View Topic

I mean, legally it wouldn't be killing anyone since they're already dead.

From a transhumanist point of view, it's quite annoying that "dead" people have no rights. After all, the legal definition of death has changed so many times as technology has advanced that what now appears to be permadeath may not be.

I'm not saying we shouldn't bring them back, I'm saying we wouldn't. People don't act perfectly morally now, far from it, so I don't see why we should expect people in the future to be any more well behaved.

I was responding to Wintermoot there... I agree with you here that it's very possible that, even if such technology could be developed, people may decide not to use it. Whether it's for reasons such as those Wintermoot suggested, or for more selfish ones, it's still a high possibility.

I don't think anyone frozen now has any chance of ever being revived, the damage their brains have undergone is just far too severe for that. Too much information irrevocably lost.

Maybe someday it'll be feasible, but I think maybe by then we'll live so long that it becomes a much smaller issue..

I mean, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Current technology is commonly used to preserve non-brain organs, and can already successfully preserve and reanimate an animal brain, so given some hypothetical future with currently unimaginable medical technology, I think there's definitely a possibility that cryopreserved human brains could be reconstructed. And if humanity ever turns into an immortal utopia, who's to say that some people won't make it their life's work to return people from the dead?

From a transhumanist point of view, it's quite annoying that "dead" people have no rights. After all, the legal definition of death has changed so many times as technology has advanced that what now appears to be permadeath may not be.

I don't disagree, but legally that's how it is at the moment and I'd say most people would agree with the legal definition...most people would see the people in those vats as dead. Ironically, that's probably helpful to the cryonics industry, since if they were thought of as alive it would almost certainly be much more regulated by the government.

That brain was not preserved and re-animated, just preserved. There was no evidence of cellular life after it was defrosted. It's very impressive anyway, because the synapses are preserved and they are the most delicate bit. It's orders of magnitude more difficult to preserve a human brain (look how the rabbit's brain is almost completely smooth, human brains are made out of folds..), but this means it might be possible to at least preserve the brain..

As far as re-animating it, I don't think we're there yet. But preservation seems to be to be a big hurdles on the way there at least. They do mention what I said earlier in there though - current cryopreservation processes irrevocably damage the synapses in the brain. Technology operates within rules - for example you couldn't bring back a cremated brain, or a brain that has been left out in the sun for 20 minutes... It would be like reassembling a smoothie into strawberries and blueberries but much more difficult.. Similarly, you can't bring back the brains we've frozen so far- they are far too damaged.

Who is leaving brains out in the sun for 20 minutes? That's pretty sick.

From a transhumanist point of view, it's quite annoying that "dead" people have no rights. After all, the legal definition of death has changed so many times as technology has advanced that what now appears to be permadeath may not be.

I don't disagree, but legally that's how it is at the moment and I'd say most people would agree with the legal definition...most people would see the people in those vats as dead. Ironically, that's probably helpful to the cryonics industry, since if they were thought of as alive it would almost certainly be much more regulated by the government.

Right, especially considering how unsuccessful cryonics people have been pushing for beginning the cryopreservation process as the patient is still dying (or, if euthanasia is legal, to use it in conjunction with vitrification).

Though I think that the annoyance of dead people having no rights extends beyond just transhumanists. You have no legal say over your funeral and how your body is treated after death, for instance. (I can of course see the counterargument that dead bodies are meaningless beyond symbolism, assuming permadeath.)

That brain was not preserved and re-animated, just preserved. There was no evidence of cellular life after it was defrosted. It's very impressive anyway, because the synapses are preserved and they are the most delicate bit. It's orders of magnitude more difficult to preserve a human brain (look how the rabbit's brain is almost completely smooth, human brains are made out of folds..), but this means it might be possible to at least preserve the brain..

As far as re-animating it, I don't think we're there yet. But preservation seems to be to be a big hurdles on the way there at least. They do mention what I said earlier in there though - current cryopreservation processes irrevocably damage the synapses in the brain. Technology operates within rules - for example you couldn't bring back a cremated brain, or a brain that has been left out in the sun for 20 minutes... It would be like reassembling a smoothie into strawberries and blueberries but much more difficult.. Similarly, you can't bring back the brains we've frozen so far- they are far too damaged.

Whoops, I apologize for assuming that the terminology in the article was correct (and somehow not noticing that reanimate means to bring back to life, which definitely didn't happen). I should have known better, especially considering the correction at the bottom of the article.

Still, the pace of technology makes me somewhat optimistic of better vitrification processes. After all, forty years ago, even the best cryopreservation generated large ice crystals in the brain.

But even in its current state, I'm not sure that the brain is irrevocably damaged, as you say. To steal an analogy from AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky, even "securely wiped" hard drives can theoretically be recovered using an electron microscope, so why would it not possibly be possible for neuroscientists in the future to read, recover, and reconstruct a cryopreserved brain? (Yeah I know that brain-hard drive analogies are inherently faulty, but this example is only to show that being wiped beyond recovery may not truly be such with new technologies.) It might take longer than a better-preserved brains from future cryopreservation, but it doesn't mean that it's necessarily impossible.

Not saying that the brains are literally left out in the sun for 20 minutes, just that it would be like filling the brain with microscopic blenders (bacteria). Even though it might not appear any different on the outside, the consciousness once housed within would be completely destroyed beyond repair.

As to possibly being able to recover a busted brain the same way we recover a wiped hard drive.. I know you addressed this taulover, but it really is a bad analogy.. Recovering a hard drive is like reading a book where random letters have been erased or altered. Recovering a damaged brain is more like putting two halves of a cut fruit back together. You could make it look like it had never been cut, but the connections between the cells will still be severed..

Anyway, I'm not saying it's completely impossible, just impossible with current technology. I wouldn't recommend cryogenics to anyone, it costs a literal fortune, and you could spend that on making people who are still alive less abjectly miserable instead of trying to selfishly project your consciousness into the distant future. I think it's evil.

After Wint's comment I couldn't finish the rest of the conversation because I was laughing so damn hard.

Not saying that the brains are literally left out in the sun for 20 minutes, just that it would be like filling the brain with microscopic blenders (bacteria). Even though it might not appear any different on the outside, the consciousness once housed within would be completely destroyed beyond repair.

As to possibly being able to recover a busted brain the same way we recover a wiped hard drive.. I know you addressed this taulover, but it really is a bad analogy.. Recovering a hard drive is like reading a book where random letters have been erased or altered. Recovering a damaged brain is more like putting two halves of a cut fruit back together. You could make it look like it had never been cut, but the connections between the cells will still be severed..

And cryonics attempts to reduce the damage as much as possible, with a process that involves things from CPR-type techniques for keeping blood flow to the brain to the ultimate vitrification process, so that the people of the future have the greatest possibility of reviving the person. It would certainly be many orders of magnitude easier than if your brain were rotting in the ground.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's completely impossible, just impossible with current technology. I wouldn't recommend cryogenics cryonics to anyone, it costs a literal fortune, and you could spend that on making people who are still alive less abjectly miserable instead of trying to selfishly project your consciousness into the distant future. I think it's evil.

Calling cryonics cryogenics makes both cryonicists and cryogenicists unhappy. The two are about the same as geography and geology (or if you prefer to consider cryonics silly, astronomy and astrology).

It also is not that obscenely expensive; Cryonics Institute charges $28,000 for its service. So about three or four times the average cost of a funeral. Or about as much as some upper middle class people spend in a single vacation. Under a life insurance policy, this comes up to several hundred dollars a year. And considering that many people spend similar amounts on other selfish things (food, Netflix, video games, drugs, etc.) rather than donating to charity, I really don't see how it's any less evil than normal people things that normal people do. Of course, if you're living an ascetic life of charity, or if your cryonics decision is motivated largely by charity, that changes things, but otherwise, I just don't find that a compelling argument against cryonics.

There is also the argument (though I currently don't think I agree with it) that cryonics can, assuming a small but non-zero probability that it works, probabilistically save lives if given widespread adoption, and as such supporting it may be a good form of charity.

(Edit: And I'm assuming you didn't read the Wait But Why article I linked initially, since you seem to be repeating points that the article argues against, rather than arguing against those counterarguments?)

I just noticed that the News Feed is in the header navigation bar... I could've gotten there all along by clicking instead of typing into the address bar!

And now I'm wondering how long it's been there...

I finally got around to deleting the 145 total emails I've gotten from here since I registered (about 0.66 per day)

I don't use that email much.

I finally got around to deleting the 145 total emails I've gotten from here since I registered (about 0.66 per day)

I don't use that email much.

So apparently I've received 585 emails total (about 0.696/day)...

I have that email inbox forward to another email, where I keep OPs of every PM thread and delete everything else.

I thought I had a fairly large amount of good posts, but I just looked and only 240 out of the 1284 (18.69%) posts I've made at the time of posting this message are from forums other than The Dumping Grounds :\

I thought I had a fairly large amount of good posts, but I just looked and only 240 out of the 1284 (18.69%) posts I've made at the time of posting this message are from forums other than The Dumping Grounds :\

huh, that's a glaring difference there.... On a side note I don't know what mine is, much less how to check the proportions..... I'm a sad useless trashcan

Nvm I found it. Surprisingly only 89 of mine are in the dumping grounds... I need to spam more.

Nvm I found it. Surprisingly only 89 of mine are in the dumping grounds... I need to spam more.

I think about 70.3% of your at non-spam. That's probably a good thing...