For people who have a cryonics contract, or intend to get one in the future, fate may literally be hanging off a thin probability. The probability of a revival, maintaining sufficient memory continuity and of a subsequent life worth living are small. The reason that people go in for cryonics (even when the technology was not very advanced) was because small though the probability is, it is not zero. So, I would be very wary of using a epsilon = zero argument.
And about evolution, isn’t it just a matter of time before we will be able to genetically work backward from any of today’s species to the original ancestors? We know the genome, we can work out the theoritical mutations, we can test and see which of these possible mutations had a high probability. I personally don’t worry about creationists for too long because we will have genetically engineered evidence of evolution re-created and irrefutable.
But I actually don’t think cryonics is worth the cost. You could be using that money to cure diseases in the Third World, or investing in technology, or even friendly-AI research if that’s your major concern, and you almost certainly will achieve more good according to what I assume is your own utility function (as long as it doesn’t value a 1⁄1 billion chance of you being revived as exactly you over say the lives of 10,000 African children). Also, transhumans will presumably judge the same way, and decide that it’s not worth it to research reviving you when they could be working on a Dyson Sphere or something.
Frankly, from what we know about cognitive science, most of the really useful information about your personality is going to disappear upon freezing anyway. You are a PROCESS, not a STATE; as such, freezing you will destroy you, unless we’ve somehow kept track of all the motions in your brain that would need to be restarted. (Assuming that Penrose is wrong and the important motions are not appreciably quantum. If quantum effects matter for consciousness, we’re really screwed, because of the Uncertainty Principle and the no-cloning theorem.) Preserving a human consciousness is like trying to freeze a hurricane.
TLDR with some rhetoric: I’ve seen too many frozen strawberries to believe in cryonics.
Also, transhumans will presumably judge the same way, and decide that it’s not worth it to research reviving you when they could be working on a Dyson Sphere or something.
Diverse transhumans will have diverse interests. Your inclination to think everyone in the future will all focus on one big project to the exclusion of all else is predicted by near/far theory.
Frankly, from what we know about cognitive science, most of the really useful information about your personality is going to disappear upon freezing anyway.
We know it does not disappear when electrical signals cease in the brain due to hypoxia and hypothermia. Furthermore if you look at vitrified brain tissue through an electron microscope you can see the neurons still connected to each other, which is definitely information. Useful? I’m betting it is.
You are a PROCESS, not a STATE; as such, freezing you will destroy you, unless we’ve somehow kept track of all the motions in your brain that would need to be restarted. … quantum … Preserving a human consciousness is like trying to freeze a hurricane.
Your speculation here has been empirically falsified already by the hypothermia cases I just mentioned. Human consciousness routinely stops and resumes no worse for the wear, during sleep and anesthesia.
There’s nothing precluding it being both a process and a state, in fact every process on my computer has a state that can be saved and resumed. If you are computer-literate, I don’t see why you would think this is much of an argument.
There is also lots of empirical evidence that the brain is an orderly system, not a random one like a hurricane. (This is important if we have to do repairs.)
TLDR with some rhetoric: I’ve seen too many frozen strawberries to believe in cryonics.
Were they vitrified strawberries? Important difference there.
Nitpick: LW doesn’t actually have a large proportion of cryonicists, so you’re not that likely to get angry opposition. As of the 2011 survey, 47 LWers (or 4.3% of respondents) claimed to have signed up. There were another 583 (53.5%) ‘considering it’, but comparing that to the current proportion makes me skeptical they’ll sign up.
My impression is that there could be a short-term loss from cryonics—something like having a mild concussion—but that the vast majority of your memories would survive. Am I missing something?
Hi,
For people who have a cryonics contract, or intend to get one in the future, fate may literally be hanging off a thin probability. The probability of a revival, maintaining sufficient memory continuity and of a subsequent life worth living are small. The reason that people go in for cryonics (even when the technology was not very advanced) was because small though the probability is, it is not zero. So, I would be very wary of using a epsilon = zero argument.
And about evolution, isn’t it just a matter of time before we will be able to genetically work backward from any of today’s species to the original ancestors? We know the genome, we can work out the theoritical mutations, we can test and see which of these possible mutations had a high probability. I personally don’t worry about creationists for too long because we will have genetically engineered evidence of evolution re-created and irrefutable.
regards, Prakash
I know I’ll probably trigger a flamewar...
But I actually don’t think cryonics is worth the cost. You could be using that money to cure diseases in the Third World, or investing in technology, or even friendly-AI research if that’s your major concern, and you almost certainly will achieve more good according to what I assume is your own utility function (as long as it doesn’t value a 1⁄1 billion chance of you being revived as exactly you over say the lives of 10,000 African children). Also, transhumans will presumably judge the same way, and decide that it’s not worth it to research reviving you when they could be working on a Dyson Sphere or something.
Frankly, from what we know about cognitive science, most of the really useful information about your personality is going to disappear upon freezing anyway. You are a PROCESS, not a STATE; as such, freezing you will destroy you, unless we’ve somehow kept track of all the motions in your brain that would need to be restarted. (Assuming that Penrose is wrong and the important motions are not appreciably quantum. If quantum effects matter for consciousness, we’re really screwed, because of the Uncertainty Principle and the no-cloning theorem.) Preserving a human consciousness is like trying to freeze a hurricane.
TLDR with some rhetoric: I’ve seen too many frozen strawberries to believe in cryonics.
Diverse transhumans will have diverse interests. Your inclination to think everyone in the future will all focus on one big project to the exclusion of all else is predicted by near/far theory.
We know it does not disappear when electrical signals cease in the brain due to hypoxia and hypothermia. Furthermore if you look at vitrified brain tissue through an electron microscope you can see the neurons still connected to each other, which is definitely information. Useful? I’m betting it is.
Your speculation here has been empirically falsified already by the hypothermia cases I just mentioned. Human consciousness routinely stops and resumes no worse for the wear, during sleep and anesthesia.
There’s nothing precluding it being both a process and a state, in fact every process on my computer has a state that can be saved and resumed. If you are computer-literate, I don’t see why you would think this is much of an argument.
There is also lots of empirical evidence that the brain is an orderly system, not a random one like a hurricane. (This is important if we have to do repairs.)
Were they vitrified strawberries? Important difference there.
Nitpick: LW doesn’t actually have a large proportion of cryonicists, so you’re not that likely to get angry opposition. As of the 2011 survey, 47 LWers (or 4.3% of respondents) claimed to have signed up. There were another 583 (53.5%) ‘considering it’, but comparing that to the current proportion makes me skeptical they’ll sign up.
My impression is that there could be a short-term loss from cryonics—something like having a mild concussion—but that the vast majority of your memories would survive. Am I missing something?