= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bbleeker comments on Inverse cryonics: one weird trick to persuade anyone to sign up for cryonics today! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
I'm afraid the preservation techniques are still so bad that you can't be revived correctly even with improved future techniques.
Anyway, the bottom line here is that you can't reasonably bet against cryonic preservation success at the kind of extreme odds you were proposing upthread. You wouldn't bet on any medical claim at odds anywhere near 100,000:1, even in the case that there was a lot of evidence against it (and there is none at all against cryonics - the skeptical argument is entirely based on hypothetical information carrying entities that may or may not actually exist).
If you still think 100,000:1 against is reasonable, imagine making 100,000 statements about medical controversies, and being wrong only once.
It is not known for certain whether modern cryopreservation preserves "enough", partly because we are not entirely sure how long-term memories and personality are actually stored. We do know that the connectome is preserved, and modern techniqued such as aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation seem to preserve cell membranes, synapses, and intracellular structures. See Wikipedia and the relevant paper.
It is possible that some key piece of information is destroyed by these protocols, with no way of recovery. Everything that we know is required to be preserved, is preserved.
There's also "Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans", Vita-More & Barranco 2015 - so we know that in at least one species (which did not evolve for being frozen) that long-term memory is preserved by the best cryonics techniques.
Given that c. elegans survived vitrification, it's not surprising that its memory persisted, though it does underline the point that memory is not some kind of magic - it's physically recorded. Of course large mammals like humans are very different from c. elegans.
Given that
we can conclude that the skeptical case is trying to thread through an ever narrower gap. If you claim that the physical correlates of memory are too delicate, you contradict existing results. If you claim they are too robust, you are forced to conclude that they are preserved by the best cryo.