Kajta is right; cryonics is very far: Cryonics is about what will happen in a *long time* when you *die* to give you a *small chance* of waking up in a *socially distant* society in the *far future*, assuming you *
I found out that one of the worlld's most famous PUAs (Pick Up Artists) 'Mystery' in the Seduction Community has signed up for cryonics along with another PUA friend of his 'Herbal':
---A couple months ago I walked into Style’s living room. Mystery was there.
“Herbal!”
“Mystery!”
I’m not sure that either of us has ever called the other by his real name.
“Want to see something really cool?”
Of course I do.
He pulls off his boot, and from under his sock he finds a stainless steel anklet. It looks like a medical tag.
“I’m getting frozen.”
No way. We’d talked about it years ago when we lived in Project Hollywood, but he’d actually done it. Sure enough, his tag had instructions on it to call Alcor, the leading cryonics outfit.---
All transhumanists should become PUAs and I'm sure the donations and praise would be flowing in to all organizations (Imagine a Robin Hanson economics lecture with thousands of women cheering and throwing their panties).
Anti-cryonics cranks say some of the most horrible, sociopathic things sometimes. I don't know how they can imagine such behavior to be acceptable. I presume they are too distracted by the horror of their own impending demise (from natural causes of course) to really think about what they are saying. John Sabotta is a case in point:
"I laugh horribly to imagine that by not accepting “cryonics” I am condemning hordes of you materialist and reductionist types to inevitable death."
John, you have completely misunderstood my point. Materialists and rationalists dying of AIDS in third world countries are hurt by your decision. The materialists and reductionists you are thinking about are not suffering at all by the current expense of cryonics. It is after all quite cheap by the standards of one living in a developed country.
However, they do suffer in chances of survival by the fact that stabilizations are unnecessarily delayed because of the fact that this is not a universal standard in hospitals yet. Rather than causing certain death, you are increasing their chance of death -- in other words, if there is anyone to be saved, fewer are actually being saved. It's sort of like stabbing a person who just had a heart attack instead of doing CPR -- because hey you might not kill them, they are already headed to the hospital, and they probably would have died anyway.
Public funding is completely unnecessary for cryonics to be universalized. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent morality of the practice (i.e. immorality of not doing it). Accusing me of wanting to steal your money is the about stupidest thing I've ever heard. The total investment required is quite small compared to typical health and retirement budgets. The only sane argument is a cost-benefit analysis. If chances of survival are small enough, you might still gain more utility by funding vaccinations. But if costs of preservation are small enough, the utility is higher even then. I'm just pointing out that the cost goes down and the chance of survival goes up when you advance to a larger scale.
Restricting access to rationalists, materialists, atheists, rich people, etc. is the last thing any cryonics advocate wants. Unfortunately it is the first thing that anti-cryonics cranks seem to want. Perhaps this is some kind of psychological mechanism to distance themselves from the source of their phobia.
You see, by freezing yourselves and becoming undead corpses, neither alive nor dead, you will become (to use the phrase employed by the essay linked to above) unearthly beings. You will join the strange procession that marches slowly towards the edge of doom and the world of darkness. And you will (as illustrated above) go where all unearthly beings live, in the (if you'll excuse the phrase) painful fires of eternal damnation!
Or maybe you'll enjoy eternal life in a crappy nineties Vernor Vinge novel! Six of one, half a dozen of another, I say.
Incidentally, "Luke", don't think I don't see you trying to cobble together a moral case for compulsory funding of or participation in the cryonics fraud. But you are SOL in this case, as, these days, there are so many thieves demanding that the State steal for their pet causes that I'm afraid that you cryonics cranks - a fringe minority at best - simply don't have the numbers or the political clout to get anyone to steal for you.
Too bad! Guess you'll all have to rot in lonely graves, just like everybody else! Hahahahahah!
I laugh horribly to imagine that by not accepting "cryonics" I am condemning hordes of you materialist and reductionist types to inevitable death. I sneer at the notion that I am obliged to support your fantasies of eternal life in Singularity Village. I deny you your repulsive and base paradise! Ah hahahahah!
Well, I would laugh horribly if "cryonics" were anything more than a pitiable fraud.
"The essential Saltes of Animals may be so prepared and preserved, that an ingenious Man may have the whole Ark of Noah in his own Studie, and raise the fine Shape of an Animal out of its Ashes at his Pleasure; and by the lyke Method from the essential Saltes of humane Dust, a Philosopher may, without any criminal Necromancy, call up the Shape of any dead Ancestour from the Dust whereinto his Bodie has been incinerated." - Borellus
So why bother with cryonics? Joseph Curwen will have ye up eventually anyway. Of course, he may have some questions to ask you.
"Once, for example, an alternately raging and sullen figure was questioned in French about the Black Prince's massacre at Limoges in 1370, as if there were some hidden reason which he ought to know. Curwen asked the prisoner - if prisoner he were - whether the order to slay was given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the altar in the ancient Roman crypt beneath the Cathedral, or whether the Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven had spoken the Three Words. Failing to obtain replies, the inquisitor had seemingly resorted to extreme means; for there was a terrific shriek followed by silence and muttering and a bumping sound."
I hope you have some answers for him.
(This makes perfect sense in the context of Nieztche's Eternal Recurrence. Lovecraft's Providence will occur, sooner or later, Joseph Curwen will have ye up from ye essential Saltes and he will, being highly dissastisfied with Robin Hanson going on about "futarchy" when he is demanding answers about the Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven, feed Robin Hanson to a shoggoth.)
So, really, cryonics is the least of your little problems.
This would explain why cryonics is more disturbing when planned ahead - those who try to get cryonics on their death bed (when it is a near issue) are more symapthetic figures.
The same goes for a vasectomy. Most single women would run a mile from a man who’s had one, even if they don’t particularly long for children, because we don’t really like our men making unilateral decisions, whether that’s about curtains or babies.
This mentality is the root of the "hostile wife phenomenon" with cryonics.
I think all of this discussion of cryonics and the "hostile wife phenomenon" is hogwash.
I think the real reason for the hostile wife phenomenon is the fear of loss of control on the part of the woman. Women like to have control over the big decisions in life. For example, whether or not to have kids, etc.
I read a blog discussion along with several media articles on the effects of a male birth control pill. One thing I noticed from one of the articles was one women (who was interviewed for the article) said she would never date a guy who had gotten a vasectomy and that it was "common knowledge" that women "run away screaming" from any guy who has had a vasectomy.
The NY Times cryonics article about a few weeks later and I noticed the commonality of a man getting a vasectomy (without the wife or girlfriend's consent) and signing up for cryonics. Its the same deal. A man is making decisions involving future-time orientation unilaterally. This creates the sensation of loss of control that is emotional disorientating to many women. I think a man expressing future-time orientation in anything except for bringing home the bacon is very, very frightening to a great many women.
I think this is the real deal underlying the "hostile wife phenomenon" in cryonics.
The "in Defense of Hypocricy" argument was the one that finally convinced me that social conservatism, as a political ideology, is a form of mental illness.
I would have thought this was all obvious. Of course cryonics is very far. So is the 'Singularity'. Trouble with far mode is that it's so easy to just 'make stuff up', and you just end projecting your own fears and hopes on to the future, that's basically all most 'futurists' end up doing.
As soon as possible outcomes are precisely defined I think you're in near mode. Bayesian Induction and Decsion Theory are near mode, because the implicit ontology (model of possible outcomes) must already be precisely defined in order to calculate odds and utilities.
Far mode is so tricky because its not even clear what the actual space of outcomes actually entails - it's all fuzzy and unclear and thus serves as a great canvas for the exercise of imagination and grand passion plays.
Near mode is consequentalist, but I don't think far mode is. That is, in far mode, how an act is framed (i.e. the thought about an act) does determine whether its moral or not. See above - the space of possible outcomes itself is not clear in far mode. Ergo, consequentalist (decision theory-style) calculations don't cut the mustard.
LukeJuly 18, 2010 at 9:49 pmCan you justify your statement that reusing body parts (to save lives) is an irrational practice? I mean, given that it accomplishes the goal of saving lives. I’d call that pretty rational. What specific reasons would we have not to reuse them?
Because reusing body parts is cannibalism. I am against cannibalism in all its forms.We can do these "things of virtue" through better technology.
Viruses and bacteria and do not need any help.
Technology has lifted us up for millennium, and it will continue to do so.Playing with flesh and DNA is playing with a construct that has developed for a billion years. Playing with flesh and DNA is complicated, retards the development of technology, and endorses premature death.
Yes, you horrible little nerd.
Are you for real?
Golly-gee, such an articulate, intelligent response. You're such an erudite person.
I found out that one of the worlld's most famous PUAs (Pick Up Artists) 'Mystery' in the Seduction Community has signed up for cryonics along with another PUA friend of his 'Herbal':
http://tynan.net/when-i-die
---A couple months ago I walked into Style’s living room. Mystery was there.
“Herbal!”
“Mystery!”
I’m not sure that either of us has ever called the other by his real name.
“Want to see something really cool?”
Of course I do.
He pulls off his boot, and from under his sock he finds a stainless steel anklet. It looks like a medical tag.
“I’m getting frozen.”
No way. We’d talked about it years ago when we lived in Project Hollywood, but he’d actually done it. Sure enough, his tag had instructions on it to call Alcor, the leading cryonics outfit.---
All transhumanists should become PUAs and I'm sure the donations and praise would be flowing in to all organizations (Imagine a Robin Hanson economics lecture with thousands of women cheering and throwing their panties).
Anti-cryonics cranks say some of the most horrible, sociopathic things sometimes. I don't know how they can imagine such behavior to be acceptable. I presume they are too distracted by the horror of their own impending demise (from natural causes of course) to really think about what they are saying. John Sabotta is a case in point:
"I laugh horribly to imagine that by not accepting “cryonics” I am condemning hordes of you materialist and reductionist types to inevitable death."
John, you have completely misunderstood my point. Materialists and rationalists dying of AIDS in third world countries are hurt by your decision. The materialists and reductionists you are thinking about are not suffering at all by the current expense of cryonics. It is after all quite cheap by the standards of one living in a developed country.
However, they do suffer in chances of survival by the fact that stabilizations are unnecessarily delayed because of the fact that this is not a universal standard in hospitals yet. Rather than causing certain death, you are increasing their chance of death -- in other words, if there is anyone to be saved, fewer are actually being saved. It's sort of like stabbing a person who just had a heart attack instead of doing CPR -- because hey you might not kill them, they are already headed to the hospital, and they probably would have died anyway.
Public funding is completely unnecessary for cryonics to be universalized. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent morality of the practice (i.e. immorality of not doing it). Accusing me of wanting to steal your money is the about stupidest thing I've ever heard. The total investment required is quite small compared to typical health and retirement budgets. The only sane argument is a cost-benefit analysis. If chances of survival are small enough, you might still gain more utility by funding vaccinations. But if costs of preservation are small enough, the utility is higher even then. I'm just pointing out that the cost goes down and the chance of survival goes up when you advance to a larger scale.
Restricting access to rationalists, materialists, atheists, rich people, etc. is the last thing any cryonics advocate wants. Unfortunately it is the first thing that anti-cryonics cranks seem to want. Perhaps this is some kind of psychological mechanism to distance themselves from the source of their phobia.
The other problem (aside from the waste of money) is well illustrated here.
http://www.empire-of-the-cl...
You see, by freezing yourselves and becoming undead corpses, neither alive nor dead, you will become (to use the phrase employed by the essay linked to above) unearthly beings. You will join the strange procession that marches slowly towards the edge of doom and the world of darkness. And you will (as illustrated above) go where all unearthly beings live, in the (if you'll excuse the phrase) painful fires of eternal damnation!
Or maybe you'll enjoy eternal life in a crappy nineties Vernor Vinge novel! Six of one, half a dozen of another, I say.
Incidentally, "Luke", don't think I don't see you trying to cobble together a moral case for compulsory funding of or participation in the cryonics fraud. But you are SOL in this case, as, these days, there are so many thieves demanding that the State steal for their pet causes that I'm afraid that you cryonics cranks - a fringe minority at best - simply don't have the numbers or the political clout to get anyone to steal for you.
Too bad! Guess you'll all have to rot in lonely graves, just like everybody else! Hahahahahah!
I laugh horribly to imagine that by not accepting "cryonics" I am condemning hordes of you materialist and reductionist types to inevitable death. I sneer at the notion that I am obliged to support your fantasies of eternal life in Singularity Village. I deny you your repulsive and base paradise! Ah hahahahah!
Well, I would laugh horribly if "cryonics" were anything more than a pitiable fraud.
Your complete alienation from and ignorance of normal human attachments is truly impressive, and not at all untypical for this forum.
"The essential Saltes of Animals may be so prepared and preserved, that an ingenious Man may have the whole Ark of Noah in his own Studie, and raise the fine Shape of an Animal out of its Ashes at his Pleasure; and by the lyke Method from the essential Saltes of humane Dust, a Philosopher may, without any criminal Necromancy, call up the Shape of any dead Ancestour from the Dust whereinto his Bodie has been incinerated." - Borellus
So why bother with cryonics? Joseph Curwen will have ye up eventually anyway. Of course, he may have some questions to ask you.
"Once, for example, an alternately raging and sullen figure was questioned in French about the Black Prince's massacre at Limoges in 1370, as if there were some hidden reason which he ought to know. Curwen asked the prisoner - if prisoner he were - whether the order to slay was given because of the Sign of the Goat found on the altar in the ancient Roman crypt beneath the Cathedral, or whether the Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven had spoken the Three Words. Failing to obtain replies, the inquisitor had seemingly resorted to extreme means; for there was a terrific shriek followed by silence and muttering and a bumping sound."
I hope you have some answers for him.
(This makes perfect sense in the context of Nieztche's Eternal Recurrence. Lovecraft's Providence will occur, sooner or later, Joseph Curwen will have ye up from ye essential Saltes and he will, being highly dissastisfied with Robin Hanson going on about "futarchy" when he is demanding answers about the Dark Man of the Haute Vienne Coven, feed Robin Hanson to a shoggoth.)
So, really, cryonics is the least of your little problems.
This would explain why cryonics is more disturbing when planned ahead - those who try to get cryonics on their death bed (when it is a near issue) are more symapthetic figures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
Key paragraph:
The same goes for a vasectomy. Most single women would run a mile from a man who’s had one, even if they don’t particularly long for children, because we don’t really like our men making unilateral decisions, whether that’s about curtains or babies.
This mentality is the root of the "hostile wife phenomenon" with cryonics.
I rest my case.
I think all of this discussion of cryonics and the "hostile wife phenomenon" is hogwash.
I think the real reason for the hostile wife phenomenon is the fear of loss of control on the part of the woman. Women like to have control over the big decisions in life. For example, whether or not to have kids, etc.
I read a blog discussion along with several media articles on the effects of a male birth control pill. One thing I noticed from one of the articles was one women (who was interviewed for the article) said she would never date a guy who had gotten a vasectomy and that it was "common knowledge" that women "run away screaming" from any guy who has had a vasectomy.
The NY Times cryonics article about a few weeks later and I noticed the commonality of a man getting a vasectomy (without the wife or girlfriend's consent) and signing up for cryonics. Its the same deal. A man is making decisions involving future-time orientation unilaterally. This creates the sensation of loss of control that is emotional disorientating to many women. I think a man expressing future-time orientation in anything except for bringing home the bacon is very, very frightening to a great many women.
I think this is the real deal underlying the "hostile wife phenomenon" in cryonics.
The "in Defense of Hypocricy" argument was the one that finally convinced me that social conservatism, as a political ideology, is a form of mental illness.
I would have thought this was all obvious. Of course cryonics is very far. So is the 'Singularity'. Trouble with far mode is that it's so easy to just 'make stuff up', and you just end projecting your own fears and hopes on to the future, that's basically all most 'futurists' end up doing.
As soon as possible outcomes are precisely defined I think you're in near mode. Bayesian Induction and Decsion Theory are near mode, because the implicit ontology (model of possible outcomes) must already be precisely defined in order to calculate odds and utilities.
Far mode is so tricky because its not even clear what the actual space of outcomes actually entails - it's all fuzzy and unclear and thus serves as a great canvas for the exercise of imagination and grand passion plays.
Near mode is consequentalist, but I don't think far mode is. That is, in far mode, how an act is framed (i.e. the thought about an act) does determine whether its moral or not. See above - the space of possible outcomes itself is not clear in far mode. Ergo, consequentalist (decision theory-style) calculations don't cut the mustard.
LukeJuly 18, 2010 at 9:49 pmCan you justify your statement that reusing body parts (to save lives) is an irrational practice? I mean, given that it accomplishes the goal of saving lives. I’d call that pretty rational. What specific reasons would we have not to reuse them?
Because reusing body parts is cannibalism. I am against cannibalism in all its forms.We can do these "things of virtue" through better technology.
Viruses and bacteria and do not need any help.
Technology has lifted us up for millennium, and it will continue to do so.Playing with flesh and DNA is playing with a construct that has developed for a billion years. Playing with flesh and DNA is complicated, retards the development of technology, and endorses premature death.