Do you think its just quackery or something that could legitimately be possible one day? (once the technology advances)
Obviously I’m skeptic of it but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t intrigued.
Here are some quick videos explaining the topic for those who may be unfamiliar
If anyone familiar with the “science” of cryonics has any book recommendations for me it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.
You have 2 different questions. One in the title and one in the post.
It doesn’t interest me that much. No, I don’t think it’s quackery though.
It seems feasible that progress could be made down the line.
The biggest question would be restarting consciousness, memories, identity, stuff like that.
But again, in the future maybe we find out that there really is nothing to it. It’ll be easy.
In which case I see the storage of a whole body in cryo inefficient.
Just a snippet of DNA and a small chip that contains the programming to revive the consciousness and the Id…etc…
All that being said, I wouldn’t really be a proponent of any of this. Not on the scale that is popularized anyways.
It makes for good research and development, but I would be against people being resurrected-so to speak.
We have enough people on the planet. There’s a perfectly good natural system of human reproduction and lifecycle in place.
We have enough people on the planet. There's a perfectly good natural system of human reproduction and lifecycle in place.In a way I feel like it addresses one of the biggest reasons why most people gravite towards religion, theoretically granting us eternal life. I was once content with dying simply because it was a part of life and out of my control, so you learn to accept it. But if there is an alternative you wouldn't take it? You're content with drifting into nothingness for eternity after death?
Fascinating, but mostly quackery I think.
We don’t have any evidence that personality could “survive” long periods of 0 brain activity, though Cryonics proponents would say there’s no evidence it couldn’t survive. Given what we know about brain function now, it’s unlikely.
I wouldn’t be interested even if it was feasible.
I wouldn't be interested even if it was feasible.Care to share why? You don't fear non existence? (knowing there may be an alternative)
I wouldn't be interested even if it was feasible.Care to share why? You don't fear non existence? (knowing there may be an alternative)Non-existence doesn't bother me too much. The main reason it doesn't appeal to me is that I like being associated with a particular continuous time, place, social group etc. An existence broken in 2 parts - where I'd be out of touch with everything in the second part - isn't my style.
Do you think its just quackery or something that could legitimately be possible one day? (once the technology advances) If anyone familiar with the "science" of cryonics has any book recommendations for me it would be greatly appreciated.I wrote what I think is a very thorough scientific justification of cryonics, which you can find on Pub Med: SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF CRYONICS PRACTICE https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197 A good scientific book on the subject was written by Dr. Brian Wowk: CRYONICS: REACHING FOR TOMORROW https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1880209004/ A popular novel about cryonics that is so loaded with facts that it lacks much plot (in my opinion, anyway) is: THE FIRST IMMORTAL https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345421825/ On the other hand, a novel about cryonics with a very engrossing plot (and interesting theoretical twist) is: LONG LIFE? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0977986314/
In a way I feel like it addresses one of the biggest reasons why most people gravite towards religion, theoretically granting us eternal life.Yes.
I was once content with dying simply because it was a part of life and out of my control, so you learn to accept it. But if there is an alternative you wouldn't take it? You're content with drifting into nothingness for eternity after death?Well I'd rather speculate about the science of cryogenics-or cryonics but, you don't "drift into nothingness" after death.
I wrote what I think is a very thorough scientific justification of cryonics, which you can find on Pub Med: SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF CRYONICS PRACTICE https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197Let's assume that some of us aren't going to go read your papers. What are your justifications?
Do you think its just quackery or something that could legitimately be possible one day? (once the technology advances) If anyone familiar with the "science" of cryonics has any book recommendations for me it would be greatly appreciated.I wrote what I think is a very thorough scientific justification of cryonics, which you can find on Pub Med: SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF CRYONICS PRACTICE https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197 A good scientific book on the subject was written by Dr. Brian Wowk: CRYONICS: REACHING FOR TOMORROW https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1880209004/ A popular novel about cryonics that is so loaded with facts that it lacks much plot (in my opinion, anyway) is: THE FIRST IMMORTAL https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345421825/ On the other hand, a novel about cryonics with a very engrossing plot (and interesting theoretical twist) is: LONG LIFE? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0977986314/ Thank you for this post and reading recommendations
Do you think its just quackery or something that could legitimately be possible one day? (once the technology advances) Obviously I'm skeptic of it but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't intrigued. Here are some quick videos explaining the topic for those who may be unfamiliar If anyone familiar with the "science" of cryonics has any book recommendations for me it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.I'm familiar with cryonics and have been following it for decades. Let me first point out that there is nothing in physics that prohibits this from working. It is a technical challenge. Frogs freeze every winter in Canada and Alaska. They are able to do this using natural cryoprotectants that prevent freezing damage from ice crystals forming inside cells. Freezing damage wreaks havoc at the cellular level. All cryonics companies use cryoprotectants now but they have their own set of issues, mainly toxicity. With nanobots and sufficient computing it is possible to fix toxicity issues, freezing damage and the original cause of death(as well as aging). We can freeze, but we don't have the tech to repair ... yet. If we did, we wouldn't need to be frozen in the first place. Let's talk about freezing damage for a second. Imagine dropping a crystal vase on concrete and seeing it shatter. In years past it would have been impossible to imagine reassembling the vase. But today we could scan all the pieces and have a computer figure out how the pieces fit back together. The problem of reversing cellular damage due to freezing is very much the same but far more complex. Keep in mind that computing power increases exponentially and soon we will be able to virtually reconstruct a frozen brain if we have sufficient non destructive scanning capability. Time is your friend. What if it takes a year for a computer to reconstruct your brain? Big deal... you're frozen. A minute feels the same as a century when you're in stasis. I can talk more about any of these aspects at the layperson level if you like. Let's talk about some social objections. Overpopulation. There are at least a half dozen reasons why this is not an issue but let me point out that the assumption is that we will always stay here on Earth(and always have children). The universe is huge. If I can have an indefinite lifespan, I'd want to travel. We are already making plans to colonize mars. If H. Sapiens is to survive we will have to colonize other star systems. This is a fact. Discontinuity. Being disconnected in time and socially. This is obviously a personal preference and I can't judge others but personally I'm old enough and experienced enough to know that A. I can adapt and make new friends. B. I don't keep in touch with people from 20 years ago, except for maybe family C. I've lost a lot of people to death so separation happens anyway, get used to it. The other thing people seem to have a blind spot about when it comes to continuity is this, what if all your friends and family were also cryopreserved? Then you wouldn't lose them. For some reason people who voice the discontinuity objection don't ever contemplate this scenario. Most people do not believe a thing is possible until it has already happened. This has been true of airplanes, automobiles, submarines, home computers, cell phones, radio, and hundreds more technologies that we take for granted every day. This doesn't mean people are stupid, it's just human nature to not be able to see beyond your current framework of reality. As far as non existence is concerned. I didn't exist for billions of years and that doesn't bother me. The knowledge that I will not exist again doesn't scare me for the same reason. I don't fear death, I love life and want as much of it as I can get.
Yeah Freeposity, but you’re overlooking the real need for “immortality”.
Maybe if they perfected it they would have cause to keep certain people around…but everyone?
Why?
Like you said, that far into the future maybe cryo is redundant anyways? Maybe we just extend the lifespan of people.
Then there is cloning. There’s all kinds of angles to “immortality”.
The thing is the human element. Who decides who gets to live long or get cloned? or whatever.
The greed element. The control element.
How do you get rid of that in the future?
How does society come to the conclusion that having people live longer is beneficial?
I can see it being profitable. But that brings up the human element again.
What in science says: “It’s better for society for people to live longer, or be resurrected in the future.”
Except obviously on some colonization ship that travels many light years away. Like in the movies.
At what point is a human brain/mind at the right state for continuity? What if the mind has reached a stage where it is “tired”?
Tired of existence.
With the numbers of people being cryopreserved, I don’t really see society having an interest one way or the other. Why would anyone but you have a choice about your longevity? It seems like an odd framing, like a presupposition of a totalitarian dystopic future where someone else determines your lifespan.
Also you seem to be framing your comments in a single planet framework. This species will certainly go extinct if we stay here.
Cloning has existed since the dawn of man in the form of identical twins. Do you mean deliberately making copies of yourself(body and mind)? If so, so what? Why should anyone have a say in whether I duplicate myself or not?
Keep in mind that the point of medicine is to cure disease. Aging is a genetic disease.
Yeah Freeposity, but you're overlooking the real need for "immortality". The thing is the human element. Who decides who gets to live long or get cloned? or whatever. The greed element. The control element. How do you get rid of that in the future?Sorry, I forgot to address this. It seems likely that capitalism, acquisition of stuff, will be something that becomes unnecessary. Even now we are figuring out we don't need people to make "stuff". This is an interesting topic. The end result could split off into many directions and it may very well do just that. For example, uploading. We may end up creating virtual worlds that we house our minds in. In these virtual worlds you can create anything. There would be no limit to what you could have or do and it would affect no one else. There will always be those who do not want to move into the future, much like the Amish of today. There will be those who want to remain in physical flesh bodies. Those who want to alter their genes. Those who want robot bodies. Those who want cyborg bodies. I see no reason why all of these scenarios can't be supported.
With the numbers of people being cryopreserved, I don't really see society having an interest one way or the other.Well I suppose only about .0001% of the World population is discussing cryo. Like we are doing right now. If it becomes successful in the future..like what we are discussing, I can see a whole lot more of society becoming suddenly interested in it.
Why would anyone but you have a choice about your longevity? It seems like an odd framing, like a presupposition of a totalitarian dystopic future where someone else determines your lifespan.What do you mean? What if I wanted Cryo but couldn't afford it? Or science told me I wasn't "suitable" or some such thing? Seems like there could be lot's of outside factors making choices for me. Just like there is in everything else we live with.
Also you seem to be framing your comments in a single planet framework. This species will certainly go extinct if we stay here.That's cool! Yeah Interstellar Overdrive! Other planets. I'm down. You or I won't be there, but I think it's a great idea.
Cloning has existed since the dawn of man in the form of identical twins. Do you mean deliberately making copies of yourself(body and mind)? If so, so what? Why should anyone have a say in whether I duplicate myself or not?I don't think anyone should have a say I guess. I was just mentioning cloning as another method of immortality.
Keep in mind that the point of medicine is to cure disease. Aging is a genetic disease.Well who knows how long a mind could go on for? We don't know. That's all I'm saying.
What always baffles me about such musings, Cryonics, colonizing Mars, a world of autonomous cars (jezz like now we’re becoming too lazy to drive our own cars.), etc. -
all these wonderful sci-fi worlds struggling to come to fruition in the next few decades and more.
To me it all seems so disconnected from the fact that we are creatures of the biosphere of this planet and a healthy biosphere
is the thing that provides our life support system - and that we are destroying that biosphere at breakneck speed.
Like who would want to wake up in a century to see what we’ve wrought.
Or do people actually believe the Earth will remain pretty much the same wonderful livable place we’ve known for the past decades and before?
Or is it all simply a communal Wile-e coyote syndrome?
When a person (or even a non human animal) is restored to functioning life and the ability to think after death, I’ll think about it. Meanwhile I have too many other things to focus on. I’m not going to waste my time on pure speculation. That’s one reason I’m an atheist.
I’ll just park this at the top of the page, still curious . . .
What always baffles me about such musings, Cryonics, colonizing Mars, a world of autonomous cars (jezz like now we're becoming too lazy to drive our own cars.), etc. - all these wonderful sci-fi worlds struggling to come to fruition in the next few decades and more. To me it all seems so disconnected from the fact that we are creatures of the biosphere of this planet and a healthy biosphere is the thing that provides our life support system - and that we are destroying that biosphere at breakneck speed. Like who would want to wake up in a century to see what we've wrought? Or do people actually believe the Earth will remain pretty much the same wonderful livable place we've known for the past decades and before? Or is it all simply a communal Wile-e coyote syndrome?
What always baffles me about such musings, Cryonics, colonizing Mars, a world of autonomous cars (jezz like now we're becoming too lazy to drive our own cars.), etc. - all these wonderful sci-fi worlds struggling to come to fruition in the next few decades and more. To me it all seems so disconnected from the fact that we are creatures of the biosphere of this planet and a healthy biosphere is the thing that provides our life support system - and that we are destroying that biosphere at breakneck speed. Like who would want to wake up in a century to see what we've wrought. Or do people actually believe the Earth will remain pretty much the same wonderful livable place we've known for the past decades and before? Or is it all simply a communal Wile-e coyote syndrome?Who is more likely to be a good steward of the biosphere, someone with a lifespan limited to 76 years or so or someone with an indefinite lifespan?
Who is more likely to be a good steward of the biosphere, someone with a lifespan limited to 76 years or so or someone with an indefinite lifespan?Well when I look at the types who are really into superduper life extensions they seem rather focused on themselves and figuring out now to extend their own particular fun rides, to have much room for other concerns. Maybe I'm a bit twisted by my minutes starring at Grandpa's shed in Nederland Colorado and mediating on the man wrapped in dry ice. http://www.legendsofamerica.com/co-frozendeadguy.html. Can't say we don't have fun in Colorado. ;-P Besides, you avoided my question. Have you spent any time looking at trends and thinking about what our physical planet will look like in 75 years? Try to imagine the massive complex infrastructure that's needed to sustain our high tech industries? Massive complex infrastructures, long supply chains, far flung mining/extraction/refining networks. Stuff that doesn't lend itself well to a world full of environmental upheavals accompanied by erratic destructively intense weather patterns.