What if I can’t get a good body? (current objection). There are a few variations on this:
I will probably be in old age if I’m frozen, so I might wake up in the future as an old person. If they can make me a young body, that’s not a problem, but should I assume that they’re going to be able to do that? Maybe waking up from cryo in the future will involve being on life support for long periods of time while we’re waiting for the technology for new bodies.
Who is going to pay for my new body? I have no idea what that would cost, so I can’t possibly save for it now, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to assume that money will be N/A in the future. I’m pretty sure that all my skills would be worthless at that time, but not convinced that there would be money to make me a decent body at that time.
What if I wake up with no body at all… I’m imagining waking up as a head in a jar or a brain in some kind of server rack of brains.
There are certain things I’d like to retain the ability to do, and for some of those, I will need to be anatomically correct.
Once again, if I sign up now, I’ll be an early adopter, which may mean that the technology for putting people into new bodies is still experimental and I may end up as a test subject.
Currently, I think most people just get their brains preserved. So they’d have to give you a whole new body or just have you as software anyway.
Early adopter for being preserved doesn’t mean early adopter for being revived. In fact, it probably means the opposite. Since the easiest people to revive will probably be the people preserved with the most advanced technology.
Oh! Good point. Hm. But that might mean that I’m among a group that was using such old technology that it’s more or less arcane by that point… which could mean that there aren’t very many people in my set to revive, and so less leeway to iron out the flaws before they get to me…
Is anyone freezing any lab mice or anything?
I can see myself at the cryo counter: “Hi, I want me and these 100 lab mice frozen.”
Remember: you can always take random recently dead guys who donated their bodies to science, vitrify their brains, and experiment on them. And this’ll be after years of animal studies and such.
You are overwhelmingly likely not to wake up in a body, depending on the details of your instructions to Alcor.. Scanning a frozen brain is exponentially cheaper and technologically easier than trying to repair every cell in your body. You will almost certainly wake up as a computer program running on server somewhere.
This is not a bad thing. Your computer program can be plugged into software body models in convincing virtual environments, permitting normal human activities (companionship, art, fun, sex, etc.), plus some activities not normally possible for humans. It’ll likely be possible to rent mechanical bodies for interacting with the physical world.
It is if you want to not die, rather than be copied.
How likely would it be, assuming that politics and funding weren’t an issue, that we could grow a new body, prevent the brain from developing, yet keep it alive to the point that an existing brain could be inserted? I’m not necessarily concerned with the details of getting a brain transplant to work smoothly in general, just the replacement body.
It doesn’t seem like it should be difficult in theory; I’d be more worried about the resources.
I’m also curious as to what’s stopping us from keeping brains alive even if the body can no longer function. I’m not well researched in this area, but if it is a matter of keeping chemical resources flowing in and waste flowing out, then our current technology should be capable of as much. At that point, all we’d need is to develop artificial i/o for brains (which seems slightly more difficult, but not so difficult that it couldn’t happen within a few decades).
But I’ve probably overlooked something obvious and well known and am completely confused. :(
I don’t like the idea of being “revived” as an upload, though. An upload would be nice to have (It’d certainly make it easier to examine stored data, if only a little), but I still see an upload as a copy rather than preserving the original. And, being the original, that isn’t the most appealing outcome to me.
A bad body is better than no body at all. It’s not uncommon for abled people to go “Ew, I’d rather die than get $disability”, but when they do… actually I don’t know if they’re as happy as before after 18 months, because everyone mentions that but gives no cite. Anyway, people after a bad event are less unhappy and get happier faster than they predicted, and will remember afterwards. At least for some disabilities, this depends on people adapting to their condition, rather than putting their life on hold until they get better. (More affective forecasting papers.)
Poke around in the disability blogosphere for more perspectives on that. They range from “My body is awesome, but because it’s not the type you build your world for you call it ‘disabled’”, through “It kinda sucks that you’re not an Olympic-level athlete and you don’t obsess over that all the time; I feel the same way about my disability”, through “It’s miserable when you’re not used to it, but once you adapt it’s not so bad”, to “It’s awful, but still better than being dead”.
The things you’re afraid of aren’t even particularly freaky ones: weakness, limited mobility and endurance, need for support systems, body dysphoria, inability to live as you used to. People live with that every day.
I admit I have no idea what would happen if you lacked a body completely. A head-in-a-jar scenario sounds like locked-in syndrome, which is still better than death. The other scenario could be anything from total sensory deprivation (yeah, that one is probably worse than death) to living in a simulation.
this depends on people adapting to their condition
Also, which condition they get. I could see myself happy in this body with a wheelchair, but I can’t see myself happy as a paraplegic. I think my ideas about how happy I’d be with a disability are pretty realistic. Anything that keeps me from communicating would make me miserable. Anything that makes me dependent on others will be stressful. Not being able to walk I could get around—I could still program and make a living, still communicate, still do something of meaning, still get around. How many of the things you enjoy about life and get meaning from are dependent on your body? There are some conditions that would make pretty much everything that’s meaningful and fun about life impossible. See my R2D2 objection.
“Living is always good” / “Any body at all is good”—hasty generalizations, sorry.
From a legal point of view, a living will is not really very like a will. One’s will contains the directions for distribution of one’s property after death. In short, the key focus of a will is financial.
By contrast, a living will is one’s list of instructions regarding medical treatment when one is unavailable to consult (i.e. unconscious). Do-not-resuscitate requests, and the circumstances when one does and doesn’t want particular intense medical interventions. Also, who should make decisions when your pre-made list does not address a particular circumstance. When one is creating a living will, financial considerations might play a part, but the key focus of a living will is medical, not financial.
What if I can’t get a good body? (current objection). There are a few variations on this:
I will probably be in old age if I’m frozen, so I might wake up in the future as an old person. If they can make me a young body, that’s not a problem, but should I assume that they’re going to be able to do that? Maybe waking up from cryo in the future will involve being on life support for long periods of time while we’re waiting for the technology for new bodies.
Who is going to pay for my new body? I have no idea what that would cost, so I can’t possibly save for it now, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to assume that money will be N/A in the future. I’m pretty sure that all my skills would be worthless at that time, but not convinced that there would be money to make me a decent body at that time.
What if I wake up with no body at all… I’m imagining waking up as a head in a jar or a brain in some kind of server rack of brains.
What if the bodies are ill-conceived? I’m imagining waking up as a brain inside of R2D2 and having about the same quality of life as a mobile trash can. If you think this out, being stuck inside of an R2D2 body would be a really, really horrible fate—which I explain here.
There are certain things I’d like to retain the ability to do, and for some of those, I will need to be anatomically correct.
Once again, if I sign up now, I’ll be an early adopter, which may mean that the technology for putting people into new bodies is still experimental and I may end up as a test subject.
Currently, I think most people just get their brains preserved. So they’d have to give you a whole new body or just have you as software anyway.
Early adopter for being preserved doesn’t mean early adopter for being revived. In fact, it probably means the opposite. Since the easiest people to revive will probably be the people preserved with the most advanced technology.
Oh! Good point. Hm. But that might mean that I’m among a group that was using such old technology that it’s more or less arcane by that point… which could mean that there aren’t very many people in my set to revive, and so less leeway to iron out the flaws before they get to me…
Is anyone freezing any lab mice or anything?
I can see myself at the cryo counter: “Hi, I want me and these 100 lab mice frozen.”
Remember: you can always take random recently dead guys who donated their bodies to science, vitrify their brains, and experiment on them. And this’ll be after years of animal studies and such.
You can freeze your pets.
Haha, I hadn’t thought about that.
You are overwhelmingly likely not to wake up in a body, depending on the details of your instructions to Alcor.. Scanning a frozen brain is exponentially cheaper and technologically easier than trying to repair every cell in your body. You will almost certainly wake up as a computer program running on server somewhere.
This is not a bad thing. Your computer program can be plugged into software body models in convincing virtual environments, permitting normal human activities (companionship, art, fun, sex, etc.), plus some activities not normally possible for humans. It’ll likely be possible to rent mechanical bodies for interacting with the physical world.
It is if you want to not die, rather than be copied. How likely would it be, assuming that politics and funding weren’t an issue, that we could grow a new body, prevent the brain from developing, yet keep it alive to the point that an existing brain could be inserted? I’m not necessarily concerned with the details of getting a brain transplant to work smoothly in general, just the replacement body.
It doesn’t seem like it should be difficult in theory; I’d be more worried about the resources.
I’m also curious as to what’s stopping us from keeping brains alive even if the body can no longer function. I’m not well researched in this area, but if it is a matter of keeping chemical resources flowing in and waste flowing out, then our current technology should be capable of as much. At that point, all we’d need is to develop artificial i/o for brains (which seems slightly more difficult, but not so difficult that it couldn’t happen within a few decades).
But I’ve probably overlooked something obvious and well known and am completely confused. :(
I don’t like the idea of being “revived” as an upload, though. An upload would be nice to have (It’d certainly make it easier to examine stored data, if only a little), but I still see an upload as a copy rather than preserving the original. And, being the original, that isn’t the most appealing outcome to me.
A bad body is better than no body at all. It’s not uncommon for abled people to go “Ew, I’d rather die than get $disability”, but when they do… actually I don’t know if they’re as happy as before after 18 months, because everyone mentions that but gives no cite. Anyway, people after a bad event are less unhappy and get happier faster than they predicted, and will remember afterwards. At least for some disabilities, this depends on people adapting to their condition, rather than putting their life on hold until they get better. (More affective forecasting papers.)
Poke around in the disability blogosphere for more perspectives on that. They range from “My body is awesome, but because it’s not the type you build your world for you call it ‘disabled’”, through “It kinda sucks that you’re not an Olympic-level athlete and you don’t obsess over that all the time; I feel the same way about my disability”, through “It’s miserable when you’re not used to it, but once you adapt it’s not so bad”, to “It’s awful, but still better than being dead”.
The things you’re afraid of aren’t even particularly freaky ones: weakness, limited mobility and endurance, need for support systems, body dysphoria, inability to live as you used to. People live with that every day.
I admit I have no idea what would happen if you lacked a body completely. A head-in-a-jar scenario sounds like locked-in syndrome, which is still better than death. The other scenario could be anything from total sensory deprivation (yeah, that one is probably worse than death) to living in a simulation.
Then why do so many people have living wills?
Also, which condition they get. I could see myself happy in this body with a wheelchair, but I can’t see myself happy as a paraplegic. I think my ideas about how happy I’d be with a disability are pretty realistic. Anything that keeps me from communicating would make me miserable. Anything that makes me dependent on others will be stressful. Not being able to walk I could get around—I could still program and make a living, still communicate, still do something of meaning, still get around. How many of the things you enjoy about life and get meaning from are dependent on your body? There are some conditions that would make pretty much everything that’s meaningful and fun about life impossible. See my R2D2 objection.
“Living is always good” / “Any body at all is good”—hasty generalizations, sorry.
From a legal point of view, a living will is not really very like a will. One’s will contains the directions for distribution of one’s property after death. In short, the key focus of a will is financial.
By contrast, a living will is one’s list of instructions regarding medical treatment when one is unavailable to consult (i.e. unconscious). Do-not-resuscitate requests, and the circumstances when one does and doesn’t want particular intense medical interventions. Also, who should make decisions when your pre-made list does not address a particular circumstance. When one is creating a living will, financial considerations might play a part, but the key focus of a living will is medical, not financial.