Aside from those who simply have no desire for any sort of extended lifespan, are there any arguments for why people who can afford it shouldn't opt for cryopreservation as their default choice? After reading this blog post on cryonics it seems like it should be a no-brainer for a lot of people, probably myself included. But I never really hear much discussion about it, which seems weird considering what's potentially at stake. Obviously it's a non-starter for a lot of religious folks, but even among atheists it doesn't seem to be that common of a plan.

I wouldn't trust those who wake me up.

What I feel is known about the brain versus the remainder makes me not want to be a guinea pig. If anyone disagrees I would say thats pretty strong point to make. What kinda contacts can we draw up...

Disclaimer: I assume this thread is talking about getting frozen... Like in that one Sylvester Stalone movie... If its not, carry on.

Actually I don't know much about the brain, but I think memory loss + functioning is a good discussion.

Smart money waits till your brain can be uploaded?

Or at least till some sort of brain footprint tech (for later uploading).. Zoll

Zoll; coining this word to mean signing off with low confidence in what was put forth. Or rather - to add fuel in place of content zoll

Unless there have been major advances I’m unaware of, the process simply doesn’t work because we’re mostly water and water expands when it freezes breaking every cell in your body. In other words the current methods do too much damage to consider that any future tech would be able to bring you back.

Maybe some new meta material could replace your water before you go on ice in the future but right now it’s a waste of time and energy not to mention the enormous cost of maintaining.

This thread is actually pretty cool for me if anyone wants to tangent into how hard it is to be a futurist... And why etc..

Why did the link have to be removed? It's a very popular blog which has been linked to other times on this forum without mods intervening, particularly wrt AI discussion: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/4...ght=waitbutwhy

But more to the point, it's pretty much the entirety of what has informed my current opinion on cryonics, the whole point of the thread was to get feedback from others who may have read it at some point or care to read it and see if there's any holes in the author's thought process.

This was addressed in the removed link I mentioned above, but basically you're not frozen, you're vitrified. They pump the blood out of your body and replace it with "medical grade anti-freeze", which replaces most of the water in the body's cells and lowers the freezing point of the remaining liquid:

What's at stake?

Ok, so you’re making the claim or the author is making the claim that the freezing problem has been solved. It’s one thing to say that it has and it’s anthor to interview the flatliner that has been frozen for a significant amount of time, let’s say a year, and prove that the proof of concept can be realized. Until then it’s just a lot of talk so don’t be surprised for a lack of enthusiasm to go building a frozen graveyard facility

A chance (with some unknown probability) that one's life could be extended by a lot.

I think "The result, when done perfectly [...]" is enough of a caveat to say it's not making that claim exactly, it's just making the claim that it's possible in theory.

The point isn't that it necessarily works now. The point is that (based on what I've read) there's no scientific reason it can't work, which implies that there's reason to think it may work in the future. "It" being the preservation phase; obviously waiting for the "revival technology" to arrive and seeing if that works is a whole other ballgame.

With the above, caveats and all, I don't get why it isn't standard for at least wealthy non-religious people to plan on being cryopreserved.

When a man dies, he's reached the end of what the physical body has to offer and in a real sense , it lets him go( soul and spirit).

Now say that he had the most perfect body and died because of a "freak' accident and were able to perform this feat and be vivified in 200+ years and also the same spirit/soul being (you) were to enter that body.

He would then enter into a backward body or a body only right for our present age and be living in a "backward body" or a body "out of time".

Look back to the anthropologist's picture of ancient man with a receding forehead which displays clearly a diminished frontal lobe of the brain. Consider that this was right for his time but if he were to be magically projected to our times he again would be "out of time" with his "backward body".

Please, don't say that mankind would be so advanced that one could be magically transformed due to the nature of the "new science" for they might try but more than likely the time traveler would end up in a zoo .

The ancient Egyptians , had a good spiritual reason for mummifying for they, in some measure, thought that their physical body would be lost with its attendant ego and they needed a "point of origin" to guide them through the nether world; read the "Egyptian Book of the Dead". They, in some measure, saw the physical as a spiritual projection , which it is.

This type of stuff is crassly material, an illness which calls for remedy .

But as the wag said" there is no free lunch".

Me either.

Also, it's hypothesized you would just die again from future-shock.

Many bodies are preserved on Everest for decades. The crows peck every now and then

Wait. Why do we want to bring back the woolly mammoth but not the actual woolly mammoth we have the DNA of? Also, why assume an entire body is necessary over our DNA?

It’s because you don’t have a healthy level of skepticism based on the history of cryonics and it’s more likely that wealthy people would. If they’d fall for this they’d probably already have donated to the fund to deal with future overpopulation on mars and be too broke to pay for preservation

When you say "one's life" does it include one's subjective experience?

If yes,

Have you any recollection of non-existence? I'd imagine the answer might be - no.

If no recollection of non-existence, why the assumption of it? More trust in what happens to others than within your own experience?

Under the assumption that non-existence is a thing - something that exists/can be experienced - you conclude that "life" ends upon death.

The stakes, accordingly, are high.

That assumption and conclusion are fine. They may not be held by the majority, however.

To have been, to never be again, to live forever through the horizon of the soul of the future.

MdZ

The sense of "self" may very well be fallacy. Think gradually evolving dementia. There is a "self" all the time but the capacity evaporates.

Just because there's capacity, why would there be a true "self"?