X-Message-Number: 32186
References: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:23:10 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32182 - #32184
From: Freeposity <>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:00 AM, CryoNet <> wrote:
> CryoNet - Mon 30 Nov 2009
> Message #32182
> From: Mark Plus <>
> Subject: "What's Really Wrong With Cryonics"
> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:28:01 -0800
> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/whats_really_wr.html
> NOVEMBER 29, 2009
> What's Really Wrong With Cryonics
> Bryan Caplan

>What disturbed me was when I realized how low he set his threshold for success.
Robin didn't care about biological survival.  He >didn't need his brain 
implanted in a cloned body.  He just wanted his neurons preserved well enough to
"upload himself" into a >computer.

> To my mind, it was ridiculously easy to prove that "uploading yourself" isn't 
life extension.  "An upload is merely a simulation.  It wouldn't be you," I 
remarked.  "It would if the simulation were accurate enough," he told me.

It sounds to me that the author is suffering from future shock(SL3 or
SL4)*. With a good enough simulation you wouldn't be able to tell if
you are biological or a computer simulation. Indeed we could all be
simulations now.

Once the technology is perfected it seems to me that a natural
offshoot of cryonics would be perfect digital preservation of the
brain. This would take up less space, cost less and allow for fault
tolerance in the form of multiple backups. With a perfect digital
backup of the brain it should be possible to correct for any damage
done during cryopreservation/death. Then you could have the option of
living in a "virtual world" or having a new body cloned.

*see http://www.sl4.org/shocklevels.html

Your friendly neighborhood agnostic atheist
and reality based hope monger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32186