doesn't work, then that would tell us something new about biology, physics, and/or the nature of consciousness. So far, we've seen all the evidence you'd expect to see if cryonics works: Memories are preserved even after cessation or disruption of electrical activity in the brain. Embryos and other tissues are cryopreserved and thawed without problems. Small mammal organs have been successfully cryopreserved and thawed, and remained functional. SEM micrographs of cryopreserved brain tissue show intact structure, including axons and synaptic vesicles. Most of the problems seem to be in the implementation, not the principle itself. (eg: avoiding warm ischemia when people die suddenly)
    - evgen 9y ago
      > Small mammal organs have been successfully cryopreserved and thawed, and remained functional Wow, nice rhetorical dodge there. No one cares too much if small mammal 'organs' have been successfully cryopreserved and revived because we can replace your kidney and you are still you. Tell me about the small mammal BRAINS that you have cryopreserved and revived with any evidence of retention of memories or prior training. Tell me about any nervous systems at all which you have successfully preserved and revived. Doesn't have to be a mammal, I would settle for an insect. Tell me about those please. Until you can do this you are just selling another version of snake oil.
      - ggreer 9y ago
        > Tell me about the small mammal BRAINS that you have cryopreserved and revived with any evidence of retention of memories or prior training. Nobody has revived a small mammal brain because unlike kidneys, we don't yet have the technology to transplant brains. Brains are easier to perfuse with cryoprotectant than kidneys, so they tend to be preserved better. Cryoprotectants seem to be tolerated well by neurons. It is currently possible to cryopreserve & thaw rat hippocampal slices while keeping structure intact and over 90% of cells viable: http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/hippo_published.pdf > Tell me about any nervous systems at all which you have successfully preserved and revived. Doesn't have to be a mammal, I would settle for an insect. Tell me about those please. People have cryopreserved & thawed nematodes with an 84% survival rate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23995406 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23995406 The cryopreservation of many kinds of insects (usually in larval or embryonic form) is doable as well. Some of these organisms have thousands of neurons. The whole point of cryonics is to take advantage of the difference in technology required for preservation versus revival. Saying, "Cryonics is snake oil because revival doesn't work yet." is demanding evidence that can't yet exist even in the case that cryonics works.