LuxAurumque comments on An exercise in really going through with it - Less Wrong

23 Post author: p4wnc6 23 April 2012 11:17PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (20)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: LuxAurumque 24 April 2012 01:01:57AM 1 point [-]

Interesting, although I've always wondered what the value would be of preserving an older individual (I'm assuming s/he's on the old side). Maybe I'm simply not well-versed in medical advancements, but it seems the problem of reviving a cryonic (if that is the term) is a completely different problem from reversing the aging process, or in short, preventing death entirely. Of course, there could be large overlap with the advancements, just my two cents.

Comment author: orthonormal 24 April 2012 03:01:01AM 8 points [-]

The patient shouldn't be revived until both problems can be solved cheaply.

Comment author: thomblake 24 April 2012 08:56:46PM 0 points [-]

The usual assumption is that neuropreservation is just to store your information, and you won't be revived until a brand new body can be built for you. It's not so much that aging will be solved by then, as that it isn't even in the same ballpark.