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

231–240 of 273 posts

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#231

Post by jacquesm »

kdragon wrote: post #228
jacquesm wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

You are mistakenly reading 'technology we do not have' as 'things we have not done with technology we do have'.

Going to the moon was the application of a whole pile of existing technology and marginally expanding some of that technology in the process.

As for why 'people like me are even on this website', that's a good question, maybe I should not be here.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#232

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #222
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…

> 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.…

Can you please try to control the weather first? Because we know from observation that that's just molecules pushing each other around, and it's a lot less complicated then life, so it should be easier to control, right? (only -- intractability)

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#233

Post by TeMPOraL »

pron wrote: post #232
TeMPOraL wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

Can you please try to control the weather first? Because we know from observation that that's just molecules pushing each other around, and it's a lot less complicated then life, so it should be easier to control, right? (only -- intractability)

No, it's actually more complicated. Biological machinery doesn't push molecules at random. Sure it's a lot to work out, but we've been doing it for the last 100 years with a lot of success. Google up some things we can make bacteria do nowdays.

By the way, the primary obstacle to controlling the weather is not the molecular-level interactions, it's the power requirements. Given enough energy generation, we could control weather using today's technology, just as we can do indoors with air conditioning and various experiments like "hey, let's make a cloud indoors and make it rain". Hell, your friendly neighbourhood nuclear power plant produces clouds and rain as a part of its daily operations. We just don't have enough raw power to do it on planetary scale (and we'd probably screw ourselves over big time if we had), as this article [0] kindly explains.

[0] - http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#234

Post by rbanffy »

kryptiskt wrote: post #74
rbanffy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering death is inevitable, cryopreservation just before you cease to function is, quite possibly, the best rational choice you can make. Of course, it's a bit selfish, as the resources you commit to it are substantial and your offspring could benefit from them. Betting your final moments on specific advances of technology is also not an easy decision. Plus, you may wake up in a world you don't like. OTOH, the o…

You may wake up a stunted and brain-damaged version of yourself that is aware enough to know what it is missing.

Then get fixed. If someone can restore a vitrified brain into a functioning state, they can probably restore it to full function.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#235

Post by pron »

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.

Let me make myself clear: I am not debating the possibility that revival could one day turn from the science-fiction it is now into a real technology. I am pointing out the leaps of faith people take to translate that reasonable scientific conjecture into actual life (or death) choices. Thinking about whether there is a god or isn't -- and trying to learn the truth -- makes you a philosopher; it is changing your behavior based on the assumption god exists and other presumptions about Her that makes you religious.

And freezing yourself, as I've mentioned in numerous other comments on this thread, is a choice based on assumptions other than technological -- for example that the future would be hospitable to people born and raised in our lifetime. I'm just thinking of how miserable Mark Twain would be in this age of Facebook, and how much misery Hemingway would experience in our era of reality television.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#236

Post by TeMPOraL »

kdragon wrote: post #228
jacquesm wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

> Why are people like you even on this website?

Nononononononono. Stop that. jacquesm is continuing his long and proud tradition of mostly well thought and insightful comments. He just doesn't agree with you or me on that topic and, like you and me, has some strong opinions. We're trying to have a somewhat productive conversation here.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#237

Post by TeMPOraL »

jacquesm wrote: post #231
kdragon wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '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?

You are mistakenly reading 'technology we do not have' as 'things we have not done with technology we do have'. Going to the moon was the application of a whole pile of existing technology and marginally expanding some of that technology in the process. As for why 'people like me are even on this website', that's a good question, maybe I should not be here.

I think there's some basic assumption that we disagree on but haven't identified explicitly yet. In order to try and do that, I want to ask you: do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, could you tell where and why?

- an example of nanotechnology exists and works, it's called "life"

- this particular technology is in principle able to do the tasks required to revive a properly cryopreserved person, even though it does not do this now

- it is real for humans to learn in time how to make this technology do that

- current preservation techniques store enough information to revive a human using sufficiently advanced nanotechnology

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#238

Post by TeMPOraL »

pron wrote: post #235
MichaelGG wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me make myself clear: I am not debating the possibility that revival could one day turn from the science-fiction it is now into a real technology. I am pointing out the leaps of faith people take to translate that reasonable scientific conjecture into actual life (or death) choices. Thinking about whether there is a god or isn't -- and trying to learn the truth -- makes you a philosopher; it is changing your beha…

Do you agree then that all those non-technological assumptions can be included in one's utility calculations and that people can give different estimates to how friendly the future would look like? Or do you believe the probability of a bad future is so big, that betting on benevolent world is a leap or faith?

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#239

Post by Retric »

bellerocky wrote: post #141
Retric wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that cryonics and the singularity are both 'modern' religions with that are vary similar in tone to many past religions. They both seems reasonable on the surface, but don't really work if you dig down into the details. Much like all that new age QM BS uses a few of the right words without much substance.

> 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…

Cryopreservation works for sperm which have been revived after 21 years, which IMO is positive evidence.

The issue is not the possibility of some sort of revival if everything works perfectly so much as the approach and mindset of people involved. After all mummification may in some cases have sufficiently preserved flesh to allow for cloning, but that's not a meaningful resurrection for the person or animal who died. Similarly, unless the tissues are sufficiently preserved so memory's can be recovered it's a pointless exercise and even at the temperatures involved decay still occurs.

Which IMO is what crosses into religion territory. The actual estimates of the probability of success and the lack of basic research into the actual degradation that occurs over time.

PS: At no point did I suggest religion was a bad thing or any of this was impossible etc. It's the mindset where the parallels are clear.

Re: Hal Finney being cryopreserved now

#240

Post by jacquesm »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #237
jacquesm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistakenly reading 'technology we do not have' as 'things we have not done with technology we do have'. Going to the moon was the application of a whole pile of existing technology and marginally expanding some of that technology in the process. As for why 'people like me are even on this website', that's a good question, maybe I should not be here.

I think there's some basic assumption that we disagree on but haven't identified explicitly yet. In order to try and do that, I want to ask you: do you disagree with any of the following statements, and if yes, could you tell where and why? - an example of nanotechnology exists and works, it's called "life" - this particular technology is in principle able to do the tasks required to revive a properly cryopreserved p…

(1) obviously, agree.

(2) unknown, unknowable

(3) unknown, unknowable

(4) unknown, knowable but only in a very far future (if at all).

So, in short nanotechnology is just like every other technology, it has laws and limits and does not automatically allow us to do everything we would like it to be able to do.

For an analogy: we know that the ribosome + DNA complex creates proteins. But we are still bound in terms of expression by what cells as a concept are capable of.

So even if we can imagine life created at will and even if we can imagine all kinds of amazing creatures there is absolutely no way of knowing whether or not we will ever have the technology to direct things in such a way that these desires and imaginations will come true. Compared to the suggestion that we can resurrect a dead person creating a fire breathing dragon out of Condor and Komodo Varan DNA with some basic chemistry thrown in for pyrotechnics is childs play.

It is at its heart the difference between science and science fiction.

That's why we will most likely not have a space elevator (we know of no material strong enough for the filament) and that's why there will never be a ringworld.

Now for those things we have very clear physical limits that we have identified and we know that these limits will be for all practical purposes unsurmountable.

In the case of cryopreservation 'all bets are off', the gap between where our current understanding is located and the required advances means that we are essentially postulating that people in the advanced future will become gods.

That's a leap too far in my understanding of how human progress has worked to date.

Post reply on HN