Why live when you can die?

[Engert]

Even if you could perfect the freezing process, it would just be a method of suspended animation and would have nothing to do with an afterlife.

You know, you strike me as a Harvard professor. You see, the difference between an MIT professor and a Harvard professor is that the Harvard professor is all about the theoretical aspects of life (meaning he bores you with bullshit) while an MIT professor will produce 2 quantum computers by the time Harvard professor says it's unethical, can't be done, bla bla bla etc.

 

[Lacius]

You know, you strike me as a Harvard professor. You see, the difference between an MIT professor and a Harvard professor is that the Harvard professor is all about the theoretical aspects of life (meaning he bores you with bullshit) while an MIT professor will produce 2 quantum computers by the time Harvard professor says it's unethical, can't be done, bla bla bla etc.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to freeze someone and then unfreeze him or her after an extended period of suspended animation; I'm saying that if someone is frozen today with today's methods, his or her cells will be destroyed and there's virtually no more a chance of bringing him or her back to life than there is digging up some random grave and bringing that person back to life. There's no reason to think today's technologies will work, there's every reason to think they won't work, and it's definitely not worth spending $200,000.

 

[Engert]

But i think that you are neglecting one important fact. 5000 years of accumulated knowledge!
I mean even now, we can bring back extinct species such as Australian tiger. All we need is a proper host because if you use a horse or a donkey, then you'd have some weird mutations. So we're looking to find an animal that's genetically close to the extinct tiger and we can bring him back.
Now imagine what people can do in 5000 years!

 

[Lacius]

But i think that you are neglecting one important fact. 5000 years of accumulated knowledge!
I mean even now, we can bring back extinct species such as Australian tiger. All we need is a proper host because if you use a horse or a donkey, then you'd have some weird mutations. So we're looking to find an animal that's genetically close to the extinct tiger and we can bring him back.
Now imagine what people can do in 5000 years!

I'm not ignoring the fact that technology advances. I think it's more than probable that we will someday have a working method of suspended animation, likely one involving genetically-engineered humans that naturally produce kinds of antifreeze that prevent ice from forming and killing cells during the freezing process, but currently this is indistinguishable from something out of science fiction. I've only been criticizing someone paying for our current methods of freezing human bodies, which demonstrably cannot work.

 

[Engert]

But you see you are looking for assurance. When the only assurance is death, why not try freezing with the hope that an advanced civilization can bring you back?
And this is tangible hope not religious hope.

 

[Lacius]

But you see you are looking for assurance. When the only assurance is death, why not try freezing with the hope that an advanced civilization can bring you back?
And this is tangible hope not religious hope.

Because hoping something is true isn't any reason to think that thing is true. Otherwise, I'd believe I were a billionaire solely on the basis that I wish I were a billionaire. Using a basic cost-benefit analysis, you're spending $200,000 for something that you have no reason to think will work and have every reason to think won't work. This is the equivalent of religious hope because you're believing something for no reason other than avoiding having to cope with death.

 

[Engert]

Hmmm. I think you are ignoring progress. That's the key element in this scenario which clearly separates religion from educated guess in progress in the future.
For example. If i go in year one and make a radio call for my helicopter to come down, then 2000 years later we'd have a religion because people would see the helicopter and the person in it, as a God and i'd have a cult.
So progress in the future is along the same line. You think we're advanced now with our shit technology? Who the hell knows how the human species will evolve 5000 years from now and for the heck of if they might want to bring back "legacy humans" for study.

 

[Lacius]

Hmmm. I think you are ignoring progress. That's the key element in this scenario which clearly separates religion from educated guess in progress in the future.
For example. If i go in year one and make a radio call for my helicopter to come down, then 2000 years later we'd have a religion because people would see the helicopter and the person in it, as a God and i'd have a cult.
So progress in the future is along the same line. You think we're advanced now with our shit technology? Who the hell knows how the human species will evolve 5000 years from now and for the heck of if they might want to bring back "legacy humans" for study.

You have no reason to think humans will someday be able to revive frozen bodies made up of destroyed cells, and you have every reason to think it's just as likely as reviving bodies that have been buried.. You have yet to draw a connection between hoping humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today and having anymore reason to think humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today than to think humans will someday develop backwards time-travel and just come back and give you the secret to immortality.

Is it possible humans will someday be able to revive bodies frozen today? Sure, and it's also possible that magic pixies will repair your cells one-by-one, and based on how we understand the freezing process today, you have no more reason to believe one will happen over the other.

 

[Engert]

The connection is pure random chance.
Which means that somehow after I freeze myself I can survive a nuclear holocaust, a backlash of humans into the future where they reach the point of war when they try to bring back the dead or the simple fact that the power might go out in the facility where they keep me frozen. The possibilities that I may not get revived are endless and the probability is that I will not make it. But, there is the small chance that one percent chance that somehow somewhere in the future I might get randomly selected for whatever purpose good or evil (evil meaning that they will try to experiment on me) and that’s all I want. And the reason why I think they will revive freezing humans is just educated guess based on progress. I think it might be easier for them to work on frozen humans then to dig local cemeteries. That’s it. Just educated guess.
So the question is, why don’t you want to try it? Because you base your judgment on today’s technology and have no hope for the technology of the future?

 

[Lacius]

The connection is pure random chance.

The possibilities that I may not get revived are endless and the probability is that I will not make it. But, there is the small chance that one percent chance that somehow somewhere in the future I might get randomly selected for whatever purpose good or evil (evil meaning that they will try to experiment on me) and that’s all I want.

You can only say this is possible so far as you can say the existence of magic pixies is possible, and that's not the same thing as being able to assign probability to any of this. I can say the existence of pixies is possible in that it's possible that pixies exist even though I have no reason to believe they exist because I'm unaware, and/or incapable of becoming aware, of the evidence. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of any reason to believe any of these things are even physically possible, the only odds we can assign is 0%.

And the reason why I think they will revive freezing humans is just educated guess based on progress.

You can't say it's an educated guess that you think people frozen today will be able to be revived without giving a single reason to accept this claim. In the absence of a single logically sound reason to accept the claim that people frozen today will someday be able to be revived, despite the fact that one's cells are literally destroyed, your belief that people frozen today will be able to be revived is on faith alone.

So the question is, why don’t you want to try it? Because you base your judgment on today’s technology and have no hope for the technology of the future?

I probably would freeze myself if it were free and I had nothing to lose. However, it would cost me $200,000, and based on how we understand the freezing process today (the one that destroys the cells in one's body), there is no more reason to believe a frozen body can be revived than to believe someone who is cremated can be revived from the ashes. Until you can demonstrate how it would even be possible to revive a body frozen today, then your faith is no different from belief in fairies, God, a flying spaghetti monster, etc.

 

[Engert]

This is interesting
Are you sure you don't work at Harvard?

Ok.

You can only say this is possible so far as you can say the existence of magic pixies is possible, and that's not the same thing as being able to assign probability to any of this. I can say the existence of pixies is possible in that it's possible that pixies exist even though I have no reason to believe they exist because I'm unaware, and/or incapable of becoming aware, of the evidence. The fact of the matter is that in the absence of any reason to believe any of these things are even physically possible, the only odds we can assign is 0%.

Where in the progress of humanity have we seen pixies?
Nowhere is the answer.
Where do i base my judgment? On medical progress in the last two centuries.
Use a better analogy.

Next.

You can't say it's an educated guess that you think people frozen today will be able to be revived without giving a single reason to accept this claim. In the absence of a single logically sound reason to accept the claim that people frozen today will someday be able to be revived, despite the fact that one's cells are literally destroyed, your belief that people frozen today will be able to be revived is on faith alone.

Mummies of Egypt is the answer. Would you like me to expand on that? On how humans are fascinated on how a body can be preserved for almost 5000 years?

I probably would freeze myself if it were free and I had nothing to lose. However, it would cost me $200,000, and based on how we understand the freezing process today (the one that destroys the cells in one's body), there is no more reason to believe a frozen body can be revived than to believe someone who is cremated can be revived from the ashes. Until you can demonstrate how it would even be possible to revive a body frozen today, then your faith is no different from belief in fairies, God, a flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Cost is the only real reason here for some people not doing this, speaking realistically and not using any dumb analogies to spaghetti monsters. Cost is the real answer for not doing this.

The problem is that people have no hope in the future but instead put their hope in Jesus. This is the problem with progress in humanity.

 

[tatripp]

Hey OP,
I am a Christian and I believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think I'm safe.

 

[Gahars]

Alright, so placing faith in a deity makes someone a retard, but placing faith in improbable science fiction technology doesn't?

Okay.

 

[Engert]

Alright, so placing faith in a deity makes someone a retard, but placing faith in improbable science fiction technology doesn't?
Okay.

Improbable?
Are you sure you want to do this?
Show me proof of Jesus.
But an educated guess can say that Internet 3.0 will be implanted into people's bodies and we'd have a global wifi. A percentage of this claim will be true in the future. But your claim on Jesus has no precedent proof. If Jesus was real and you'd said that he might come again in year 2030, then i'd believe you.

 

[Lacius]

Where in the progress of humanity have we seen pixies?

Where in the progress of humanity have we seen the restoration of a completely obliterated cell, let alone the restoration of an organism made up of obliterated cells? Can you name a single way in which one might possibly go about doing this someday? The method of restoring an obliterated cell from our current freezing process, let alone an organism made up of those cells, is as possible as the existence of pixies. Are they both possible? Yes. Do we have any reason to think they exist? No. Do we have any reason to think they might even be physically possible? No. The pixie analogy is valid.

Mummies of Egypt is the answer. Would you like me to expand on that? On how humans are fascinated on how a body can be preserved for almost 5000 years?

Are you saying you've seen mummies be brought back to life? That movie with Brendan Fraser doesn't count.

Cost is the only real reason here for some people not doing this, speaking realistically and not using any dumb analogies to spaghetti monsters. Cost is the real answer for not doing this.

You're right. With virtually every decision I can think of, it's always a cost-benefit analysis, whether or not it's a conscious analysis. Should I wear this shirt today? Cost-benefit analysis. Should I go upstairs to grab my phone charger? Cost-benefit analysis. In the case of freezing oneself, there's no reason to think it can work, there's every reason to think it can't work, and it costs $200.000. It's also causing one to avoid coping with the finality of death, which isn't psychologically healthy. The costs severely outweigh the benefits here. It's more-or-less the same cost-benefit analysis in choosing whether or not one should devote one's time and money to a particular religion in order to avoid hell and go to heaven.

The problem is that people have no hope in the future but instead put their hope in Jesus. This is the problem with progress in humanity.

We agree that religion has stifled technological progress. But you have no more reason to believe and/or hope that you will be able to be revived if cryogenically frozen using today's methods than you have to believe and/or hope that Jesus will fly you to heaven.

Improbable?
Are you sure you want to do this?
Show me proof of Jesus.

Show me "proof" of it being physically possible to restore an obliterated cell, let alone the organism.

 

[Engert]

Show me "proof" of it being physically possible to restore an obliterated cell, let alone the organism.

I think it's pretty clear that you oppose this idea because you bring up lame counterpoints with Brendan Frasier and miss the point.
Like i said earlier, i am putting my hope of cell restoration in future technology. And my basis for this is the advancements of technology so far.
Hope you're not upset if i go ahead and freeze myself? You don't mind right? It's my money after all.

 

[Lacius]

I think it's pretty clear that you oppose this idea because you bring up lame counterpoints with Brendan Frasier and miss the point.

I oppose your claim that it's logically sound to accept the claim that people frozen today will be able to be revived because there's no reason to believe this. My quip about Brendan Fraser was completely valid when you responded to something I said with some nonsense about mummies that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, unless you were claiming that mummies have been brought back to life.

Like i said earlier, i am putting my hope of cell restoration in future technology. And my basis for this is the advancements of technology so far.

Just because technology is advancing doesn't mean you get to make up hypothetical situations and say it's possible science will be able to do it someday, especially when we have every reason to think it's impossible to restore humans frozen today, and no reason to think it's possible.

Hope you're not upset if i go ahead and freeze myself? You don't mind right? It's my money after all.

I don't care what you or anyone else does with his or her body after death. I'm merely stating that it's not at all logically sound position to accept the claim that you will be able to be revived if frozen using today's freezing methods.

 

[Gahars]

Improbable?
Are you sure you want to do this?
Show me proof of Jesus.
But an educated guess can say that Internet 3.0 will be implanted into people's bodies and we'd have a global wifi. A percentage of this claim will be true in the future. But your claim on Jesus has no precedent proof. If Jesus was real and you'd said that he might come again in year 2030, then i'd believe you.

Your "educated" guess really, really isn't.

While "future guessing" is a fun little game, A) You're hardly an expert on the subject, and B) More often than not, it's a crapshoot. Just ask history.

(Also, your whole "Jesus" bit is completely irrelevant. Jesus being real or not doesn't make your misguided, wishful fantasizing any more grounded.)

 

[Engert]

I'm merely stating that it's not at all logically sound position to accept the claim that you will be able to be revived if frozen using today's freezing methods.

And i am stating that if you base your judgment on today's technology it's an impossible task. But if you base your judgment in medical and technological progress of the future then anything is possible. Akin to bring our medical technology 1000 years back in time.

 

[Engert]

A) You're hardly an expert on the subject, and B)

B) More often than not, it's a crapshoot. Just ask history.

A) This is the internet where we can't verify someone's credentials even if i told you that i am involved with MIT. There's no way to prove that to you unless you want to stop at the MIT cafeteria on Friday.

B) True. But sometimes it's not a crapshoot.

Jesus is a crapshoot for 2000 years.