4 ms·

There's a pretty big difference between the statements: "We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than

by ohazi 7y ago

There's a pretty big difference between the statements: "We are likely to have life extending and resuscitation technologies in 500 years that are better than what we have today." and "The dead rich people in these particular vats of antifreeze have any more than a snowball's chance in hell at being successfully resuscitated." I think the parent's analysis is correct. Your statements, while also correct, don't really refute the issues pointed out by the parent.

garmaine 7y ago
It didn't point out any issues... it just made the unsubstantiated claim that a cryonics patient has no chance of ever being revived. It IS physically possible to revive cryonics patients--as in the laws of physics would permit it, even if we don't have anything near the technology required, yet. This isn't a bold claim but rather a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process, and long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures, both of which are well studied in the context of things like organ donor preservation. So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. But neither you nor the grandparent actually made any specific claims.
- daeken 7y ago
  > So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. I'm signed up to be a cryonics patient when I die, but yeah, the chances are pretty much nil. Personally, I'll take a slightly diminished bank account and a potentially non-zero percent chance of further life over a zero percent chance, but I won't delude myself into thinking that there's effectively any chance of success here.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    What I don't understand about this logic is, how do you have any confidence that if by some miracle you were brought back to conscious life again, your life wouldn't be an absolute living hell (organ damage, paralysis, etc.)? Like even if you had infinite money and resources to spend on whatever you wanted, would that risk be sitll worth it to you?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      You don't. You can only hope that a) future people won't revive you unless they're somewhat confident it'll leave you better off than you were when frozen, and b) worst comes to worst, they can still euthanize you. Cryonics is ultimately a bet on future technology and future humanity.
      - nwatson 7y ago
        Future people will use the frozen as a resource. I would buy a 2139-October call option on 100-frozen-hopefuls ... that's when I estimate techniques for revival will be viable and when legal hurdles to mass exploitation will be overcome. In 120 years nobody will care about your intentions in being frozen.
        garmaine 7y ago
        ...why? How could there possibly be utility in a corpsicle when you could much more easily achieve the same thing with AI?
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I would buy a 2139-October call option on 100-frozen-hopefuls. Unless you live inordinately long, you'll only be in a position to benefit from that if you are wrong about it being a worthwhile investment. (But right about the technological enablers—just wrong on the socio/legal issues.)
    - chimprich 7y ago
      It seems unlikely to me that we'd acquire the ability to revive a brain from death before the state of medical technology advances sufficiently to repair nerve damage or regenerate organs. You could put a kind of guarantee into this by only having your head or brain preserved, so the minimum viable tech level for resurrection would be regrowing a body. I'd be more concerned with the emotional and mental challenges of being revived centuries hence, which would be considerable to say the least.
- jfk13 7y ago
  > a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process That's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of belief. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that any current vitrification process preserves sufficient information for the patient to be revived. We're nowhere near even understanding what "sufficient information" would be, let alone how to preserve it.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  The thing is .. it is more about biology than physics. You can flush water pipes with whatever you want and clean and rewater it. A complex organism like the human body - and the brain, we still dont really understand? Not likely. Maybe not 0 chance in SciFi future, but still not likely.
- nradov 7y ago
  Actually it is physically impossible to revive cryonics patients because essential information has been irretrievably lost. I don't think you understand the physics (or biology) here.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    What information?

by ohazi 7y ago

garmaine 7y ago

It didn't point out any issues... it just made the unsubstantiated claim that a cryonics patient has no chance of ever being revived. It IS physically possible to revive cryonics patients--as in the laws of physics would permit it, even if we don't have anything near the technology required, yet. This isn't a bold claim but rather a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process, and long-term storage at cryogenic temperatures, both of which are well studied in the context of things like organ donor preservation. So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. But neither you nor the grandparent actually made any specific claims.

daeken 7y ago
> So if you're claiming that cryonics has "a snowball's chance in hell" of working, then I presume that either you are (1) ignorant of the science, or (2) making some sort of statement about long-term storage prospects or the credibility of the organizations involved. I'm signed up to be a cryonics patient when I die, but yeah, the chances are pretty much nil. Personally, I'll take a slightly diminished bank account and a potentially non-zero percent chance of further life over a zero percent chance, but I won't delude myself into thinking that there's effectively any chance of success here.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  What I don't understand about this logic is, how do you have any confidence that if by some miracle you were brought back to conscious life again, your life wouldn't be an absolute living hell (organ damage, paralysis, etc.)? Like even if you had infinite money and resources to spend on whatever you wanted, would that risk be sitll worth it to you?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    You don't. You can only hope that a) future people won't revive you unless they're somewhat confident it'll leave you better off than you were when frozen, and b) worst comes to worst, they can still euthanize you. Cryonics is ultimately a bet on future technology and future humanity.
    - nwatson 7y ago
      Future people will use the frozen as a resource. I would buy a 2139-October call option on 100-frozen-hopefuls ... that's when I estimate techniques for revival will be viable and when legal hurdles to mass exploitation will be overcome. In 120 years nobody will care about your intentions in being frozen.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        ...why? How could there possibly be utility in a corpsicle when you could much more easily achieve the same thing with AI?
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > I would buy a 2139-October call option on 100-frozen-hopefuls. Unless you live inordinately long, you'll only be in a position to benefit from that if you are wrong about it being a worthwhile investment. (But right about the technological enablers—just wrong on the socio/legal issues.)
  - chimprich 7y ago
    It seems unlikely to me that we'd acquire the ability to revive a brain from death before the state of medical technology advances sufficiently to repair nerve damage or regenerate organs. You could put a kind of guarantee into this by only having your head or brain preserved, so the minimum viable tech level for resurrection would be regrowing a body. I'd be more concerned with the emotional and mental challenges of being revived centuries hence, which would be considerable to say the least.
jfk13 7y ago
> a statement of fact with respect to information preservation of the vitrification process That's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of belief. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that any current vitrification process preserves sufficient information for the patient to be revived. We're nowhere near even understanding what "sufficient information" would be, let alone how to preserve it.
hutzlibu 7y ago
The thing is .. it is more about biology than physics. You can flush water pipes with whatever you want and clean and rewater it. A complex organism like the human body - and the brain, we still dont really understand? Not likely. Maybe not 0 chance in SciFi future, but still not likely.
nradov 7y ago
Actually it is physically impossible to revive cryonics patients because essential information has been irretrievably lost. I don't think you understand the physics (or biology) here.
- garmaine 7y ago
  What information?