4 ms·

I don't think cryopreservation is that likely to work. Even its proponents are not that confident in it. I've collected some estimates: https://docs.google.c

by cbr 15y ago

I don't think cryopreservation is that likely to work. Even its proponents are not that confident in it. I've collected some estimates: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajn1LpstEUO_dE00ZVVfa3pzX2Y2dk9mWWRKOUVkWlE&hl=en_US#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajn1LpstEUO_dE0...

fl3tch 15y ago
Even that cult of personality hasn't convinced Less Wrong...
Udo 15y ago
Some of these are quite interesting though the "probabilities" are completely arbitrary, of course. From what I can gather the reasons against cryo can be clustered into these: 1) Access failure: an external event prevents the initiation of your cryo-preservation, such as your relatives and/or your hospital insisting on your death taking place as scheduled, or other things preventing you from having access to the facilities needed. - These dangers are substantial. I'd wager that the majority of society is against even simple life extension, and thus even more opposed to cryo. There is also no way to mitigate this risk, since people tend not to die in circumstances under their direct control. Your best bet is probably to convince a close family member to act on your behalf when the time comes, because family has a lot of authority with... you know, the authorities. 2) Persistence failure: things that cause your preserved brain to be destroyed, such as war, system outages, economic trouble, or global catastrophes (including new laws or a radical culture shift). - The probability of just one of these occurring is pretty high, but there is simply no way to accurately estimate this risk. However, the probability of these events leading to your demise is lowered if more people adopt cryo preservation. 3) Preservation/restauration failure: some technical reason prevents your pattern from being restored into a working copy. These include excessive tissue damage before or during storage, or technical problems in reconstructing your brain back into working order. - Compared to the other risks, this one is probably very low. If you're in cryo, time is on your side. While I think that biological reanimation is most likely not on the table when it comes to brains conserved with current technologies, digital restauration looks like a very promising avenue. 4) Religious/philosophical problems: as failure modes go, these certainly stand out. Technically, they don't belong here, nevertheless some variant of religious reasoning is included in many of these lists. - I'm going to discard these points though (including the "probability" that our minds are not entirely based on a material substrate), because if those matter to someone the discussion is already over.
- cbr 15y ago
  Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the freezing process. It's very difficult to develop any process without the feedback of whether it is working. Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible, overly expensive, or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).
  - Udo 15y ago
    Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the freezing process. [...] I'm sorry I probably didn't make myself clear enough there. This is not my 1 = failure to access preservation technology but actually my category 3 = preservation/restauration failure. I did include those scenarios. Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible Yes, it does include that, more specifically: it takes into account that some minds might not be sufficiently preserved for technical reasons. But if you mean that restoration in general could turn out to be impossible, I'm going to have to take a stand against that. I have a modest background in information technology and biology, and from where I stand there is nothing in principle that precludes restauration. The main question here becomes: how big is the interval between cardiac arrest and cryo? From our current understanding I'd say that we're probably good if this time is between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the temperature of the environment and the manner of death). overly expensive, That's right, because I think that's a ridiculous reason. or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you). This is what I mean by "persistence failure" (see there).

by cbr 15y ago

fl3tch 15y ago

Even that cult of personality hasn't convinced Less Wrong...

Udo 15y ago

Some of these are quite interesting though the "probabilities" are completely arbitrary, of course. From what I can gather the reasons against cryo can be clustered into these: 1) Access failure: an external event prevents the initiation of your cryo-preservation, such as your relatives and/or your hospital insisting on your death taking place as scheduled, or other things preventing you from having access to the facilities needed. - These dangers are substantial. I'd wager that the majority of society is against even simple life extension, and thus even more opposed to cryo. There is also no way to mitigate this risk, since people tend not to die in circumstances under their direct control. Your best bet is probably to convince a close family member to act on your behalf when the time comes, because family has a lot of authority with... you know, the authorities. 2) Persistence failure: things that cause your preserved brain to be destroyed, such as war, system outages, economic trouble, or global catastrophes (including new laws or a radical culture shift). - The probability of just one of these occurring is pretty high, but there is simply no way to accurately estimate this risk. However, the probability of these events leading to your demise is lowered if more people adopt cryo preservation. 3) Preservation/restauration failure: some technical reason prevents your pattern from being restored into a working copy. These include excessive tissue damage before or during storage, or technical problems in reconstructing your brain back into working order. - Compared to the other risks, this one is probably very low. If you're in cryo, time is on your side. While I think that biological reanimation is most likely not on the table when it comes to brains conserved with current technologies, digital restauration looks like a very promising avenue. 4) Religious/philosophical problems: as failure modes go, these certainly stand out. Technically, they don't belong here, nevertheless some variant of religious reasoning is included in many of these lists. - I'm going to discard these points though (including the "probability" that our minds are not entirely based on a material substrate), because if those matter to someone the discussion is already over.

cbr 15y ago
Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the freezing process. It's very difficult to develop any process without the feedback of whether it is working. Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible, overly expensive, or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you).
- Udo 15y ago
  Your "1" doesn't include the chance that not everything we care about is preserved with current techniques. Also people might make a mistake in the freezing process. [...] I'm sorry I probably didn't make myself clear enough there. This is not my 1 = failure to access preservation technology but actually my category 3 = preservation/restauration failure. I did include those scenarios. Your "3" doesn't include the chance that restoration is impossible Yes, it does include that, more specifically: it takes into account that some minds might not be sufficiently preserved for technical reasons. But if you mean that restoration in general could turn out to be impossible, I'm going to have to take a stand against that. I have a modest background in information technology and biology, and from where I stand there is nothing in principle that precludes restauration. The main question here becomes: how big is the interval between cardiac arrest and cryo? From our current understanding I'd say that we're probably good if this time is between 1 and 2 hours (depending on the temperature of the environment and the manner of death). overly expensive, That's right, because I think that's a ridiculous reason. or not done for some other reason (no one is interested in you). This is what I mean by "persistence failure" (see there).