Life In 19x19

Toge wrote:

Kirby wrote:I think it's not an uncommon assumption that, after death, people experience "nothingness" (though, there are a variety of religious beliefs, as well).

- What did you experience before you were born?

I do not know. And I don't think that I can know.

Toge wrote:

Kirby wrote:However, it's interesting to me that, unlike many other things in life which we can learn about via observation and experimentation, there is no data available for what the experience of death will be like. We know, from an external perspective, that people appear to lose consciousness. But where does that consciousness go? Does it go anywhere?

- It's like when Kirby goes offline, we don't see Kirby around making posts.
...

Possibly. I think that this is probably true, in fact. But I can't claim to be sure of it.

Kirby wrote:Possibly. I think that this is probably true, in fact. But I can't claim to be sure of it.

Do you have keyboard shortcuts for phrases that I'll react to? But I won't say more than that this time.

daniel_the_smith wrote:I said "informational content"-- the exact molecules that compose my brain, and even the particular hardware running it (neurons) are not important. And yes, it would be dumb to suggest this of the heart or liver because they are obviously not producing the consciousness I experience. I am my brain. You are yours.

And if our nanoneurosurgeons split my brain in two and put each half in a different body, I can be in two places at once.

But this is very unfair to the informational content uploaded from my brain into my ten different robot bodies. It doesn't count because it's not a brain?

hyperpape wrote:

Kirby wrote:Possibly. I think that this is probably true, in fact. But I can't claim to be sure of it.

Do you have keyboard shortcuts for phrases that I'll react to? But I won't say more than that this time.

Hehe. Yeah, I've got a button right next to the one labeled Mickey Mouse on my keyboard.

But anyway, I suspect that you think it's silly for me to bring up uncertainty when uncertainty is present with pretty much anything that you "know".

The reason I make a distinction with the topic of death, though, is because death seems a bit different than other concepts, in my mind. It marks an end to my existence, and I have a harder time fathoming that than other "facts" that I accept with some degree of certainty.

Conceptually, I can compare the end of my existence to the end of the existence of something else, such as turning off a computer. But my mind can't really fathom what happens when my existence is, because the world, as I know it is perceived by my existence.

Since it's so hard to perceive, it's harder for me to have confidence in what will happen after my existence ceases than it is for me to have confidence with other aspects of life.

A reasonable hypothesis is, after my life is over, I will experience "nothingness". But even this concept is hard for me to conceptualize. Will it be the same as when I am sleeping? Maybe. I still exist when I am sleeping, though. It just seems really odd to me.

It's also weird to think of the actual process of thinking of thoughts. It always "just happens". It's hard for me to see outside of the system which comprises myself.

3. There is already 7 billion people in the world and it looks like it's going to increase. Why would anyone spend a lot of effort on revivification of a lot of outdated old geezers. The history department may want a sample or two but beyond that?

This makes me think. Let's assume it's the future and medical & computational technologies have progressed significantly. How is society choosing to spend its resources? It seems likely to me that a future full of super-intelligent trans-humans might be quite picky about what projects are worth nanites and electricity. I imagine these empowered beings looking back on our era with much regret over how wasteful and frivolous we all are now, perhaps shaking their cyborg heads as they slowly clean up our landfills. Each snickers wrapper and credit-card offer unearthed only increases their shame over the shortsightedness of their ancestors. "How could they have believed that any of this mattered?"

daniel_the_smith wrote:

Toge wrote:

daniel_the_smith wrote:It will be very difficult to convince me that death is actually a feature and not a bug.

- Well, this kind of dichotomy is quite revealing. Death is an essential tool in workings of the world.

What if you could copy files to your computer, but never delete them?
What if there was no way to recycle trash - biological or other?
What if nothing would die? No creature could exist in the first place.

Life is a cycle. There's no gaining. Evolution is not about 'becoming better', but new generations adapting to circumstances through natural selection.

Is is not ought. Just because it currently works that way, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or that it shouldn't be changed. Evolution built us, but we are far smarter than evolution.

- I don't understand. Is the life of your fantasies some kind of RPG with infinite level cap, resurrection shrines and +1 STR potions in the shop of endless stockpile?

Kirby wrote:Hehe. Yeah, I've got a button right next to the one labeled Mickey Mouse on my keyboard.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bantari wrote:What's stopping the good people from cryogenics to turn off the power on your fridge after having a bash at your expense?
Its not like you gonna come back and sue them...

The behavior is monitored by the living who have already paid. They don't want to see their thousands of dollars misused, because they can't get it back. They, like any other investor, keep an eye on their investment. Right now, for every one person who is frozen there are ten paid up members who are still alive and breathing. That's ten guardian angels per person keeping the management honest.

Sure... and who is watching the watchers.
I don't need no cryogenics or cryonics or none of that other cry-what'cha'ma'giggers...
I am safe because I have Plan B! With capital P and capital B! Yes, Sir (with capital S!)

You see...
Personally, I trust in God (with capital G!) He will take care of me much better than a bunch of opportunists with a fancy fridge trying to make a fast buck. I know that He, in His infinite wisdom, will send me back to Earth every 100 years or so. He is wise, He is merciful, He is just, and most of all - I have been a GOOD BOY most of my life. Santa says so... So I am safe.

Beat THAT buster!

3. There is already 7 billion people in the world and it looks like it's going to increase. Why would anyone spend a lot of effort on revivification of a lot of outdated old geezers. The history department may want a sample or two but beyond that?

Let's presume that a physician about 200 years ago managed to do a credible job of freezing, and froze his patients when they had passed beyond his ability to fix them, and that we had the technology to thaw without damage. Other than that, assume that medical care is what we have today. What would we do?

If the patient was dying of an infectious disease - which may have been the cause of the majority of deaths back then - we would probably treat him with antibiotics, and release him. If he had a heart attack, we'd zap him to get it going, then put him on blood thinners and statins.

Many of the problems that were lethal 200 years ago are treatable today. Some of them are curable with a simple prescription. In many instances, curing the person would be cheaper than burying him.

When we talk about freezing a person today, we're assuming that he gets thawed in a world that has advances in medical technology beyond ours as much or more than we have advanced byond the technology of 200 years ago. Why would they expend the effort? It won't be much effort. It will be cheaper for them to cure us than to bury us.

daniel_the_smith wrote:I'm assuming a successful reanimation requires nanotechnology; I'm expecting the reanimation machine to actually look at brains on the molecular level and reconnect any severed synapses that go together, etc. Obviously there's some level of damage past which it won't be possible. Even if it were as bad as a stroke, I'd be perfectly happy to take that chance for 1,000 extra years of life. I expect lots of damage to be done during the dying/freezing process, and some of that to be repaired prior to/during the reanimation process.

Reanimation would be extremely difficult. The only sort of society that will do it is one in which god like feats of engineering cost not much more than running a refrigerator. I think a lot of the objections are based on a failure to imagine how profoundly different that would make society. Did I mention I give this < 5% chance of working?

So just to numbers right, we have pr(broadly useful, functional nanotechnology), we have pr(reanimation is an application of nanotechnology), and we have pr(a good chunk of the brain damage can be repaired). You're suggesting that

.01 < pr(A)*pr(B)*pr(C) < .05

How would you break down the component probabilities?

daniel_the_smith wrote:the control group is not doing well at all.

Oh? Compared to whom? I would say we're actually doing pretty dang well, and the mountains we have left to climb are more in quality of life than quantity of life.

daniel_the_smith wrote:
No biological processes at all take place while the brain is at liquid nitrogen temperature, so memories won't fade while you're suspended. This is nothing like being in a coma. And once you're awakened, how will things be any different than they are now? I only have a few memories from when I was < 5 years old. If anything, I expect memory to be improved upon awakening (for any new memories, that is, and I would not expect old ones to deteriorate like they do now).

I think you're conflating two different suggestions which I should have clearly distinguished. (i) By the time you are resurrected radiant and incorruptible, significant damage will have been done to the brain that you call yours. (ii) After resurrection, you will continue to forget things like you do know (or perhaps much faster, because of the lack of reinforcing stimuli), but for a much longer period of time. Right now, you barely remember being 5, but presumably those memories were never central to your identity; would you still think the resurrected individual was you if/when he remembered half of his pre-resurrection life? 1/4? None?

(You've already answered the question, of course, but I believe you've answered it both ways. Two bodies could share a brain and not have any of the same memories, just as two bodies could share a heart and not have the same pulse or blood pressure.)

daniel_the_smith wrote:

jts wrote:If you gain/lose one friend, perhaps not; but it's quite plausible to me that if you lose all of your friends, relatives, etc., you've acquired a (partially) new identity. And that might affect how much you care about what happens to the person who has your brain.

Since this happens already in life without people getting frozen, I don't see how it's relevant?

Have you ever heard the phrase "You're dead to me?"

Remember our original question. Several people in this thread seem to think that immortality is an important goal because it's like wanting to wake up tomorrow (which is, indeed, an important goal), times infinity. The implicit assumption: jts, jts tomorrow morning, and jts in 10^10 years stand in a relation of "being the same person", where "being the same person" entails some set of attitudes (self-preservation, for example). We're trying to figure out what needs to be true of this relation for it to entail the attitudes you have in mind.

daniel_the_smith wrote:
I said "informational content"-- the exact molecules that compose my brain, and even the particular hardware running it (neurons) are not important.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. The molecules can't be important, since the body is constantly rebuilding cell structures and flushing out molecules. And, while I think people who talk about neurons as interchangeable with other kinds of circuits frequently don't understand neurons, that's fine: I'll grant to you that we don't care about the exact components of A's brain or B's brain.

But when you say that we're identifying the brain with it's informational content, I think you're begging the question. The content of the brain is exactly what changes. We've assumed, by hypothesis, that A and B have arbitrarily different memories, desires, attitudes, reactions, and so on. You can say they share an organ, but you can't say they share informational content. That's precisely what we stipulated was different.

daniel_the_smith wrote: I am my brain. You are yours.

Are you sure? So if someone poked the left hemisphere of my brain, should I describe what happened as "He poked my left hemisphere," or "He made me see a patch of blue, by poking the left hemisphere of my brain?" I wouldn't say "He shined a bright light into me", I would say "He made me see stars, by shining a bright light into my eyes." I wouldn't say "He made me release endorphins," I would say "He made me feel happy, by making my hypothalamus release endorphins."

The semantics of how we describe the relationship between me and my more important organs may be insignificant (although I think semantic confusions often point to conceptual confusions). But if we say that sharing my brain is the sufficient condition for two people being me, we've merely reworded the question: which brains count as my brain?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

3. There is already 7 billion people in the world and it looks like it's going to increase. Why would anyone spend a lot of effort on revivification of a lot of outdated old geezers. The history department may want a sample or two but beyond that?

Let's presume that a physician about 200 years ago managed to do a credible job of freezing, and froze his patients when they had passed beyond his ability to fix them, and that we had the technology to thaw without damage. Other than that, assume that medical care is what we have today. What would we do?

If the patient was dying of an infectious disease - which may have been the cause of the majority of deaths back then - we would probably treat him with antibiotics, and release him. If he had a heart attack, we'd zap him to get it going, then put him on blood thinners and statins.

Many of the problems that were lethal 200 years ago are treatable today. Some of them are curable with a simple prescription. In many instances, curing the person would be cheaper than burying him.

When we talk about freezing a person today, we're assuming that he gets thawed in a world that has advances in medical technology beyond ours as much or more than we have advanced byond the technology of 200 years ago. Why would they expend the effort? It won't be much effort. It will be cheaper for them to cure us than to bury us.

Seriously, i think that the overpopulation card is a very good argument.
As things stand - we simply cannot afford to stop dying. Yes, yes, I know what you mean about doctors treating diseases and stuff, and i certainly do not object to that, but this just prolongs life by some time so it is not really comparable. We are talking of immortality here, no? The issue is the resources.

Even in suspended animation state we are a drain on resources. It might work for selected few, but if we start applying it to millions of people each day the Father Planet might get pissed off and kick us in the pants. And even if it does not, eventually we will have to spend more resources maintaining the 'dead' than we have to support the living.

If we restrict the freeze-dry treatment to selected few, how do you decide who gets to live and who gets to die? The money? The rich get immortality while the poor are footing the bill? Not sure I like the idea very much.

Now, one might say that all these issues will get solved in the future so the is no danger.
But what if they don't? What if we won't be able to expand our resources any time soon and the drain of all the geezers in fridges simply will become too much... and, want it or not, we will have to start pulling the plugs. And then what?

To me, until we at least have an idea how to solve all these problems, getting frozen is a sucker bet. Regardless of our cryonics capabilities or the price people are charging for it and regardless of the level of our (or even future) medicine. First we have to prove that we can support a population growing by a few factors faster than it is now. And i don't really see it happening. At least - not before we successfully reach for the stars and get some of the needed resources outside. And not just energy...

Realistically, I can see some serious wars before that will happen, though.
Which also does not help the long-term prognosis for all the rich fool-sicles.

Face it - psychologically, we are not yet mature enough to try conquering death.
My opinion only... not based on personal observation of forum members or anybody else I know (who is bigger and stronger than me.)

Bantari wrote:...

Seriously, i think that the overpopulation card is a very good argument....The issue is the resources.

Even in suspended animation state we are a drain on resources. It might work for selected few... eventually we will have to spend more resources maintaining the 'dead' than we have to support the living.

The resources to maintain a frozen person are trivial. It is most efficiently done underground ( think exhausted mines ) on a large scale. With good insulation, and a large volume to surface ratio, it gets down to pennies per day per person. It is maintaining the living that is expensive.
Indeed, if overpopulation vs resources becomes a problem, it may be reasonable to freeze perfectly healthy people so that they cut down on the consumption of resources for a while.

Bantari wrote:If we restrict the freeze-dry treatment to selected few, how do you decide who gets to live and who gets to die? The money? The rich get immortality while the poor are footing the bill? Not sure I like the idea very much.

Most technological advances are initially supported by the rich. That's how they get developed. The rich support the outragous development costs, and then the knowledge gained is used to mass produce at a reasonable cost for the rest of us.

Bantari wrote:Face it - psychologically, we are not yet mature enough to try conquering death

No, you aren't ready for it. Some of us are.

bah living forever...
eternity is boring, especially toward the end (Woddy Allen)

also, in the hitchhiker guide to galaxy, there is an immortal: Wowbagger, the Infinitely Prolonged

I always thought that it might actually be a rather realistic immortal: totally bored to death (but still not dying) after a (very long) while.

The real question of course is: can anybody obtain pro strength (in go) if he live long enough ? i don t think so

I don't really understand this thread. Sounds like Joaz is serious about freezing his own brain and being reincarnated in the future. Suppose this was possible and cheap. Who wouldn't do it? Would we have billion brains in vats waiting to be reborn in a world with another ten billion people who are exponentially reproducing? Rather than thawing the old ones, wouldn't we rather have sex to make some new? You know, like the nature meant it.

This is the first time I realize just how alienated we've become of nature, to discuss something like dying being a "bug" at face value.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bantari wrote:... Seriously, i think that the overpopulation card is a very good argument....The issue is the resources.

Even in suspended animation state we are a drain on resources. It might work for selected few... eventually we will have to spend more resources maintaining the 'dead' than we have to support the living.

The resources to maintain the a frozen person are trivial. It is most efficiently done underground ( think exhausted mines ) on a large scale. With good insulation, and a large volume to surface ratio, it gets down to pennies per day per person. It is maintaining the living that is expensive.
Indeed, if ovepopulation vs resources becomes a problem, it may be reasonable to freeze perfectly healthy people so that they cut down on the consumption of resources for a while.

I suspect the problem is the resources to maintain them in their frozen state, it's the resource requirement for those thawed in _addition_ to those still being born or created out of a test tube or whatever. There are finite material resources on this world to go around.

Freezing your perfectly healthy people sounds like a pretty bad idea, as they are likely to be the most contributory workers to maintaining a high "resource" output per capita.

This "selective" thawing also creates huge moral dilemmas. What if the people "chosen" for freezing don't want to be? Do we end up in a purist (no-one quote Godwin's law please, I've been selective on my wording ) selection process of those who deserve to have the right to be thawed and who don't - is this socio-politically going to eventually extend to who's allowed to have children, because someone is going to consider it more valuable to society to thaw engineers and scientists than to let people on the dole / state benefits have children?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bantari wrote:Face it - psychologically, we are not yet mature enough to try conquering death

No, you aren't ready for it. Some of us are.

This one sounds like a personal insult Joaz, did you really mean it that way? Either way, it sounds supremely arrogant to make any assertion of being personally psychologically mature enough to conquer death. I'm reminded of my 8 year old daughter that seems to think 15 is a perfectly old enough age to start having children. I am especially suspicious when these sorts of claims comes from technically / technologically minded people.

Do we have practising sociologists and psychologists on L19 to offer some of the wider insights into this?

Again, Mitfords book "An American way of death" has a lot to offer in terms of "psychological" insight. At least look up the reviews.

Seriously, the original cryonics business based in California, I think, (where Walt Disney was rumored to have been frozen) did run out of resources and the bodies were then disposed of. It is VERY VERY costly to freeze at liquid nitrogen temperatures. The freezing process itself leads to substantial damage as ice crystals form and rip apart every organ in the body - including the brain. Try putting a full orange carton in a fridge and see what happens - that could be your head. Organs for transplant are never frozen but cooled for this reason. Even so Kidneys for transplant etc do go "off" pretty rapidly - within hours.

I am sure the companies peddling this trite do have a "doctor" present but Im not convinced any self respecting medic (who are scientists) would endorse this.

IMO - and the medics I raised this with - its a very good con which like all good cons preys on the weaknesses and insecurities of people.