A Personal Statement from Iain Banks • Hacker News Board

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#341

Post by ebrenes » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

alxndr wrote: post #177

arethuza wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the subject of Scottish authors and the UK welfare state - my opinion of JK Rowling went up quite a bit when I learned of her attitude towards paying taxes (and I'm sure Iain would approve): http://timidheathen.tumblr.com/post/7043004518/jk-rowling-on...

She talked about that on Colbert a little while back.

I couldn't find any interviews with Rowling on the Colbert Report, but I did find this for The Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-15-2012/j-k--r...

Was that the episode you were referring to?

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#342

Post by lsparrish » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 12:07 AM UTC

nnq wrote: post #82

gizmo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cell damage inflicted by the cryo process is readily acknowledged by its proponents. They argue that the neurological damage is not so large that the original brain can't be reconstructed either by scanning it while still frozen or by repairing it with nano-bots. Much like data from a wiped hard drive can still be recovered by digital forensics. As for the problem of outer layers freezing faster than inner layers…

They don't! If someone could freeze at least a small insect brain after it "learned something", unfreeze it and prove that it retained what it learned, I might have at least a grain of faith in this. Even getting an insect ganglia out on a feeder plate with electrodes, training it to respond in a way to a certain sequence of input electrical impulses and proving that after thawing and reanimation it still preserves t…

> Understanding "biology 101" means understanding that biology is about experiments, everyth is empirical (and will be for quite some time I guess), nothing can be said that "it works" in biology or medicine until you experimentally prove it does.

Part of this isn't really biology (as we know it) though, so I'm not sure that biologists who criticize are seeing the whole picture. Look at it like a cryptographer: Is putting a brain in liquid nitrogen a secure erasure method against all future attacks from a determined opponent with lots of resources? Would you trust your financial data to such a method of data erasure?

> "Nature"/"The universe"/"God" is NOT on our side on this path, so there's no room for optimistic thinking, we can only rely on cold (literally) hard science and math!

I like this sentiment, I wish more cryonics people took it to heart, but at the same time I don't believe that "The Force" is actually against us. There is some reasonable burden of proof on the assertion that the data is is utterly gone and out of reach of all realistic future technology.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#343

Post by lsparrish » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 1:39 AM UTC

solox3 wrote: post #83

gizmo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cell damage inflicted by the cryo process is readily acknowledged by its proponents. They argue that the neurological damage is not so large that the original brain can't be reconstructed either by scanning it while still frozen or by repairing it with nano-bots. Much like data from a wiped hard drive can still be recovered by digital forensics. As for the problem of outer layers freezing faster than inner layers…

That's complete nonsense. Nanobots cannot repair angstrom-scale freeze damages. You approach the classical limit, where protons are more wave than particle. And what's a brain antifreeze? Even biocompatible antifreeze proteins found in arctic oceans have a thermal threshold of 269K, which is no where near cryogenic temperature.

> Nanobots cannot repair angstrom-scale freeze damages.

Vitrification avoids ice. Nanobots could e.g. remove toxic compounds from extracellular areas and replace them with nontoxic solutions, and deliver yet-to-be-invented drugs that would activate upon thawing.

> Even biocompatible antifreeze proteins found in arctic oceans have a thermal threshold of 269K, which is no where near cryogenic temperature.

The stuff invented by 21st Century Medicine and used to successfully cryopreserve a rabbit kidney is a combination of the ordinary kind of penetrating antifreeze that depresses the freezing point (glycerol, EG, DMSO, and the like) with polymers that inhibit ice nucleation (functionally similar to antifreeze proteins). It has been known for a while that you can vitrify slowly by using high concentrations of the former kind of solute (depress the freezing temperature to below the glass transition temperature and the cooling rate no longer matters) but the latter lets you get away with somewhat more water in the mix, is my understanding.

There's a tradeoff when you cool things, where if you get cold enough it slows toxicity. They don't perfuse with the stuff until the brain is already cooled to near 0 degrees C, and it is ramped in concentration over time to prevent osmotic shock.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#344

Post by lobster_johnson » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 2:19 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #255

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I read Consider Phlebas and was very underwhelmed by it. Huh. Same here. I've only read CP and I honestly could not tell why everyone is so excited about Banks. Okay then, I'll add a few more titles to my wish list. Thanks!

Consider Phlebas is more of a literary novel that happens to take place in the future. I like all of Banks' work and thinkSwombat's suggested reading order above is spot on, but I also think Consider Phlebas is by far his best work.

Not the future. The Culture books happen rougly in the present day (although across a timespan of many centuries; CP is set 800 years before the other novels, The Hydrogen Sonata several centuries after Excession), and there is even a short story about The Culture encountering Earth.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#345

Post by lobster_johnson » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 2:29 AM UTC

abraininavat wrote: post #309

nooneelse wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Player of Games, the Culture doesn't represent we humans on Earth. The Azad do. They aren't alien and different because of that.

You're missing my point. The Culture and the Azadians were very anatomically similar. That's silly and lacks imagination.

Banks explains, in one the books, how the universe somehow produces humanoids all over the place, for unknown reasons; probably it's simply an optimal shape in a certain type of gravity and atmosphere; and that this is why many of the species in the books are humanoid. It's a writer's way out, really, and a perfectly adequate one.

Banks has other weird and interesting species appearing in the periphery. But the books are ultimately not about weird aliens.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#346

Post by lobster_johnson » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 2:34 AM UTC

Nick_C wrote: post #306

arethuza wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iain's non-SF work is wonderful, and often so very Scottish. In particular, I love the opening to Espedair Street: " Two days ago I decided to kill myself. I would walk and hitch and sail away from this dark city to the bright spaces of the wet west coast, and there throw myself into the tall, glittering seas beyond Iona (with its cargo of mouldering kings) to let the gulls and seals and tides have their way with my…

Totally agree. Last year I decided to give Bank's non sci-fi a go. He draws such great characters. Espedair Street was my favourite, but The Steep Approach to Garbadale and Complicity were also great. Complicity is a really good intro to Banks; it's a nice Scottish thriller and an easy read. He is a good literary writer, and I think that is what makes him such a good sci-fi writer. I had never read any sci-fi like it…

Very few indeed. Have you read Gene Wolfe? One of the few writers in the genre I truly admire as a literary writer. A good starting book is "The Fifth Head of Cerberus".

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#347

Post by satori99 » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 3:19 AM UTC

lobster_johnson wrote: post #345

abraininavat wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing my point. The Culture and the Azadians were very anatomically similar. That's silly and lacks imagination.

Banks explains, in one the books, how the universe somehow produces humanoids all over the place, for unknown reasons; probably it's simply an optimal shape in a certain type of gravity and atmosphere; and that this is why many of the species in the books are humanoid. It's a writer's way out, really, and a perfectly adequate one. Banks has other weird and interesting species appearing in the periphery. But the books…

He also goes further in this explanation in another work (whose name eludes me), in so far as some races deliberately seed the galaxy with humans so that when a race such as ours breaks free of their solar system, they don't get all hegemonic because there are already humans everywhere.

This saves many nasty wars.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#348

Post by lsparrish » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 4:07 AM UTC

polyfractal wrote: post #298

nawitus wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my own estimation based on the evidence I've seen. There's plenty of detail when you look at neural tissue using a microscope: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/braincryopreservation1.htm...

That is not peer-reviewed research, and therefore I treat it about as seriously as I treat any other comment on the internet: at best incompetent, at worst maliciously deceiving. Considering its published by a company that makes money from freezing people...probably the latter.

By all means, please, show us peer reviewed sources that contradict it.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#349

Post by lsparrish » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 4:27 AM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #87

This is sad news, and there is really nothing to add to his own words. I just want to highlight two things, firstly his support for the NHS, which despite every newspaper and politician gunning for it still usually manages to deliver top quality care. Secondly, can we leave off the cryogenic stuff ? The guy is dying, and pretending it will just be a pause is insulting all round. This was a touching and accepting note…

Personally, I'm glad to see cryonics being given more attention and discussion. It is a subject not well understood, even among biologists. If you think people undergoing it today are wasting their money (arguable, though I don't concede to it being obvious), there is still something of value to be gained by discussing the specific obstacles it faces, particularly in a technically inclined entrepreneurial crowd like HN. Many of us are younger, and will benefit from technological development that is only in the beginning stages at this point.

Re: A Personal Statement from Iain Banks

#350

Post by lsparrish » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 5:43 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #132

nawitus wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is that until it's "proven" that we can cryopreserve and then restore brains, the probability of success is zero? If you agree that the probability is non-zero, then you agree with the cryopreservation advocates. In addition, if you agree that it's non-zero, you must agree that it's better than doing nothing (which clearly has a zero chance of revival). Cryopreservation advocates do not claim that th…

"Cryopreservation advocates do not claim that the process is proven to be work, they claim that the chance may be small, but it's non-zero." They implicitly claim that not only is the chance non-zero, but that it's large enough to be worth the opportunity cost of actually freezing people. I agree that a non-zero chance seems obvious, but this claim definitely does not, and needs a lot more substantiation than there a…

My gut estimate is that the chance is somewhere in the 1-10% range. I've been thinking about it for around 5 years. Part of why that number is so high is the relative lack of coherent and nuanced counterargument that demonstrates the critic at least understands the issue (not just one aspect, but the whole huge convoluted topic) well. I may end up becoming such a critic myself, eventually, but so far things aren't looking so bad for cryonics.

It is true that chances can't just be "non-zero" and be rational, nor simply based on faith, because that's basically Pascal's Wager. However I think my 1-10% gut feeling is something that I could probably be talked out of if it were really arbitrarily low like people keep assuming.

Assuming that probability range, I think selling to ordinary people is pretty defensible at $50k-$500k rates, because we already spend around $5M to avoid accidental deaths via regulatory tradeoffs. If it is lower (0.1% say) and yet still not arbitrarily low, we would then need to restrict to either very rich or very desperate people (where the ratio of marginal utility of life to marginal utility of a dollar differs significantly from the norm). Arbitrarily low chances literally on level with egyptian mummification or worshipping a random god is definitely not something that should be sold to anyone (except as a novelty maybe).

Note also that cryonics storage cost is influenced by economies of scale, so mass-produced cryonics is likely to be a lot less expensive per person than the cost you see on the market today. If you could seriously measure a non-arbitrary 0.01% it wouldn't necessarily be impossible to justify even on the mass market and even to relatively death-complacent people -- it would just have to be very cheap for them. Granted, gut feelings are hard to calibrate well to reality at such extremes (hence lottery tickets) so I'm not going to seriously argue that, I'm just saying this to give you a feel for why I think there's a need for fairly strong counterargument before you can reasonably take the position that cryonics is just innately bad/fraudulent business.

I also anticipate various positive externalities from the cryonics business, such as sooner (eventual) development of suspended animation of the damage-free variety, which has potential to save a lot of lives and spare a lot of suffering. These too should be accounted for as part of a robust criticism.