From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Fri Mar 28 1997 - 04:15:03 MST
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Mike C. wrote:
> Cryonics is important and should be explored,
Cryonics is _very_ important, and should be definitely explored. In fact I
cannot take a person seriously who is adamant on not to (permanently)
die, and yet still has not signed up with a cryonics outfit of his choice.
(Thus I cannot consider my current commitment level to be adequate, yet).
> but it should not distract from our true goals.
> We want metamorphosis not stasis.
Sorry, as far I can see, the road to Eden still leads straight through the
dewar. This is messy, unaesthetical, but also, unavoidable. Should you
get an incurable disease, or be run over by a car tomorrow, no dietary
suplements, CR, or even t'ai chi are going to save you. Investing in a
signup is a cost-benefit calculation, the costs being known (life
(perfectly adequate term, this) insurace), yet the benefits currently
uncalculable.
It's a gamble. So far, recent science results say chances of winning are
growing constantly. We might live to see cryonics to become mainstream
(gasp!). If a mass movement, suspension costs would go down to a few
thousands dollars, less than a conventional interrment/cremation. (Sure,
it has been predicted for past 20 years).
> I confidently say few of us want to specificly become a frozen mom/popsicle
> for the rest of eternity.
Speak for yourself.
> We would be intact, alas slightly dead is still too dead.
Try finding that point in persona space from atmosperic carbon dioxide
molecules that once contributed to you-pattern. What is better: conserve
the fabric, even if slightly frayed around the edges due to radical
conservation artefacts, or unravel it completely, and cut up the treads?
That fabric might be not a work of art, quite dull, very similiar to many
other ones. Yet I happen to feel a sentimental attachment to it.
> We want to evolve into a dynamic state more able to acheive our dreams.
>
> Cryonics only allows more time to wait for technology to develop
"only"?
> that will suit our needs for repair/augmentation
> and will eventually not be needed.
I am not sure a nanoassembler may operate constructively (=maintain the
system for indefinite time) in a wet/squishy biological tissue. Eroding
plaques and hunting for malignant cells is easy, combatting ubiquitous
radical damage is different.
Uploading is a tabula rasa, from scratch approach. A mutating bit soup
does not change, its state can be frozen and transimitted into fresh
circuitry, or be repaired by increments, soup claiming new circuitry
patches instantly.
> Given time it will evolve
> into a portable and immediate sort of suspension
> which will be used to halt damage( ie. paramedics transporting patients ).
I wish I had your degree of optimism considering future forecasts, and
overcoming of physics-related constraints.
ciao,
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:19 MST