3 ms·

Go look it up; they aren't claiming that. You're fighting a strawman. What they are claiming that they are preserving some record of the information that makes

Go look it up; they aren't claiming that. You're fighting a strawman. What they are claiming that they are preserving some record of the information that makes you up on the hope that it would be sufficient for future engineers to reconstruct some version of you. All they are claiming is that cryonic vitrification or aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation preserves in an information-theory sense the microstructure of the brain to sufficient detail that the connectome can be reconstructed by physically realizable scanning mechanisms, which we might not have now but are permitted by the laws of physics. That's a much weaker argument, but one which actually IS supported by actual scientific papers in the field. And it's all that cryonics organizations have ever argued for.

jacquesm 8y ago
> What they are claiming that they are preserving some record of the information that makes you up on the hope that it would be sufficient for future engineers to reconstruct some version of you. Yes, that's what they are claiming, but there is zero proof this is going to happen. In fact, given the long term stability of real world artifacts that are far more durable than dewar flasks there are substantial obstacles in the way of success here besides the non-viable scientific parts of it. The whole point is that this is a 'hope' about as useful as the hope that there is a heaven or a life after death. Death is final, until proven otherwise, and once if it is proven that it isn't we will know the pre-conditions required for successful preservation. Keep in mind that freezing the brain actually destroys it further, the resulting structures may look like they still preserve information when in fact they probably won't, just like a frozen and then thawed out steak still looks like the original but has structurally been completely altered. > All they are claiming is that cryonic vitrification or aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation preserves in an information-theory sense the microstructure of the brain to sufficient detail that the connectome can be reconstructed by physically realizable scanning mechanisms, which we might not have now but are permitted by the laws of physics. The laws of physics have little to do with it, it all depends on how much - if anything - of value is still present and recoverable from dead tissue. So far there is no proof that high level constructs such as memories and identity would be preserved through such a cycle. > That's a much weaker argument, but one which actually IS supported by actual scientific papers in the field. Actual scientific papers are not the equivalent of proof, they are merely the advancement of theories in the scientific sense, lacking - for now - evidence supporting those theories. Cryonics organizations are very careful to ride that fine line between selling hope and selling bull-shit. They have to because that's where the gullible nerds will be more than happy to part with their money. The short version of all this is: Hope Springs Eternal. And hope for an eternal life is common to Catholics looking for salvation, uploaders, cryogenic preservers and rapture kooks. And they all have another thing in common too: they all die anyway, just like everybody and everything else that is alive.
- joefourier 8y ago
  Why do you have such a strong emotional hostility towards cryonics? First off, you don't understand how cryonics work, from the organizations to the procedure. It is not freezing, but vitrification, as anti-freeze is essentially pumped into the circulatory system to avoid the damage from icing you mentioned (toxicity of the anti-freeze is another problem). It may or may not work, but it is purely based in physical phenomena. Tissues, organs and simple organisms have been lowered to cryogenic temperature and then brought back, and extending that process to humans is not irrational. Animal brains have been vitrified and the structure of the connectome was still intact. The alternative to cryonics is for your brain to rot or be incinerated. Are you saying that the chances of reviving or reconstructing a well preserved, vitrified brain is the same as a pile of ashes? If so, that seems the more irrational point of view.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    I have roughly the same feelings towards anybody giving false hope of some kind of afterlife, it's not 'emotional hostility', just a serious problem with people selling bs and preying on the weak. As for the chances of rot vs ashes vs cryogenically preserved: the chances are - as of now - equal: 0.
    - joefourier 8y ago
      "As of now", sure, but the whole point of cryonics is that this may be different in the future. The definition of death has changed over the years. It used to be that death was simply cessation of respiration and heartbeat, which used to be (mostly) irreversible. Now with cardio-pulmonary machines that can take over those functions, there is brain death, which is cessation of brain function. Information-theoretic death seems to be the next boundary, which is the destruction of all information contained within the brain, making the recovery of the original person impossible. Cryonics seeks to address that latter definition.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        You don't solve a problem by changing definitions. Let me give you an example that might explain it better: People who believe in dowsing rods have a perfect answer to when dowsing doesn't work: you didn't dig deep enough to find the water. Works every time! That same argument holds in the case of cryonics: you didn't wait long enough. For evidence free statements requiring belief the proper label is religion, not science. So to me cryonics is a religion. As for the definition of death: there is a fairly gray area as to what constitutes a dead body, for instance some cells in your body get the message rather later than others because our bodies are best thought of as a cluster of living bits flying in very close formation: each individual cell is alive. But for the whole to be alive too certain conditions have to be met. That's why hair will grow a bit longer after you are already dead, that's just those cells doing what they are supposed to do until the conditions for their individual survival are no longer present. Bringing a brain dead person back to fully functional is by no means a given, and their 'connectome' is still very much present. I expect humanity to have established several space colonies before we will be able to cheat death. And it better work out that way because if not then there will very quickly be no room for new entrants (aka children), unless it is as slaves and vessels for the oldies to rejuvenate.

jacquesm 8y ago

> What they are claiming that they are preserving some record of the information that makes you up on the hope that it would be sufficient for future engineers to reconstruct some version of you. Yes, that's what they are claiming, but there is zero proof this is going to happen. In fact, given the long term stability of real world artifacts that are far more durable than dewar flasks there are substantial obstacles in the way of success here besides the non-viable scientific parts of it. The whole point is that this is a 'hope' about as useful as the hope that there is a heaven or a life after death. Death is final, until proven otherwise, and once if it is proven that it isn't we will know the pre-conditions required for successful preservation. Keep in mind that freezing the brain actually destroys it further, the resulting structures may look like they still preserve information when in fact they probably won't, just like a frozen and then thawed out steak still looks like the original but has structurally been completely altered. > All they are claiming is that cryonic vitrification or aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation preserves in an information-theory sense the microstructure of the brain to sufficient detail that the connectome can be reconstructed by physically realizable scanning mechanisms, which we might not have now but are permitted by the laws of physics. The laws of physics have little to do with it, it all depends on how much - if anything - of value is still present and recoverable from dead tissue. So far there is no proof that high level constructs such as memories and identity would be preserved through such a cycle. > That's a much weaker argument, but one which actually IS supported by actual scientific papers in the field. Actual scientific papers are not the equivalent of proof, they are merely the advancement of theories in the scientific sense, lacking - for now - evidence supporting those theories. Cryonics organizations are very careful to ride that fine line between selling hope and selling bull-shit. They have to because that's where the gullible nerds will be more than happy to part with their money. The short version of all this is: Hope Springs Eternal. And hope for an eternal life is common to Catholics looking for salvation, uploaders, cryogenic preservers and rapture kooks. And they all have another thing in common too: they all die anyway, just like everybody and everything else that is alive.

joefourier 8y ago
Why do you have such a strong emotional hostility towards cryonics? First off, you don't understand how cryonics work, from the organizations to the procedure. It is not freezing, but vitrification, as anti-freeze is essentially pumped into the circulatory system to avoid the damage from icing you mentioned (toxicity of the anti-freeze is another problem). It may or may not work, but it is purely based in physical phenomena. Tissues, organs and simple organisms have been lowered to cryogenic temperature and then brought back, and extending that process to humans is not irrational. Animal brains have been vitrified and the structure of the connectome was still intact. The alternative to cryonics is for your brain to rot or be incinerated. Are you saying that the chances of reviving or reconstructing a well preserved, vitrified brain is the same as a pile of ashes? If so, that seems the more irrational point of view.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  I have roughly the same feelings towards anybody giving false hope of some kind of afterlife, it's not 'emotional hostility', just a serious problem with people selling bs and preying on the weak. As for the chances of rot vs ashes vs cryogenically preserved: the chances are - as of now - equal: 0.
  - joefourier 8y ago
    "As of now", sure, but the whole point of cryonics is that this may be different in the future. The definition of death has changed over the years. It used to be that death was simply cessation of respiration and heartbeat, which used to be (mostly) irreversible. Now with cardio-pulmonary machines that can take over those functions, there is brain death, which is cessation of brain function. Information-theoretic death seems to be the next boundary, which is the destruction of all information contained within the brain, making the recovery of the original person impossible. Cryonics seeks to address that latter definition.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      You don't solve a problem by changing definitions. Let me give you an example that might explain it better: People who believe in dowsing rods have a perfect answer to when dowsing doesn't work: you didn't dig deep enough to find the water. Works every time! That same argument holds in the case of cryonics: you didn't wait long enough. For evidence free statements requiring belief the proper label is religion, not science. So to me cryonics is a religion. As for the definition of death: there is a fairly gray area as to what constitutes a dead body, for instance some cells in your body get the message rather later than others because our bodies are best thought of as a cluster of living bits flying in very close formation: each individual cell is alive. But for the whole to be alive too certain conditions have to be met. That's why hair will grow a bit longer after you are already dead, that's just those cells doing what they are supposed to do until the conditions for their individual survival are no longer present. Bringing a brain dead person back to fully functional is by no means a given, and their 'connectome' is still very much present. I expect humanity to have established several space colonies before we will be able to cheat death. And it better work out that way because if not then there will very quickly be no room for new entrants (aka children), unless it is as slaves and vessels for the oldies to rejuvenate.