Paul Crowley (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ciphergoth) wrote2010-01-21 11:14 pm
ciphergoth) wrote2010-01-21 11:14 pm
Anti-cryonics links
I may not reply to everything in that 159-comment thread but thanks to everyone who participated. I hope people don't mind if I carry on asking for your help in thinking about this. I might post articles on specific areas people raised, but first I thought to ask this: my Google-fu may be failing me. I'd appreciate any links anyone can find to good articles arguing against signing up for cryonics, or pointing out flaws in arguments made for cryosuspension. I don't mean South Park, thanks :-) I'm looking for something that really intends to be persuasive.
thanks again!
Update: here's some I've found
thanks again!
Update: here's some I've found
- Ebonmuse, On Cryonics
- Ebonmuse, Who Wants to Live Forever?
- Why we'll never be downloaded
- Why Minds Are Not Like Computers - actually there's quite a lot of scholarly writing arguing that the idea of simulating a brain on a computer is not merely impractical but impossible in principle.
- Michael Shermer on cryonics
- Skeptic's Dictionary on cryonics
- Cryonics–A futile desire for everlasting life
- Quackwatch - Is Cryonics Feasable?
- Ben Best - Debates about Cryonics with Skeptics (Best is President/CEO of the Cryonics Institute, but this is a snapshot of a debate on the James Randi forums, with a link to the original forum debate)
- Frozen Stiffs, Ruth Holland, BMJ 1981
no subject
no subject
That said, I don't think cryonics is crazy enough that you shouldn't try it if you think the Wonderflonium is plausible, or, at least, not totally impossible. I have other reasons for not wanting to extend my life which most certainly don't apply to you. The image of you and
no subject
no subject
Well...
If they're rubbish, a few relatively rich people get ripped off. After they're dead. I think Ben Goldacre has bigger fish to fry. What's more, you're telling people with a very strong fear of death that they can't avoid death in the way they hope they can. You're probably not going to get any thanks for that.
As I keep saying, it's hard to debunk something that says 'in the future, this technology may exist'. Which, I'm afraid, is what the really tricky bits in everything you've linked to, and all their references that I can read, come down to. The bits that quote actual science often debunk themselves (as I pointed out yesterday in my reply about scanning techniques), but often hide it by saying 'well, of course, this won't work, but if we add in a feature of this incompatible technology (which we can't do, on account of its being incompatible), it might.' And so a third, as yet uninvented, technology with the features of both is posited, but with no indication of how to make such a chimera. Might be possible. Might not. No way to debunk it; so you might as well believe it if you want to, and trying to debunk it would be a waste of time.
Note, also, that the key bit in that PDF reads:
"If there are plausible models for the repair and reanimation of cryopreserved cryonics subjects64,65 it seems reasonable to rely upon them when deciding upon human cryopreservation as a long-term treatment which may or may not succeed."
That's a big 'If'. Firstly, the two papers it links to - here and here - do not, to my mind, offer anything approaching a plausible model for the repair and reanimation of cryopreserved subjects. They talk in broad, speculative terms about Nanotechnology; even in the 2005 paper, the existing technology can't do anything approaching what would be needed, and the future technology is spoken of in 'this might be possible at some point' terms. There's nothing concrete enough to either agree with or debunk. And note that there's a 1981 paper, a 2005 paper, and both refer to an aspirational lecture Feynmann gave in 1959. This technology is maturing slowly, rather than racing ahead with revolutionary discoveries every month.
no subject
Yes, this. If cryonics had more of a social impact, I'd take it a bit more seriously as a debunking target.
it's hard to debunk something that says 'in the future, this technology may exist'
Yes! All the serious scientists I know who've responded to any enquiries say things like "Well, I can't say it would *never* happen, but it looks very unlikely to work for reason X and Y - though of course I could be wrong about those."
Aha - I think I may have sussed the underlying problem: Cryonics makes no verifiable predictions!
Well, they are I suppose in theory verifiable, but only by people who live another 500 years. And even then you could say it'll be there in another 500 years. For all practical purposes, you simply can't prove them wrong. The people involved in this conversation are in no position to answer the question of whether cryonics is possible.
That makes it very, very hard to argue against. At least with other forms of woo there are implications for the observable world that you could actually observe. You get plenty of argument about how to settle the question methodologically, of course, and what the data (or theories) actually are. Cryonics is not so much an Invisible Gardener as a Gardener Will Show Up Later, After We've Gone, No Really.
Right, I've spent more time than I meant to on this - I'm off to get a takeaway for supper. :-)
no subject
(1) I think that it is plausible that cryonics patients will be revived by the year 3000. That's now a falsifiable prediction.
(2) Here's two more unfalsifiable predictions:
- The Conservatives will one day again govern Britain
- Jupiter will one day spontaneously morph into a gigantic rubber duck
Even though neither of these are falsifiable, we can still have more confidence in one than in the other, and evidence will change our confidence.
no subject
Yes, it is, and
(2) Here's two more unfalsifiable predictions:
Both of your predictions in (2) involve concepts that we're relatively familiar with, and think we have a handle on probabilities of.
On the other hand:
- we will invent a form of microscopy that can scan brains in a way that allows us to reconstruct them with the 'consciousness' of the person intact
- we will invent a form of nanotechnology that will allow us to repair the tissue damage to vitrified patients
are far less so. As I say in the thread below, the route to that technology navigates Ant Country. Evidence, and time, will change our confidence, but we have precious little of it now. Neither prediction breaks the currently-known laws of physics in a 'Jupiter turning into a rubber duck' way, but neither of them involves something we know has happened in the past and may well happen again in a 'Conservatives governing Britain' way.
You can believe in either of those statements if you like. But looking for people to debunk either of those claims is futile; no reputable scientist is going to try to debunk a claim like those on the knowledge we have today. And deciding that claims like that must be plausible simply because no one has debunked them would be deluding yourself.
(I don't, as it happens, think cryonics as a whole requires either of those claims to be true to work in some form. There are other conceivable ways of storing consciousness, and vitrification without tissue damage could be possible in the future. But the PDF seemed to make those specific claims so it's those I'm addressing.)
I have a whole reply brewing about the wisdom or otherwise of saying, as that PDF does: 'we can make scientific predictions about things we've never seen like the Earth's core or future climate change, so we can also make scientific predictions about things we've never seen like a brain scanner that can scan consciousness and nanites that can fix tissue damage from vitrification.' But I also have a garage full of my dad's stuff to move, and in any case, you can probably guess how that post might go.
no subject
no subject
I don't dispute any of the testable science - some of it may be wrong, I'm not qualified to say, and I would expect to find some of it debunked if it were significantly wrong. But the testable science doesn't give a plausible complete cryonics system. So, to me, it doesn't make the 'whole thing' plausible. The 'whole thing' has problems that we don't know how to solve and which may indeed be unsolvable. The plausibility of solutions to those isn't, to me, linked to the plausibility of assertions which are generally part of mainstream science. I'm unsure why you feel that it is.
To me, it feels a bit like saying that teleportation is plausible because the science of data transmission is well understood. Granted, data transmission is probably going to need to be well understood if we're going to create a working teleporter, but solving data transmission doesn't make it any more likely that we'll solve the other problems posed by teleportation; the ones where we don't even know where to start. (I think cryonics is considerably more plausible than teleportation, for the record, it was just the simplest analogy I could think of.)
no subject
no subject
Are cryo patients information-theoretically dead? Probably, as the procedure stands at the moment, although I wouldn't be too shocked to find that they weren't. I can see easily-imagined extrapolations of the procedure (better vitrification techniques to reduce tissue damage; less time between 'death' and vitrification; possibly even vitrification while still 'alive') that make information-theory death less likely. I do think that this offers a better chance of getting back the original 'consciousness' than any currently conceivable method of brain scan, followed by brain rebuild. I'm not sure I'd go anywhere near 'very plausible' without a lot more data, including but not limited to successful vitrification and revival of something like a cat or a dog. (Before you refer me to page 11 of that PDF you linked to, I'm not saying it's 'not science' with out that, just that I don't think it's 'very plausible' without that.)
Is it very unlikely that the technology to return them to life will ever exist? I haven't a clue. I can debunk a specific claim such as 'Transmission Electron Microscopy offers a likely method for mapping a complete brain', but I can't debunk a claim like 'in the next 100 years, we will invent a form of microscopy that can scan the complete brain'. It's too far from what existing technology can do for it to be reasonable to say 'plausible' or 'busted'. The route to it navigates Ant Country through a set of technological developments that rely on each other and we can't even begin to predict beyond the first few steps.
no subject
Note that my first reply to your earlier post wasn't saying 'I don't want to do it because I don't think cryonics will work', but 'I don't want to do it because I'm quite comfortable with the idea of being dead'. I later had issues with some of the specific scientific claims being made, but I don't think any of that totally invalidates the idea. Even if I were sure it worked, though, I don't think I'd go for it.
no subject
no subject
"However, this was not his most severe criticism, which he reserved for theories or theses so unclearly presented as to be untestable or unevaluatable and, thus, not properly belonging within the realm of science, even though posing as such. They were worse than wrong because they could not be proven wrong. Famously, he once said of such an unclear paper: Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch! 'Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!'"
I don't say that about the whole of cryonics. I do say that about much of the 'scientific' evidence presented to support the more speculative bits.
no subject
no subject
(It's probably also worth emphasising that I don't mean it quite a damningly as Pauli would have, although I do think that things that are 'not even wrong' are extremely tricky to debunk.)
no subject
No, I'm closer to
It'd be really neat if cryonics worked, but I think there are too many obstacles in the way.
And unfortunately they are too big to fit in this coffee break....
no subject