Re: Cryonics sources [was: Nature defines transhumanist]
Greg wrote:
> 3. Freezing with good cryoprotectants can preserve at least some of the > informational content of a dead or dying brain. Information preservation > will get better as cryopreservation techniques improve.
(end)
Robert wrote:
I'm coming more and more to believe that the cryoprotectant issue is a noop.
(end)
WHAT!!!!! (Falls out of chair!!) I have read so many articles and posts by prominant cryonicists explaining the dire need for improved cryoprotectants! So the odd people I read about in the paper who put grandma in the basement meat freezer soon after her death have the right idea after all! ;)
he continues:
Fundamentally it comes down to the computer power you have to put the pieces back together and whether the pieces *largely* have the information content of the brain before freezing. Freeze a piece of meat (w/o cryoprotectants)and you still get back a piece of meat when you thaw it out.
(end)
I see your point. But I think many cryonicists just want to make the job as easy on future nanodoctors as they possibly can. I personally don't to spend too much time in suspension. I don't want the world to have changed to drastically while I was frozen(Eliezer laughs as he reads preceding line).
Greg wrote:
> 5. Not cryopreserving your brain will result in a near-complete loss of its> information content in a relatively short period of time.
(end)
I had the same reaction Robert did on the "near-complete" statement!
Robert wrote:
"near-complete"?? Unless you are a Tiplerian, the loss is so close to complete that it *is* complete. However, there may be leftovers unrelated to your brain(e.g. Sasha's memoirs) that allow the reconstitution of a relative approximation of individuals. Now, there are going to be a lot of people with raised eyebrows if a combination of genetic backtracking, historic pattern matching and simulation integration with known outcomes allows you to by and large recreate an individual without any frozen wet-matter at all!
(end)
I have problems with the reconstruction of people from records. You could end up with a person who is close but really not truely that person and instead simply very confused about their real identity. I think Sasha still exists as a personality and intellect but has moved on to another form of existance. Death will claim at least some of us in the end and we will find out eventually...
Robert wrote:
How much of the "Greg" personality could I get knowing the time and place of years of the crystallization of your firmware? IMO, you can throw away the rest of the arguments and simply stick with #5.
he continues:
Even a 0.000001 % chance of survival is better than the 10^-??? chance allowed by dependence on "faith" or "belief". The cost is minimal relative to the potential benefit.
(end)
And this is THE argument that cryonicists use to try to persuade people to make the choice for cryonics! The cost is very minimal compared to the potential benefit. Now, I just have to put my money where my mouth is...
Robert wrote:
Assuming being revived from cryonic suspension, means a nanotech era where diseases are solved and the accident rate allows you to live 2000-5000 years in a nanosanta world (when a year then is *more* valuable than a year now because you don't have to work to survive), what would the success chances have to be to justify the $100K? (If required, assume you are suspended for 50 years, which seems about right.)
(end)
Wow, where do I sign up??? ;) We're gonna party like it's 2099!! :)
best wishes,
John Grigg
Send FREE Greetings for Father's Day--or any day!
Click here: http://www.whowhere.lycos.com/redirects/fathers_day.rdct
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:51 MDT