4 ms·

By this logic, we don't even need to freeze the body. Simply opt in to being resimulated later, since the technology will exist "some day".

jerf 7y ago
A lot of "cryonically-frozen" people are only their heads, since it's been well-known for a while that there's no way to unfreeze the bodies. I suspect it may literally be easier to scan their brains than to unfreeze them, even if they were healthier to begin with. That's not a statement of my belief in the ease of scanning a brain; it's a statement of my belief in just how hard it is to "thaw" a body and get anything back. I'd say it's like getting handed a pile of slag and told to turn it back into a working engine, except that task is multiple orders of magnitude easier.
- bduerst 7y ago
  But that's my point, why even bother freezing the brain, if simply waiting a few centuries more of tech progress will mean you don't even need the brain to be consciously brought back? It's just replacing the faith in one omnipotent's afterlife with another.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    How would that work? Future technology, no matter how advanced, would still require the information in your brain to simulate you. The point of cronics is to preserve that information.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Just simulate the entire universe and pluck the brain structure of the person you're trying to bring back into reality. You're missing the point though. These solutions entirely rely on future technology development being the omnipotence that gives you afterlife.
      - garmaine 7y ago
        You’re assuming magic.
        bduerst 7y ago
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
        garmaine 7y ago
        But even the most advanced technology can’t accomplish magic. It still exists in the real world and is subject to physical law, such as the laws of statistical mechanics and information loss.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Splitting hairs on physics just means you're missing the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws#Origins
        garmaine 7y ago
        I don't think I'm splitting hairs. The quote, in context, is applied in the other direction: a sufficiently advanced technology which exists has mechanisms which seem indistinguishable from magic to a primitive mind. But you can't apply it in the other direction and say anything which seems like magic could exist with sufficiently advanced technology. This is because there are physical limits which constrain what any future technology could do. To a pre-industrial mind, a cell phone would be magic. Other things that would seem like magic are faster than light travel, perpetual motion machines, or exact quantum state duplicators. However baring radically new and highly unlikely physics (which would be the hugest cop-out to assume), there will never ever be faster-than-light travel, perpetual motion machines, or quantum replicators. Such technology is simply impossible. Not "we don't know how to do it" but "we know that it cannot be done." Likewise, once your brain is cremated or reduced to worm food, there is absolutely no way to recover that connectome information which defines who you are. The laws of physics disallow it. I have only the slightest idea of what technology that is able to revive a cryo preserved brain would look like, and it would certainly seem like magic to someone today. But to revive a cremated brain would require actual magic. There's an important difference there.
    - jfk13 7y ago
      But currently we don't know what "information in your brain" would be required, so it's a huge leap of faith to suppose that cryonics is successfully preserving it. (That's supposing "information in your brain" would even be sufficient by itself. Another leap of faith.)
      - garmaine 7y ago
        The connectome. Your identity is encoded in the neural network of your brain, which is preserved in vitrification. I don’t know why this is controversial.
infinisil 7y ago
However, this won't bring you back, it will just bring back a clone that is exactly like you.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Of course it will bring me back. It's my consciousness, just sans the biological CPU.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    If it were true then it means being you can be duplicated ad infinitum and therefore you have no personality on your own. I done think we have a good answer to that.
- ljm 7y ago
  Suppose we get solid evidence that reincarnation is real. Or even just imagine that it is. Being held in stasis for an unknown length of times seems like utter hell compared to moving on to your next life. In that sense, a clone is preferable, but maybe not for the new consciousness inhabiting it.

jerf 7y ago

A lot of "cryonically-frozen" people are only their heads, since it's been well-known for a while that there's no way to unfreeze the bodies. I suspect it may literally be easier to scan their brains than to unfreeze them, even if they were healthier to begin with. That's not a statement of my belief in the ease of scanning a brain; it's a statement of my belief in just how hard it is to "thaw" a body and get anything back. I'd say it's like getting handed a pile of slag and told to turn it back into a working engine, except that task is multiple orders of magnitude easier.

bduerst 7y ago
But that's my point, why even bother freezing the brain, if simply waiting a few centuries more of tech progress will mean you don't even need the brain to be consciously brought back? It's just replacing the faith in one omnipotent's afterlife with another.
- garmaine 7y ago
  How would that work? Future technology, no matter how advanced, would still require the information in your brain to simulate you. The point of cronics is to preserve that information.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Just simulate the entire universe and pluck the brain structure of the person you're trying to bring back into reality. You're missing the point though. These solutions entirely rely on future technology development being the omnipotence that gives you afterlife.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      You’re assuming magic.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
        garmaine 7y ago
        But even the most advanced technology can’t accomplish magic. It still exists in the real world and is subject to physical law, such as the laws of statistical mechanics and information loss.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Splitting hairs on physics just means you're missing the point of Arthur C. Clarke's quote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws#Origins
        garmaine 7y ago
        I don't think I'm splitting hairs. The quote, in context, is applied in the other direction: a sufficiently advanced technology which exists has mechanisms which seem indistinguishable from magic to a primitive mind. But you can't apply it in the other direction and say anything which seems like magic could exist with sufficiently advanced technology. This is because there are physical limits which constrain what any future technology could do. To a pre-industrial mind, a cell phone would be magic. Other things that would seem like magic are faster than light travel, perpetual motion machines, or exact quantum state duplicators. However baring radically new and highly unlikely physics (which would be the hugest cop-out to assume), there will never ever be faster-than-light travel, perpetual motion machines, or quantum replicators. Such technology is simply impossible. Not "we don't know how to do it" but "we know that it cannot be done." Likewise, once your brain is cremated or reduced to worm food, there is absolutely no way to recover that connectome information which defines who you are. The laws of physics disallow it. I have only the slightest idea of what technology that is able to revive a cryo preserved brain would look like, and it would certainly seem like magic to someone today. But to revive a cremated brain would require actual magic. There's an important difference there.
  - jfk13 7y ago
    But currently we don't know what "information in your brain" would be required, so it's a huge leap of faith to suppose that cryonics is successfully preserving it. (That's supposing "information in your brain" would even be sufficient by itself. Another leap of faith.)
    - garmaine 7y ago
      The connectome. Your identity is encoded in the neural network of your brain, which is preserved in vitrification. I don’t know why this is controversial.

infinisil 7y ago

However, this won't bring you back, it will just bring back a clone that is exactly like you.

bduerst 7y ago
Of course it will bring me back. It's my consciousness, just sans the biological CPU.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  If it were true then it means being you can be duplicated ad infinitum and therefore you have no personality on your own. I done think we have a good answer to that.
ljm 7y ago
Suppose we get solid evidence that reincarnation is real. Or even just imagine that it is. Being held in stasis for an unknown length of times seems like utter hell compared to moving on to your next life. In that sense, a clone is preferable, but maybe not for the new consciousness inhabiting it.