cRPG
Off Topic => General Off Topic => Topic started by: Xant on September 20, 2015, 09:55:15 am
-
http://www.scmp.com/tech/science-research/article/1859328/cheating-death-elderly-writer-first-known-chinese-test-subject
If you're not telling your loved ones to get signed up for cryonics, you don't really care about them. Fact.
-
Just 300000 USD? Can we expect it to become cheaper in the future? Thinking about it, Star Citizen is taking soo long...
-
if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep your corpse cold, you're an idiot. fact.
Zheng Congyi, a professor of biology and director of the China Centre for Type Culture Collection in Wuhan University, in Hubei province, said the idea of extending people’s lives in this way was "impossible in the foreseeable future".
"No technology can preserve a human organ for a long time. That is why organ transplants must be carried out almost simultaneously on the donor and the recipient," he told the SCMP.
"If we can't exercise cryonics on organs, how can we hope to preserve and revive a head or entire body?"
-
Just 300000 USD? Can we expect it to become cheaper in the future? Thinking about it, Star Citizen is taking soo long...
Pretty sure there are cheaper options already. And it's considerably cheaper if you do it for the head only -- though then I wouldn't want to be brought back until they can build a super-human body for my super head.
-
if you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep your corpse cold, you're an idiot. fact.
Can organs not be frozen down? Or is that just a cost issue, because if it costs 300000 dallas then i can see why they would chose to do the simultanious donation instead of freezing them down.
-
Whatever the case, the comparison is idiotic. Yeah, you might not be able to use cryonics on organs currently and get them back to functional, but the aim of freezing brains after death isn't to revive you instantly, it's to make it possible for you to be revived later on, when and if the technology becomes available.
-
But if your organs will even last that long, is the question
-
I cease existing every time I sleep, why would I care about cryonics?
-
Why not just overdose on drugs, you cease existing every time you sleep?
-
The chances of cryonics working seem tiny. I can't help but shake the idea that most Drake equations for cryonics have inflated parameters.
However, it's a better chance than the '0' we're stuck with now. So sure, let's sign up.
I'm also considering throwing my money at The Brain Preservation Fund (http://www.brainpreservation.org/overview/) and/or SENS (http://www.sens.org/).
The amount of resources we spend for the possibility of killing people versus the possibility of extending life is ridiculous.
-
We don't know what self-improving AIs and nanotechnology and stuff we haven't even figured out yet will make possible in the future. Cryonics preserve information in format that is distinct from just "any" information, like, say, if you got cremated and all that was left was ash. Little chance of coming back from that, no matter how sophisticated the technology gets.
So what are the chances of it working? Who knows, but like you say, the alternative is literally 0% chance, and this is the most important thing in your life we're talking about - your life. It's not like you can go "oh, well, I'd rather spend my money on buying a car" -- there are no alternatives to "life" either. You need to be alive to have anything else. It's the baseline.
-
Why not just overdose on drugs, you cease existing every time you sleep?
My body strives to continue existing as a structure. Even though I have free will, I use it to pursue the rewards that my body has set up for me. My mind knows what's up, but my behavior stays that of any universe-colonizing virus.
By the way, suppose you had the opportunity to revive people from the middle ages, would you actually do it on a large scale? Cryonics is based on the belief that people will actually make the choice to wake you up in the future. But why would they even do that?
-
Because they want to live?
-
Eternal life for me!? For ever young? I would like to keep my body, or get a very OP one , better liver, or 2 livers, better organs in general and internal or retractile testicles, everything improved please.
-
My body strives to continue existing as a structure. Even though I have free will, I use it to pursue the rewards that my body has set up for me. My mind knows what's up, but my behavior stays that of any universe-colonizing virus.
By the way, suppose you had the opportunity to revive people from the middle ages, would you actually do it on a large scale? Cryonics is based on the belief that people will actually make the choice to wake you up in the future. But why would they even do that?
The same reason Europe is accepting refugees right now? Societies have only gotten kinder with time.
-
The same reason Europe is accepting refugees right now? Societies have only gotten kinder with time.
Helping refugees has a small element of reciprocity and it deals with live human beings, while those that have already passed away won't be insulted or look sad in pictures in the press because we didn't revive them. It would purely be a favour to them that they themselves never considered, and of which they would never be able to acknowledge the denial.
Not that it matters, Medieval people could pump their money into their soul instead of cryonics, so they are chilling up in heaven.
-
You're more likely to get reciprocity from people who could afford and who thought to get themselves frozen than from a bunch of "refugees" with no education.
-
http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html
A very good article on cryonics.
As for the September conversation,
"Why would future civilizations bother to revive me?" (Requires understanding either economic growth diminishing the cost, or knowledge of history and how societies have become kinder over time, or knowing about Friendly AI.)
Also consider what would happen if there were 10,000 people, right now, who could be brought back to life as new breakthroughs in science are made. It'd get massive media attention, and unless the cost was billions and billions per person, they would get revived, guaranteed.
And if that doesn't convince you, refer to the second paragraph in the article I linked.
-
It's $700 per year + $200,000 that you could have used during your lifetime.
Against the freezing process not being too destructive + the vendor not suffering a takeover or a bankruptcy + no natural disasters in the area + the future people restoring you and being friendly.
For some more life.
I wouldn't say that you shouldn't do it, it's your time and money after all. But I also wouldn't call it obvious that you should invest in it. Though I guess the whole thing is more about hope.
-
Freezing? Thats retarded. Copy my brain into a sexy nip trap robot.
Or is there an option to just freeze my dick?
-
It's $700 per year + $200,000 that you could have used during your lifetime.
Against the freezing process not being too destructive + the vendor not suffering a takeover or a bankruptcy + no natural disasters in the area + the future people restoring you and being friendly.
For some more life.
I wouldn't say that you shouldn't do it, it's your time and money after all. But I also wouldn't call it obvious that you should invest in it. Though I guess the whole thing is more about hope.
You mean it's 700 per year so you can live a lot longer.
It's known that the "freezing" process is not too destructive. It's clear you didn't read the article, it'd clear up your misconceptions.
You'll find that there's nothing more valuable than "some more life" when you don't have much of it left. It's easy to scoff at it in your twenties when you expect to live forever. Creeping sense of mortality comes later.
-
It's known that the "freezing" process is not too destructive. It's clear you didn't read the article, it'd clear up your misconceptions.
Can you point me to the relevant part, especially if there's anything on the neurological effects of it? It's a little long winded at roughly 15k words and I simply have no intention of reading it all.
The closest I found was this:
In other words, it’s reasonable to assume that the fanciest future neuroscientists will become so good at reading a damaged vitrified brain for clues as to its original structure that a typical combo of aging, disease, heart stoppage, and vitrification likely won’t be able to “stump” them. And to cryonicists, if future scientists can examine your vitrified brain and figure out what it’s supposed to look like, you’re not dead—by definition.
And I didn't find it terribly convincing. It sounds a lot more like rebuilding something that resembles the baseline human mental apparatus than resurrecting you.
You mean it's 700 per year so you can live a lot longer. It's easy to scoff at it in your twenties when you expect to live forever. Creeping sense of mortality comes later.
You'll find that there's nothing more valuable than "some more life" when you don't have much of it left.
Possibly, yes. True.
On your deathbed, who wouldn't take the chance for some more life? But this is not something you just decide to go at on your deathbed, but something that you pay by having decreased quality of life during your absolute lifetime. And it's a long shot.
Not stupid but far, far from certain.
-
I'm not going to hold your hand and spell it out for you. Read it if you're interested, don't if you're not. If you refuse to get educated, then perhaps you should also refrain from commenting out of ignorance.
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
No thanks.
-
Define "not too destructive".
-
Define "not too destructive".
No thanks.
-
Are you asking me or Xant?
How much of your memories and personality would survive the process? Would you think of someone with 20% of your memories, you? The acceptable level of destructiveness in this sense is up to the individual to decide.
I'm sure we'll be able to simulate and fix minds with crutch-like fake memories at some point, but the question of identity remains.
Neurologically, is it possible to get something meaningful out of brain matter altered this way or is the process actually too destructive for it to happen at all? How good is the current preservation process.
-
Actually, if you read the article (and the linked sources), it is clear that the current process is far from what might be considered good enough for brain preservation.
-
Are you asking me or Xant?
How much of your memories and personality would survive the process? Would you think of someone with 20% of your memories, you? The acceptable level of destructiveness in this sense is up to the individual to decide.
I'm sure we'll be able to simulate and fix minds with crutch-like fake memories at some point, but the question of identity remains.
Neurologically, is it possible to get something meaningful out of brain matter altered this way or is the process actually too destructive for it to happen at all? How good is the current preservation process.
Keep on talking out of ignorance instead of reading the article. Keeps your fingers warm, I suppose.
-
Dear god, I could reach level 39 with this technology. Thanks for making me aware, Xant!
-
Actually, if you read the article (and the linked sources), it is clear that the current process is far from what might be considered good enough for brain preservation.
Yes, this is still very early stage. The people researching cryonics & co are very avant-guardists and still have much to do before the public trust them. People undergoing those operations today are betting their life and could be considered anvat-guardist too.
Whats reasonable to consider is that in a couple decade or so it will be a much more commonly accepted method to preserve the terminally ill; even possibly warp around time, for those that have the money and the desire.
I consider this topic extremely interesting, on par with space topics. Cheating death and reaching for the stars should be #1 lifegoal of the human race.
-
"Betting their life", as opposed to the sure chance of dying if they don't undergo those operations. The plane analogy within the link is very fitting. The new breakthroughs with animals the article mentions are very important and show that as a concept, it has an extremely good chance of working.
-
So let's say I freeze myself, and it's a 100% success. My body wakes up some time in the future with all the memories and everything. But how can I be sure that it's me who wakes up, not just the body? You might as well kill me and create an identical clone.
-
Huh? Because it'd be no different than going to sleep and waking up. It's... your brain. Where do you think "you" exist?
-
"Betting their life", as opposed to the sure chance of dying if they don't undergo those operations.
You know that this isnt aimed only at terminally ill people right?
Even to those people, it could be preferable living their remaining days, opposed to dying today being the subject of an experimental technology that will potentially fail.
=> Even people that "have a sure chance of dying" would bet the life they still have, in case you have reading comprehension issue.
-
Huh? Because it'd be no different than going to sleep and waking up. It's... your brain. Where do you think "you" exist?
It would be a lot different. When you go to sleep, your heart continues beating, blood continues flowing, brain is still active - you're alive. When you get frozen, you die. Then your body gets reanimated, but there's no guarantee it will keep its previous point of view.
-
It would be a lot different. When you go to sleep, your heart continues beating, blood continues flowing, brain is still active - you're alive. When you get frozen, you die. Then your body gets reanimated, but there's no guarantee it will keep its previous point of view.
Would you say the same for sleep? There are a few arguments about the stream of consciousness ending when one is not awake/conscious. Thus a new you exists every time the stream is interrupted.
Unless you mean that the freezing possibly alters your brain, then that's a different story.
-
It would be a lot different. When you go to sleep, your heart continues beating, blood continues flowing, brain is still active - you're alive. When you get frozen, you die. Then your body gets reanimated, but there's no guarantee it will keep its previous point of view.
What is the difference between a being that lives continuously and one that does not? There's no "stream of consciousness", not even between the moment you read this word and this one.
-
You know that this isnt aimed only at terminally ill people right?
Even to those people, it could be preferable living their remaining days, opposed to dying today being the subject of an experimental technology that will potentially fail.
=> Even people that "have a sure chance of dying" would bet the life they still have, in case you have reading comprehension issue.
I know a whole lot more than you do. One of the things I know is that you didn't read the article, and your misconceptions would be cleared up by reading it.
It would be a lot different. When you go to sleep, your heart continues beating, blood continues flowing, brain is still active - you're alive. When you get frozen, you die. Then your body gets reanimated, but there's no guarantee it will keep its previous point of view.
What does beating of the heart and flowing of the blood have anything to do with anything? How do those things affect who you are?
-
What is the difference between a being that lives continuously and one that does not? There's no "stream of consciousness", not even between the moment you read this word and this one.
I know a whole lot more than you do. One of the things I know is that you didn't read the article, and your misconceptions would be cleared up by reading it.
What does beating of the heart and flowing of the blood have anything to do with anything? How do those things affect who you are?
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?