4 ms·

I accept that there is evidence that cryonics may become viable for human subjects in the future. My point is merely that freezing one's own body despite a lac

I accept that there is evidence that cryonics may become viable for human subjects in the future. My point is merely that freezing one's own body despite a lack of any evidence that present methods would allow revival of a human in the future requires optimism that is not incomparable with religion.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
It's a bet against future technology. How it differs from religion is that a/ we know that required technology is possible, b/ we are pretty confident that current cryopreservation methods are good enough for the required technology to be able to reverse the process, and c/ we make a bet that humanity will reach the point a/. Note that we are sure it can be done, we only don't know if it will be.
- pron 12y ago
  > Note that we are sure it can be done Although this is not part of the interesting religio-philosophical discussion we're all having here (which, BTW, finally fulfills my own dream of visiting 17th century Europe), that is simply not true. We are not sure it can be done, and we are even less sure it can be done with current preservation technology. There are few things in biology we are sure of, so many things that we only partly understand, and human neurobiology is very high on the list of things we understand least of. Also, your usage of the word "sure" sounds to me like saying, "well, we're sure God exists, we just don't know if He's Christian, Muslim or Jewish". After all, even if that were true, our actions must depend heavily on that second part of the sentence. Finally, even if the god of cryonics is real, and even if he's Alcory, the preserved don't know if they're buying a ticket to heaven or to hell (see Cold Lazarus[1]). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus
  - heed 12y ago
    Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion? Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it? Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious?
    - pron 12y ago
      > Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion? Cryonics as practiced by people requesting to be frozen is a religion, but I'm not dismissing it, because I don't dismiss religion. Unlike Richard Dawkins, I don't see humanity thriving without religion, and I think the debate is theoretical, because I don't think humans can exist without creating religion. > Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it? Of course not! We didn't stop studying the stars, and we ended up learning a lot from doing so -- but that doesn't make astrology not a religion. There's science and there's religion. Studying cryogenics is science; freezing yourself in the hope of being resurrected is religion. BTW, while we learned a lot from studying the stars while abandoning the religion surrounding them, we're still not much closer to reaching them than we were 200 years ago. > Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious? No. I might buy stocks in a company making a more efficient microwave oven (shit, I'm betting on my own actual startup). But when the matter at hand is our existential dread, and people change their behavior based on what is currently classified as bona-fide science fiction, become emotionally involved, and preach the great rewards to be bestowed on the faithful -- imagining, all the while a bright future while completely disregarding other possibilities -- then, yeah, you're looking at a religion.
      - heed 12y ago
        >No. I might buy stocks in a company making a more efficient microwave oven (shit, I'm betting on my own actual startup). This is what people are doing by having their bodies frozen after death; they are buying stake in some technology in hopes they will receive a return someday.
MichaelGG 12y ago
It's not incomparable in a mathematical sense, but the probability of any known religion being correct is not remotely on the same scale of reviving a suspended human mind. Along the lines: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ml/but_theres_still_a_chance_right/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ml/but_theres_still_a_chance_right/
- ewoodrich 12y ago
  I just want to clarify here, I'm not religious at all. I'm just trying to say that the state of mind and emotional investment is similar. I'm a bit surprised by some of the response, to be honest.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    I'll grant you that. "The state of mind and emotional investment" is indeed similar, and it is a rationality risk, because people may (and do) transplant religious memes to reasoning about this. Same with the Singularity, or even if you dive a bit into game theory and economics you might realize that the possible solutions to coordination problems start to look eerily similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about how God wants humanity to work (honestly, I've been loosing some sleep over this myself). It's a danger, but it doesn't make cryonics religion.
- pron 12y ago
  > reviving a suspended human mind That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. > the probability of any known religion being correct is not remotely on the same scale... I'm an atheist, but that's totally unknown and presently unknowable. And don't provide as an example a very particular religion that rejects evolution (I don't know about muslims and other religions less known in the west, but most religious Jews and many Catholics don't reject evolution).
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. I know I'm repeating myself in every comment I make in this thread, but to reiterate. We know one possible technique that will work. We know that it exists, it is possible and that it can do the job in principle. We just don't know how to use it, because we didn't build that particular piece of technology. There may be other ways we don't know about yet, but if there are none, then there's always the nanotech.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

It's a bet against future technology. How it differs from religion is that a/ we know that required technology is possible, b/ we are pretty confident that current cryopreservation methods are good enough for the required technology to be able to reverse the process, and c/ we make a bet that humanity will reach the point a/. Note that we are sure it can be done, we only don't know if it will be.

pron 12y ago
> Note that we are sure it can be done Although this is not part of the interesting religio-philosophical discussion we're all having here (which, BTW, finally fulfills my own dream of visiting 17th century Europe), that is simply not true. We are not sure it can be done, and we are even less sure it can be done with current preservation technology. There are few things in biology we are sure of, so many things that we only partly understand, and human neurobiology is very high on the list of things we understand least of. Also, your usage of the word "sure" sounds to me like saying, "well, we're sure God exists, we just don't know if He's Christian, Muslim or Jewish". After all, even if that were true, our actions must depend heavily on that second part of the sentence. Finally, even if the god of cryonics is real, and even if he's Alcory, the preserved don't know if they're buying a ticket to heaven or to hell (see Cold Lazarus[1]). [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Lazarus
- heed 12y ago
  Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion? Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it? Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious?
  - pron 12y ago
    > Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion? Cryonics as practiced by people requesting to be frozen is a religion, but I'm not dismissing it, because I don't dismiss religion. Unlike Richard Dawkins, I don't see humanity thriving without religion, and I think the debate is theoretical, because I don't think humans can exist without creating religion. > Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it? Of course not! We didn't stop studying the stars, and we ended up learning a lot from doing so -- but that doesn't make astrology not a religion. There's science and there's religion. Studying cryogenics is science; freezing yourself in the hope of being resurrected is religion. BTW, while we learned a lot from studying the stars while abandoning the religion surrounding them, we're still not much closer to reaching them than we were 200 years ago. > Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious? No. I might buy stocks in a company making a more efficient microwave oven (shit, I'm betting on my own actual startup). But when the matter at hand is our existential dread, and people change their behavior based on what is currently classified as bona-fide science fiction, become emotionally involved, and preach the great rewards to be bestowed on the faithful -- imagining, all the while a bright future while completely disregarding other possibilities -- then, yeah, you're looking at a religion.
    - heed 12y ago
      >No. I might buy stocks in a company making a more efficient microwave oven (shit, I'm betting on my own actual startup). This is what people are doing by having their bodies frozen after death; they are buying stake in some technology in hopes they will receive a return someday.

MichaelGG 12y ago

It's not incomparable in a mathematical sense, but the probability of any known religion being correct is not remotely on the same scale of reviving a suspended human mind. Along the lines: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ml/but_theres_still_a_chance_right/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ml/but_theres_still_a_chance_right/

ewoodrich 12y ago
I just want to clarify here, I'm not religious at all. I'm just trying to say that the state of mind and emotional investment is similar. I'm a bit surprised by some of the response, to be honest.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  I'll grant you that. "The state of mind and emotional investment" is indeed similar, and it is a rationality risk, because people may (and do) transplant religious memes to reasoning about this. Same with the Singularity, or even if you dive a bit into game theory and economics you might realize that the possible solutions to coordination problems start to look eerily similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about how God wants humanity to work (honestly, I've been loosing some sleep over this myself). It's a danger, but it doesn't make cryonics religion.
pron 12y ago
> reviving a suspended human mind That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. > the probability of any known religion being correct is not remotely on the same scale... I'm an atheist, but that's totally unknown and presently unknowable. And don't provide as an example a very particular religion that rejects evolution (I don't know about muslims and other religions less known in the west, but most religious Jews and many Catholics don't reject evolution).
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. I know I'm repeating myself in every comment I make in this thread, but to reiterate. We know one possible technique that will work. We know that it exists, it is possible and that it can do the job in principle. We just don't know how to use it, because we didn't build that particular piece of technology. There may be other ways we don't know about yet, but if there are none, then there's always the nanotech.