Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

When will the first cryogenically preserved people get successfully revived?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21
TranscendingGod

TranscendingGod

    2020's the decade of our reckoning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's not an untenable position with a sufficiently preserved specimen. 

You mean specifically a human or any cryogenically preserved organism?

 

A human but certainly small mammals. Organisms have already been brought back so there is no question as to that aspect. 

Which organisms have been brought back?

Worms, tardigrades, etc

Interesting.

 

Were these worms, etc still alive when they were cryogenically preserved?

 

Actually they were naturally preserved. They were frozen then thawed out basically.


  • Futurist likes this

The growth of computation is doubly exponential growth. 


#22
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's not an untenable position with a sufficiently preserved specimen. 

You mean specifically a human or any cryogenically preserved organism?

 

A human but certainly small mammals. Organisms have already been brought back so there is no question as to that aspect. 

Which organisms have been brought back?

Worms, tardigrades, etc

Interesting.

 

Were these worms, etc still alive when they were cryogenically preserved?

 

Actually they were naturally preserved. They were frozen then thawed out basically.

So, to clarify--they were alive right before they got preserved, correct?



#23
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,833 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

 

I don't know if you guys know this, but Aubrey de Grey is a member of Alcor Life Extension Foundation and is arranged to be cyropreserved upon his death.

Yes, but what relevance does it have to this?

 

 

Referring to TG's statement about Aubrey de Grey's pointer about vitrification. A smart man like Aubrey showing confidence in this method of cryopreservation says a lot about chances of being properly cryopreserved.


  • Futurist likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#24
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

I don't know if you guys know this, but Aubrey de Grey is a member of Alcor Life Extension Foundation and is arranged to be cyropreserved upon his death.

Yes, but what relevance does it have to this?

 

 

Referring to TG's statement about Aubrey de Grey's pointer about vitrification. A smart man like Aubrey showing confidence in this method of cryopreservation says a lot about chances of being properly cryopreserved.

Or one can view his moves as simply being an acknowledgement that some chance of revival is better than guaranteed permanent death.



#25
moderate_ai

moderate_ai

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

 

Here's how I think of it--if you put a file online and someone else downloads it and then makes changes to it, your original file is still going to remain exactly the same. Thus, the downloaded file is certainly not the same thing as the original file.

 

What's so important about preserving the original, if it's a more faithful reproduction than the you of today versus last year?

 

If you get alzheimers, at the early stages nobody questions whether it's really 'you'. At the advanced stages people may well say it's a different person. We can go around in circles debating whether it's the same person, but the aspect of whether it's original seems unimportant. You can preserve this 'original' quality undergoing varying levels of brain damage (natural or drug induced), but at the end of the day what matters is not whether it's *really* you, but whether it's a faithful reproduction, indistinguishable (even in theory) from the original.



#26
Maximum7

Maximum7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts
I don’t believe cryonic preservation of dead bodies will ever work to bring someone back. Once you’re dead, you’re dead and no technology in the future will ever change that.

#27
The Odyssey

The Odyssey

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

I don’t believe cryonic preservation of dead bodies will ever work to bring someone back. Once you’re dead, you’re dead and no technology in the future will ever change that.

This was the logic not so long ago where having no heart beat or pulse was automatically assumed to be deceased, our understanding of death has changed and we now have techniques and procedures like CPR to revive these people in a limited time window.    

 

It is quite possible our comprehension of death might change again through technological advancement. Is it likely or any time soon? who knows...

 

 

When will the first cryogenically preserved people get successfully revived?

 

Does anyone have any guesses in regards to this?

 

Also, for the record, I am not talking about having one's mind downloaded into a computer, since that would just create a copy of you. Rather, I am talking about actually reviving one's cryogenically preserved body (or, alternatively, growing a new body for your cryogenically preserved head before it is revived).

 

Any thoughts on this?

Walt Disney was frozen. :p



#28
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

I don’t believe cryonic preservation of dead bodies will ever work to bring someone back. Once you’re dead, you’re dead and no technology in the future will ever change that.

This sounds more like religion than science IMO. 

 

Never found religion to be a good basis for trying to predict the future. 



#29
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,833 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

I don’t believe cryonic preservation of dead bodies will ever work to bring someone back. Once you’re dead, you’re dead and no technology in the future will ever change that.

 

According to our latest understanding of what constitutes an actual death, it's information death - when the brain's ability to retain information in a coherent manner irreparably disintegrates.


  • Casey and Frizz like this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#30
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,374 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow
Thi is why i love this forum!

So many seriously intelligent people with an actual understanding of the subject matter. I'm honored to just be a part of it, even though my contribution isn't of the highest caliber.

Love you all! X
  • Alislaws likes this
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen

#31
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

Here's how I think of it--if you put a file online and someone else downloads it and then makes changes to it, your original file is still going to remain exactly the same. Thus, the downloaded file is certainly not the same thing as the original file.

 

What's so important about preserving the original, if it's a more faithful reproduction than the you of today versus last year?

 

If you get alzheimers, at the early stages nobody questions whether it's really 'you'. At the advanced stages people may well say it's a different person. We can go around in circles debating whether it's the same person, but the aspect of whether it's original seems unimportant. You can preserve this 'original' quality undergoing varying levels of brain damage (natural or drug induced), but at the end of the day what matters is not whether it's *really* you, but whether it's a faithful reproduction, indistinguishable (even in theory) from the original.

How exactly would you feel if your clone got to experience really hot sex (or whatever) but you didn't?



#32
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts

 

 

 

According to our latest understanding of what constitutes an actual death, it's information death - when the brain's ability to retain information in a coherent manner irreparably disintegrates.

 

Future medical technologies could allow us to reverse the disintegration of the brain, restoring at least some of the information it contained. 

 

http://www.slate.com...shreddable.html


  • Futurist likes this

#33
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

 

 

 

How exactly would you feel if your clone got to experience really hot sex (or whatever) but you didn't?

 

Well if I'm dead I won't care. 

 

If not then my clone achieving great things would give me a lot of confidence (If he can do it, why can't I!) and as far as positive experiences go (like the one you mentioned) My clone would certainly be willing to give me advice and help me achieve similar experiences of my own.

 

The ability to actually duplicate yourself (memories/personality included) would be a much more interesting technology than cryopreservation! 



#34
moderate_ai

moderate_ai

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

 

How exactly would you feel if your clone got to experience really hot sex (or whatever) but you didn't?

 

If the hospital messed up the documentation, and the clone was in fact the 'real' you, does that make things any better? Doesn't really change anything, in both cases the apparent clone, for all it (and possibly anyone else) knows, is you.

 

If the cloning process has less error than natural day to day processes (in particular degenerative processes caused by disease), you cannot rightly say the clone is not you on the basis of differences, yet claim the original is still you even though it has undergone more radical changes.

 

In mechanical terms, say I upload data from a CD to amazon cloud servers. If the original CD degrades introducing errors, why would you consider the original to have greater intrinsic value than the copy, which is now a more faithful reproduction of the original?



#35
WritingPaperSucks

WritingPaperSucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Hmm, sometimes I need several hours to read interesting information from this forum.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users