Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

lists.extropy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 273 posts

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#221

Post by TeMPOraL »

scythe wrote: post #219
TeMPOraL wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, those are all valid concerns, but all of them are within the realm of possibility. We don't know if we'll achieve the technology, but we know we can in principle . We don't know if future people will care about reviving us, or that we'd even want to live in that future, but it is possible. Note that there's no religion here anywhere, everything is casual and derived through logic from the current state of reali…

>fully scientific, supernatural-free bet Those descriptors are not synonyms. There are many, many ways to be unscientific without any pretension of the supernatural. I think the word you wanted was to say "fully materialistic, supernatural-free bet". The definition of science given by Francis Bacon and carried through to the modern era is that that a hypothesis is not accepted as valid until it has been tested experi…

> I think the word you wanted was to say "fully materialistic, supernatural-free bet".

Yes. That's exactly what I wanted to say. Thanks! English is my second language, I sometimes lack vocabulary.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#222

Post by TeMPOraL »

pron wrote: post #214
TeMPOraL wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. I know I'm repeating myself in every comment I make in this thread, but to reiterate. We know one possible technique that will work. We know that it exists, it is possible and that it can do the job in principle. We just don't know how to use it, because we didn't build that particular pi…

> We know one possible technique that will work. Please show us how we "know" (given that we know with certainty so few things in biology). > then there's always the nanotech. ... and God's angels. You're forgetting them. The "nanotech" you're referring to is, at this point, no more (in fact, it is precisely) science-fiction. Even as recently as 40 years ago, people were certain we'd all have flying cars by now. We c…

> so from the fact life exists you deduce that we'll be able to replicate it with "nanotech"?

No. I asssert that life is nanotech. We've seen those things down to atomic level and we know from observation that every living thing is entirely made from machines pushing around molecules. The required technology is there, we don't even have to develop our own, we just need to get better at controlling the 'natural' one. There's some good progress in reprogramming bacteria and viruses to do our bidding, and there are no clear obstacles why we shouldn't be able to develop this further.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#223

Post by MichaelGG »

pron wrote: post #214
TeMPOraL wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what's being debated. We're debating reviving with a yet unknown technique a human mind frozen with a particular one. I know I'm repeating myself in every comment I make in this thread, but to reiterate. We know one possible technique that will work. We know that it exists, it is possible and that it can do the job in principle. We just don't know how to use it, because we didn't build that particular pi…

> We know one possible technique that will work. Please show us how we "know" (given that we know with certainty so few things in biology). > then there's always the nanotech. ... and God's angels. You're forgetting them. The "nanotech" you're referring to is, at this point, no more (in fact, it is precisely) science-fiction. Even as recently as 40 years ago, people were certain we'd all have flying cars by now. We c…

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia_Transition

So people were off by a few decades on timescales and on social/political uptake. Big deal.

Life exists, it's physical. Our control of physical processes has consistently improved. There isn't any issue in revival that has shown to be totally intractable, in a way that violates any key physical assumptions we have.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#224

Post by TeMPOraL »

nsxwolf wrote: post #210
bellerocky wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but don't really work if you dig down into the details. Don't really work? There is no evidence that you can be brought back from cryopreservation, but assuming that it might one day be possible doesn't require throwing out all the known physical laws of the universe so it's hardly a religion. Cryopreservation is not based on faith, it's based on a little bit of optimism. It's not a religion. Edit: qualified on the…

There's a false dichotomy here. It is possible for religions to be true, and for an afterlife to exist at the same time that the possibility of revival after cryopreservation exists. The cryopreserved person simply wasn't truly dead yet in such a scenario. An afterlife can still commence after whatever cosmic rules that indicate true death are satisfied. Certainly everyone will die, no matter what. There is no materi…

> Certainly everyone will die, no matter what. There is no materialist vision of immortality that can work in a universe with a finite life span.

Unless of course, we'll figure out the answer to the Last Question ;).

( http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html )

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#225

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #206
pron wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely reject your premise of certainty, but won't repeat what I've said here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8240354 ) except to reiterate the following: > ... chance of not dying, when your only other choice is to die with 100% certainty You see, those aren't the only choices. I won't debate the chances of success, but assuming they are as high as you believe, there's a chance you're trading your certa…

> I see people spending money for a chance at an afterlife they have absolutely no proof of. There is a casual, down-to-Earth, no-supernatural-powers-required, fully constrained to known laws of physics and mechanisms of biology chain of reasoning that this could work. There's a huge qualitative difference between this and believing in God. Sure, we can argue whether or not it's worth spending money on right now; if…

> There's a huge qualitative difference between this and believing in God.

Don't confuse God with religion. A lack of deities does not make this not a religion (see nontheistic religions[1]). Also, why are you discounting what you call "supernatural" beliefs? Even physics is based on some assumptions (laws of symmetry) and ends at the big bang. If you look at the past 50 years of medicine and biology -- especially human biology -- you'll find many wrong conclusions (see Ioannidis's "why most published medical research is false"). You're exaggerating our scientific capabilities while discounting the limits to our understanding. In fact, you're turning science and technology into your religion. Don't overestimate human capacity and don't underestimate our stupidity (but don't do the opposite either).

BTW, I'm not even sure cryonics falls under the category of nontheistic religions, as "humans" with the power to resurrect the dead (and by extension eliminate natural death) are no different from a deity. Your religion is justified by what we know, as were others. The only qualitative mistake here, I think, is yours: as people who know (some) and love science, we know that it has limits. We have limits to observation, and, most pertinently, we have limits of tractability and understanding of complex systems. I don't think scientists assume we'll one day know something, and they certainly don't assume we'll have a specific far-fetched technology.

> Still, cryonics does not depend on any super-human entity or its values

I wasn't talking about AI, I was talking about future "humans" (is that what they would be in a world without death?) with technology we do not possess, hence super-compared-to-us-humans.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#226

Post by MichaelGG »

jacquesm wrote: post #218
MichaelGG wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP asked for evidence, not for proof. Your refutation is a generic argument you could use on anything. I can only assume you understand this, (judging from your generally high-quality comments on this site). So I'm curious as to your reasoning for such a poor response. Is it just that you disagree there's useful evidence for cryonics and don't want to write more in-depth comments?

How much more in-depth can it get, I think I've written enough in this thread already and it seems to me as though the belief in the might of science outstrips the ability to reason. Science gave us guns and computers, therefore it will give us resurrection. And then to ask for evidence is adding to the pile, the only admissible evidence here would be proof that it is indeed possible. And I don't see any such evidenc…

No, contradicting evidence would be quite admissible. For instance, showing that some major part of the structure of the brain decays immediately into noise would kill the idea of revival. As I understand, there's a bit of uncertainty, but generally, so far, it seems like it is in theory possible.

>not modern variations on Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is bad because it takes the current universe, then lets you pick from only 2 choices, and the god choice isn't free (as belief in something you know to be wrong is detrimental). If a superintelligence offered the wager with the condition that every other religion/afterlife was wrong, and the only two possibilities were god or no god, and that there was no cost (just have to say "I believe"), then Pascal's wager wouldn't be a joke.

I agree though that of course this is ripe for commercial exploitation. Just like an insurance fund that promised to try to get involved/fund every AI research initiative, in exchange for somehow giving you preferential treatment in case of a not-so-friendly singularity.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#227

Post by TeMPOraL »

ryan-c wrote: post #204

I'm surprised nobody has made the point that "death" is not a binary thing - it is a progression. If we consider a scale where "1" is alive (breathing, heart beating, higher brain functions working, etc) and "0" is when your brain has been unambiguously destroyed, we have a probability distribution of whether a person can be returned to "1". At one time if someone left "1" (e.g. heart stopped), that was pretty much i…

It's good you're raising this point. There's the concept of information-theoretic death [0] that is the "0" extreme you mentioned.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information-theoretic_death

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#228

Post by kdragon »

jacquesm wrote: post #191
TeMPOraL wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go line by line. - that death does not alter the structure irrepairably As far as we can tell, if we freeze it quick enough, it won't. No magic required. (death doesn't mean something magical is happening to matter, it only means molecular machines stop working the way they should) - that the structure and information contained therein will not degrade over time Possible. Manageable with technology. Testable. N…

'manageable with technology we do not have' -> magic.

> 'manageable with technology we do not have' -> magic.

Christ, are you for real? Was landing on the moon 'magic' up until the moment we did it? Why are people like you even on this website?

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#229

Post by TeMPOraL »

MichaelGG wrote: post #223
pron wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We know one possible technique that will work. Please show us how we "know" (given that we know with certainty so few things in biology). > then there's always the nanotech. ... and God's angels. You're forgetting them. The "nanotech" you're referring to is, at this point, no more (in fact, it is precisely) science-fiction. Even as recently as 40 years ago, people were certain we'd all have flying cars by now. We c…

Like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrafugia_Transition So people were off by a few decades on timescales and on social/political uptake. Big deal. Life exists, it's physical. Our control of physical processes has consistently improved. There isn't any issue in revival that has shown to be totally intractable, in a way that violates any key physical assumptions we have.

Exactly. The reason we don't have flying cars is not lack of technology, it is the economics. For the very same reason we don't have Moon bases yet. We could do this if we wanted, but there's not enough demand right now for it to happen.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#230

Post by pron »

heed wrote: post #202
pron wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that we are sure it can be done Although this is not part of the interesting religio-philosophical discussion we're all having here (which, BTW, finally fulfills my own dream of visiting 17th century Europe), that is simply not true. We are not sure it can be done, and we are even less sure it can be done with current preservation technology. There are few things in biology we are sure of, so many things that…

Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion? Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it? Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious?

> Why are you so adamant to dismiss cryogenics and call it a religion?

Cryonics as practiced by people requesting to be frozen is a religion, but I'm not dismissing it, because I don't dismiss religion. Unlike Richard Dawkins, I don't see humanity thriving without religion, and I think the debate is theoretical, because I don't think humans can exist without creating religion.

> Should we just throw in the towel and stop researching it?

Of course not! We didn't stop studying the stars, and we ended up learning a lot from doing so -- but that doesn't make astrology not a religion. There's science and there's religion. Studying cryogenics is science; freezing yourself in the hope of being resurrected is religion. BTW, while we learned a lot from studying the stars while abandoning the religion surrounding them, we're still not much closer to reaching them than we were 200 years ago.

> Do you claim that everyone betting on new technologies are religious?

No. I might buy stocks in a company making a more efficient microwave oven (shit, I'm betting on my own actual startup). But when the matter at hand is our existential dread, and people change their behavior based on what is currently classified as bona-fide science fiction, become emotionally involved, and preach the great rewards to be bestowed on the faithful -- imagining, all the while a bright future while completely disregarding other possibilities -- then, yeah, you're looking at a religion.

Post reply on HN