What a Cryonics Aubrey de Gray/Nick Bostrom would do

There is very clearly not a cryonics Aubrey de Gray or Nick Bostrom. I point that out because there's an opportunity for some easy fame just by filling that role. Max More had potential based on a Tucker Carlson/Paul Begala crossfire episode that I saw him perform ably on, but I don't know his credentials. The ideal would seem to be a professor with some expertise (Ph.D.) in the field.

What a cryonics celebrity intellectual advocate should do:

*1st and foremost, cryonics facilities and professional recovery teams in all the major cities.

*2nd, encouraging development of an airline servicing major technopoles, specifically designed to reduce chances of information theoretic death. I'm generally interested in a luxury airline focused not on speed or luxury comfort (though the latter would be a small added on price) but on simply increasing redundancy systems to minimize chance of horrific outcome. For example, a fleet of only the safest planes in the best condition, redundant numbers of the best pilots, redundant levels of checks to make sure all equipment is working. redundant levels of on craft engineers, firefighters, emergency medical crews, expert skydivers for assisted jumps, or whatever reduced version of this could be actually feasible.

*3rd, prizes for improving cryonic preservation techniques, improving security of cryonic facilities, etc.

Comments

[megapolisomancy]

The cryonics Aubrey de Gray or Nick Bostrom has been around for a long time and his name is Mike Darwin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Darwin.

One reason why cryonics is not more popular is that it is not nearly as "hip" as transhumanism or rejuvenation, although most people who are interested in the latter will require the former at some point during their lifetime.

Other reasons why cryonics is not more popular are discussed here:
http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/2008/05/29/why-is-cryonics-so-unpopular/

An organization that pursues the kind of objectives you outline will be launched later this year.

[Hopefully Anonymous]

I disagree. I think the unpopularity of cryonics as compared to ending aging doesn't have to do with the subject, but rather with the lack of the charismatic , driven, and organization-building personality. But I'm interested in more in depth analysis on this from you and others.

[Rob]

We need an Aubrey de Gray for intelligence increase too.

[Hopefully Anonymous]

Rob, great point. Bostrom is morphing a bit into that, but I think more successful celebrity cause-pushers (Kurzweil, De Gray) indicate that the ideal for effectiveness is for a celebrity intellectual to focus on being the archetype for one particular cause/meme.

[spindizzy]

Cryonics is a focal point for my concern about possible negative singularity scenarios.

Suppose you are resuscitated by a super-intelligence who for some reason wants to torture you for eternity.

In general, I hope that if the singularity headed in that direction I could commit suicide before being caught in an inescapable trap. However, cryonics wouldn't give me that chance.

Obviously, what I'm saying is very dependent on the notion of identity, which is a philosophical conundrum. So I don't claim to be making a coherent objection. I'm only expressing a sense of unease.

[Hopefully Anonymous]

I would prefer an eternity of torture to nonexistence.

[TGGP]

That sounds like a strange thought to me. My guess is that an experienced torturer could make you hope for death.

I think part of the reason I'm more apathetic about death is that I was exposed to Marcus Aurelius at too impressionable an age.

[Hopefully Anonymous]

TGGP,
It wouldn't take an experienced torturer to make me hope for death- just a small change in my neurochemistry or synaptic wiring, and it could be done painlessly.

I'll clarify that:
1. I aspire to prefer an existence of infinitely forseeable torture to the absurdity of nonexistence, and
2. If I'm being constantly tortured, even for a very, very, very long time, I'm still in the game. If I suffer information theoretic death, then apparently I'm no longer in the game. I think part of the reason is that I was exposed to the "Die Hard" franchise at an impressionable age.

[TGGP]

I never saw any of the sequels to the first one, which I suppose is just as well since they're said to make much less sense.

[aiming to become a celebrity]

In some ways I'm glad about mortality because it means any pain will stop, guaranteed. Even if we can choose to live or die than perhaps we are too weak to stop pain, although I guess that would mean we are unable to choose. Which is what I fear. Being trapped in existence.

Although the absurdity of nonexistence isn't a pleasant thought either. I guess we'll find out what happens eventually.

For now there's enough simple evils to think about and fight in reality :)

[spindizzy]

I don't see any justification for the belief that consciousness "stops" with death. My post-death experience may be as a Boltzmann brain, for example. Obviously, read into the word "my" what you will.

I think it is difficult to reconcile desires (including the desire not to die) with a physicalist description of the universe, because those desires presuppose a notion of identity for which there doesn't seem to be any physicalist justification.

If you accept the feasibility of cryonics (which I do) then don't you also have to accept the notion of Boltzmann brains? But when you accept that notion, there doesn't seem much reason to desire cryonics any more.

BTW, in case my loyalty to the cause is called into question, I hereby affirm that I am a bona-fide reductive physicalist!

[Hopefully Anonymous]

spindizzy,
1. I don't think we know what happens to consciousness after death, but it seems to me to cease.
2. I don't have much expectation my consciousness will continue as a Boltzmann brain.
3. as for desire not to die, identity, and physicalist justifications, I don't think we know enough yet. It may be there's complete physicalist justifications that haven't been discovered or fully articulated yet (or that we just haven't been exposed to or comprehended yet).
4. I don't see that accepting cryonics means one has to accept Boltzmann brains. Or more specifically, that our subjective conscious experience would persist in one. I don't think there's clear understanding of how our theatre of subjective conscious experience works yet, where exactly it exists in the universe, how it persists over a life arc, etc. For example, if someone uploads me one neuron/synapse at a time to a digital computer, would I still have subjective conscious experience when 20% of my processing is on silicon? when 80% is? when 100% is? And what happens to my subjective conscious experience when the upload is duplicated? How do I experience all that before and after subjectively? I don't think anyone knows the answer to this series of questions yet, so I think we have to acknowledge that elements of the conscious experience are still in a black box.

[Rob]

Thanks Hopefully,

I've suggested a g-prize to a couple people. It does seem really hard to do. If there were a mouse equivalent of IQ it would be much easier.

But there is at least one hard-to-fake IQ test, and the benefits of wide-spread cognitive enhancement are huge.

Maybe you could pitch it to your buddies at overcoming bias?

[spindizzy]

Rob,

If you haven't already read about the "Doogie mice" and the "Nogo receptor" then run those terms through Google.

I don't understand the first thing about genetics so I can't say whether the same might be possible with humans. Does anyone have an answer to that question?