= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
What is the purpose of the website?
-To inform the existing cryonics community of our level of readiness and of our unique approach to the various issues. -To exchange technical information with other cryonics organizations. -To educate the public -To build and refine the information framework that will eventually become the website that informs and attracts customers. -To rank higher on google by publishing large amounts of detailed quality content. We just made it to page 2 on the results and are working our way toward page 1. -Discussion forum, as soon as I get that server up and running.
In response to
We really need a "cryonics sales pitch" article.
The cryonics movement needs more people with clinical medical backgrounds involved, but then it also needs people with practical business experience.
I will give you a business intelligence test. Look at just the home page of the website for this startup cryonics organization in Oregon, and tell me one obvious thing that it lacks - just on the home page:
I wrote it, so I find the question and MattG's answer interesting. I will try to figure out what you think is lacking, but it's probably just a difference of opinion on the purpose of the website. Just so we're clear, the purpose is NOT to get customers to buy our service. We are still in the startup phase. Maybe you think it's the phone number that's lacking. That's very intentional. We don't want people calling us right now.
Timeline is rather arbitrary and yes it is optimistic. It may shift right depending of the pace of technological progress. I also agree with you view on Aubrey. In my opinion nanobots may appear much quicker if they will be built by augmentation of biological cells. If one combine E.coli and already exiting DNA origami tech, he could get universal mechanism able to self-replication.
I'd like to retract my comments to some degree. I think the problem is definitions.
"SENS: Regular correction of accumulated damage." You can't just put that on a timeline without qualifications. There are 7 complex problems to be solved in SENS. If each one of them takes 10 years to solve, you're talking about SENS breakthroughs spanning 70 years. The only claim you can make for 15 years out is maybe one small breakthrough that partially addresses one of the seven problems. It would be nothing close to your characterization and wouldn't help us very much.
"Non self-replicating nanobots" I want to make it clear that you're talking about crude first generation nanobots, while I was talking about fully mature nanobots capable of cryonics repair. The two technologies are lightyears apart in complexity, capability, and timeframe. There could easily be 100 or more years of development separating the two. But your wording still seems to indicate intelligent swimmers with manipulators, which is more of an intermediate technology rather than first generation.
In response to
Immortality Roadmap
Overall, the strategy and organization are good. Where it goes terribly wrong is the completely unfounded optimism that SENS will start to pan out in 15 years and that nanobots will arrive in 25 years. For short-term technology, consensus from the experts is usually very accurate. The experts are nearly unanimous that both of those technologies are theoretically possible, but are so far in the future as to be irrelevant. Aubrey de Grey is irrational on this issue. I don't want to be too hard on him, as he is one of the very few in the world to accept cryonics, but there is simply no basis for the false optimism.
I explain it better here: http://www.oregoncryo.com/revivalTechnology.html I put nanobots at 180 years out to emphasize how much harder that technology is compared to other forms of nanotechnology.
In response to
Welcome to Less Wrong! (8th thread, July 2015)
Hi, my name is Jordan Sparks, and I'm the Executive Director of Oregon Cryonics. I work very hard every day to improve cryonics technology and to attract potential cryonics clinicians.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
CronoDAS, I'm glad you brought up this issue. Sadly, I don't think there's good evidence that cryo, as practiced today, works. I think it is reasonable (but of course, not ideal) for people to dismiss things which are only theoretically possible but not practically possible.
If we had verifiably working cryo today, it might be easier to change people's minds.
Cryonics is being deeply confused with suspended animation in this thread. Cryonics has nothing to do with cellular viability. It's only about preserving the wiring and physical structure of the brain by any means necessary. In current cryonics, all cells are totally and completely dead long before the procedure is finished. But we also have electron micrographs showing very good structural preservation of these dead cells. The cryonics revival technology will need to manipulate trillions of atoms inside of each of billions of cells. No low tech is going to be able to revive them.