6 ms·

Why crazy? There's good supporting evidence for sufficient preservation of fine neural structure via vitrification. The oldest existing cryopreservation organiz

Why crazy? There's good supporting evidence for sufficient preservation of fine neural structure via vitrification. The oldest existing cryopreservation organizations have lasted 40 years since their formation as professional groups. There is no known obstacle in the laws of physics to developing molecular nanotechnology capable of restoring a cryopreserved individual: it's just a technology challenge in organization at the nanoscale, related to well-funded and widespread current work in cell science and nanotechnology. Basically it is the best possible play with the cards dealt to you if you are going to die before the advent of rejuvenation therapies and would still like to live longer into the golden future of amazing wealth and technology that lies just ahead of us. The odds are infinitely better than those offered by any other end of life choice (i.e. they are above zero).

thenmar 12y ago
Would you mind sharing some of that evidence? I certainly understand the desire to be cryopreserved, but given the lack of proof of concept (I'd love to be contradicted here!) and how little we know about the brain, it seems like a desperate Hail Mary marketed to wealthy tech folks as sound science.
- eudox 12y ago
  Electron micrography of cryopreserved tissue shows pretty good preservation[0][1], and since every aspect of the mind is dependent on physical properties of the brain, the possibility of revival exists as long as structure and context are preserved in the brain. >marketed to wealthy tech folks Cryonics has historically been a middle class thing. [0] http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/micrographs.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/micrographs.html [1] http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm...
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Electron microscopy of a ram chip shows no difference at all between one that contains a bunch of data and one that is empty.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Fortunately, brains don't work like RAM chips and there is apparently evidence that important data is saved in molecular structure, not in electric charges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Neuropreservation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Neuropreservation
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Unfortunately though, data is not all there is, and a good part of what our brains do is electrical in nature. In other words, you could save all the data in the brain but without knowing what the CPU was doing when it shut down (which is electrical state) that may not do you any good. http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/07/16/information-in-brain-cells-electrical-activity-combines-memory-environment-and-state-of-mind.html http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/07/16/i...
        eudox 12y ago
        Thankfully the fact that people have come back just fine from minutes of total EEG silence (Often involving hypothermia) shows that the immediate state of the brain does not matter nearly as much as its structure.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        That's not quite the same as freezing your brain for an indeterminate amount of time (decades? centuries? millennia? forever?) and expecting a spontaneous reboot after transferring and read-out + a whole bunch of other unknowns. That's a brain that was still almost the same brain as the one in which the electrical activity as we currently detect it was lost.
        eudox 12y ago
        >(decades? centuries? millennia? forever?) All equivalent. >expecting a spontaneous reboot Nobody actually expects this. You can't just thaw someone and reperfuse them. Extensive repair work has to be done at the nanoscale. In any case, the evidence shows electrical activity doesn't really matter when you're only concerned about long-term identity. Electrochemical impulses don't encode memory or personality. If they did, it would be pretty clear in people who recover from extreme hypothermia, as they would have retrograde amnesia.
s_q_b 12y ago
Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Everyone you know and love will have been long dead, and any society with both the means and will to revive you may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription. From a global perspective, what are the potential impacts on the species of an eternal elite, obsessed with life extension, creating an ever-growing class of ancient capital holders? Assuming both constant human nature and the lack of an self-reinforcing intelligence cascade (i.e. no singularity event), survival is not an obviously rational choice.
- nawitus 12y ago
  Yeah, future may very well be worse than death, but I personally estimate the expected utility of a future life to be more than zero.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >survival is not an obviously rational choice. It's a reversible choice though.
- ef4 12y ago
  > Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Each individual for themselves, obviously. > Everyone you know and love will have been long dead This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. > may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription I find it hard to believe that it will ever be cheaper to revive dead frozen humans than simply let living humans breed new humans for free. And plenty of people now living aren't even cost-competitive against the machines of 2014 or 2024, nevermind the machines of a society capable of reviving the dead. Both as a slave and as a soldier, you're likely to be horribly inadequate. Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. Maybe history buffs would be happy to talk to you. Maybe the world gets so rich that a few weird enthusiasts can afford to do it on their own. But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Plenty of people would be willing to have a look around first.

thenmar 12y ago

Would you mind sharing some of that evidence? I certainly understand the desire to be cryopreserved, but given the lack of proof of concept (I'd love to be contradicted here!) and how little we know about the brain, it seems like a desperate Hail Mary marketed to wealthy tech folks as sound science.

eudox 12y ago
Electron micrography of cryopreserved tissue shows pretty good preservation[0][1], and since every aspect of the mind is dependent on physical properties of the brain, the possibility of revival exists as long as structure and context are preserved in the brain. >marketed to wealthy tech folks Cryonics has historically been a middle class thing. [0] http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/micrographs.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/micrographs.html [1] http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.html http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Electron microscopy of a ram chip shows no difference at all between one that contains a bunch of data and one that is empty.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Fortunately, brains don't work like RAM chips and there is apparently evidence that important data is saved in molecular structure, not in electric charges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Neuropreservation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryonics#Neuropreservation
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Unfortunately though, data is not all there is, and a good part of what our brains do is electrical in nature. In other words, you could save all the data in the brain but without knowing what the CPU was doing when it shut down (which is electrical state) that may not do you any good. http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/07/16/information-in-brain-cells-electrical-activity-combines-memory-environment-and-state-of-mind.html http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2013/07/16/i...
      - eudox 12y ago
        Thankfully the fact that people have come back just fine from minutes of total EEG silence (Often involving hypothermia) shows that the immediate state of the brain does not matter nearly as much as its structure.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        That's not quite the same as freezing your brain for an indeterminate amount of time (decades? centuries? millennia? forever?) and expecting a spontaneous reboot after transferring and read-out + a whole bunch of other unknowns. That's a brain that was still almost the same brain as the one in which the electrical activity as we currently detect it was lost.
        eudox 12y ago
        >(decades? centuries? millennia? forever?) All equivalent. >expecting a spontaneous reboot Nobody actually expects this. You can't just thaw someone and reperfuse them. Extensive repair work has to be done at the nanoscale. In any case, the evidence shows electrical activity doesn't really matter when you're only concerned about long-term identity. Electrochemical impulses don't encode memory or personality. If they did, it would be pretty clear in people who recover from extreme hypothermia, as they would have retrograde amnesia.

s_q_b 12y ago

Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Everyone you know and love will have been long dead, and any society with both the means and will to revive you may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription. From a global perspective, what are the potential impacts on the species of an eternal elite, obsessed with life extension, creating an ever-growing class of ancient capital holders? Assuming both constant human nature and the lack of an self-reinforcing intelligence cascade (i.e. no singularity event), survival is not an obviously rational choice.

nawitus 12y ago
Yeah, future may very well be worse than death, but I personally estimate the expected utility of a future life to be more than zero.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>survival is not an obviously rational choice. It's a reversible choice though.
ef4 12y ago
> Who's to say that the choice to survive in the distant future is desirable? Each individual for themselves, obviously. > Everyone you know and love will have been long dead This obviously contradicts the original assumption that you might actually get revived. Because if you can, so can others. > may have undesirable objectives in mind, e.g. a life of slavery or military conscription I find it hard to believe that it will ever be cheaper to revive dead frozen humans than simply let living humans breed new humans for free. And plenty of people now living aren't even cost-competitive against the machines of 2014 or 2024, nevermind the machines of a society capable of reviving the dead. Both as a slave and as a soldier, you're likely to be horribly inadequate. Honestly the bigger question is why the future people would bother to wake you up at all. Maybe history buffs would be happy to talk to you. Maybe the world gets so rich that a few weird enthusiasts can afford to do it on their own. But the bottom line is that if the future turns out to be awful, you can always choose to die again. Plenty of people would be willing to have a look around first.