Monday, May 03, 2010
In Lieu of Flowers, Send Congratulations?
Okay, okay, I get it that Robot Cultists of the techno-immortalist sect are pinning their hopes (which I thought even they tended to admit were slim hopes) on nano-santa elf-bots one day resurrecting hamburgerized brains and thereupon immortalizing them via shiny robot bodies or cyberspatial avatars or whatever. But congratulating dead people upon burial, cremation, mummification, freezing, vitrification is just weird whatever faith-based persuasion drives your particular brand of scared sad death-denialism. Honestly, Michael, congratulations? Talk about a statement falling on dead ears. They can't hear you, guy. How about, you know, condolences to family and friends on their loss?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
By the way, in the post I am presently deriding Michael Anissimov also states: "In a material, non-mystical world where the mind is what the brain does, preserving the structure of the brain is a foremost concern if you care about continuing to exist."
This is a quintessentially futurological piece of shady business.
Whether frozen or vitrified the brain is scarcely "preserved" by the process but profoundly transformed, be it mulched, sheared, toxified, and who knows what else. We do not know remotely enough to declare that selfhood retrievably continues to exist in the aftermath of these processes.
It hardly requires supernaturalism or mysticism to testify to the strongest skepticism about whether memories or dispositions materialized, say, in quantum effects or electrochemical relations in the brain would be "preserved" by freezing or vitrification, about whether neural complexes dispersed throughout the body but typically dispensed with in techno-immortalizing accounts non-negligibly incarnate emotional or other dimensions of selfhood, or what have you.
Robot Cultists like to pretend that they are consummately scientific and that those who deride them are anti-scientific to do so, but of course there are few consensus scientists who affirm the Robot Cultists' truly flabbergastingly fantastic extrapolations and sloppy sleights of hand. I am not a scientist, but I am technoscientifically literate enough to know I am not and to defer to the consensus of those who are on matters like these, in which other non-scientists sell techno-transcendentalizing faith-based initiatives. It should be easy to see how crusty atheistical folks like me are far from indulging in supernaturalism in our skepticism of the Robot Cultists.
By the way, I am not a scientist but I am a rhetorician by training, temperament, and trade, and I am here to tell you that I am the one -- not proper scientists -- who is often in the best position to describe what is really afoot argumentatively and figuratively in the formulations of wish-fulfillment fantasists and bullshit artists of the Robot Cult archipelago.
The leap from the denial that the self is an immaterial soul to the affirmation that a brain wrapped in foil like a potato and frozen will preserve that self for the nanobots of the future is actually a larger leap than science can bear -- just as is the leap from the denial that intelligence is supernatural to the affirmation that non-biological but still legible AI is necessarily possible -- just as is the leap from the recognition that molecules function in nature to the claim that robust artifical programmable self-replicating room-temperature nanomachines will deliver abundance -- and so on.
Superlative futurology is just conventional futurological advertising-hype discourse taken to an extreme form that takes on the coloration of organized religiosity. There's nothing scientific about it at all.
Dale, I congratulated them for making what I think can be a difficult choice. It is my way of showing my respect for their decision.
To the extent that cryonics firms claim with the remotest confidence to have accomplished with a dewar more than what a cemetery accomplishes with a mausoleum, it's a scam. It is possible that you are in on it, and/or bamboozled yourself. I "respect" those who choose to dispose of their corpses via vitrification, cremation, burial, and so on more or less equally indifferently. Just don't expect me -- in the form of a demand for "respect" -- to abet the preposterous insinuation that there is anything particularly scientific about such faith-based initiatives. For myself, I rather like the idea of being dropped into a hole more or less as is with a nice pear tree planted on top, but I can't say it matters to me much. Everybody dies, you know, and so, most certainly, will everybody reading these words, including those of you who indulge in denialism via the various sects of the Robot Cult. I respect the cryonaut's different taste, without sharing it, but I don't allow him different facts than the ones actually on offer.
I'm actually somewhat surprised that you have sunk to the level of using what you regard as the death of two people to attack their belief systems. Can't you use other premises to initiate a rebuttal? You have to explicitly mock the dead to make your point?
I'm mocking you, Michael. You. And it has had at any rate the minimally wholesome effect of provoking a recognition on your part that the corpses in question are indeed dead. Let us declare that a minor victory for sense. As for sinking to a lower than edifying level -- that is, I am afraid, the price of the ticket in nearly any exchange with a Robot Cultist. One hopes that through this sacrifice one is helping others. And if nothing else, it's usually thankfully also good for a few yucks.
...you have sunk to the level of using what you regard as the death of two people to attack their belief systems.
What Dale 'regards as the death of two people' actually happens to be the death of two people. I think it's interesting that you can't even bring yourself to admit they're dead. Your framing seems to imply that death is simply a matter of perspective. Death doesn't stop being death simply because you prevent the corpses from rotting. Granted, you prevent them from rotting much better than the Egyptians ever did, but weren't the Egyptians, like, wrong about this whole afterlife thing, too?
Regardless, it seems far more infamous to me in any case to capitalize on the death of two people to advertise the paid services of your friends.
Cryonics is one half ponzi scheme, and one half con game.
I don't know of anyone who has gotten rich off of cryonics. It is not an effective con.
Whether there are any benefits to cryonics is open to speculation. However it does seem to put one more sharply at odds with known evils like superstition, aging, ignorance, societal stability, and the like. So perhaps there might be some benefit to being a cryonicist that is not dependent on it working.
Death is not simply a matter of perspective. But when we're talking about respect for dead people, it matters a good deal whether you think they are dead as to whether what you say is respectful.
Respect for the dead is a huge cultural emotional topic. But one general thing about it is that you don't primarily say things about the dead or their beliefs that they wouldn't want to hear. And you make some effort to look at things the way they do.
The main reason it is not respectful to make lengthy negative arguments about a dead person's beliefs at their funeral is because they are no longer there to defend themselves. A cryonaut, even if we presume successfully cryopreserved, similarly lacks the capacity to defend themselves. So I think it safe to say that the same sort of respectful silence towards them is demanded regardless of any presumption regarding whether they can be reanimated with any success.
If you want to disagree with living-and-animate cryonicists, you are welcome to do so provided you state your reasons and leave your mind open to rational counterargument. This is perfectly respectful, as respect need not preclude disagreement or even harsh feelings. However it does preclude any deliberate misrepresentation of the other's position. You must be able and willing to at least do the basic research and brain-work necessary to know why we feel this is a credible endeavor. Otherwise we have no more reason to take you seriously than you do us.
So perhaps there might be some benefit to being a cryonicist that is not dependent on it working.
Well, duh. Look around. People who trumpet their cryonics affiliations are by-and-large people trying to make a living as futurologists or writers, speakers, or consultants on the 'future'. It's, like, part of the credentialing process for these scamsters. 'Look how much I think about the future! Look how I put my money where my mouth is! Hire me for your next symposium!'
I mean come on. It's obvious.
I think I am speaking for quite a few people here. The sooner we can congratulate you, Dale, on being dropped into a hole, the better. You are a waste of perfectly good carbon atoms.
Death to deathists, so fulfill your destiny (die) soon. The sooner the better.
We immortalists will happily carry on living (in whatever form and shape is in fashion).
Danila Medvedev: We immortalists will happily carry on living (in whatever form and shape is in fashion).
Wow! o_0
Danila, can you look in the mirror and honestly say that your statement is based on reason as opposed to faith?
In other words, how can you possibly defend yourself from the accusation that "immortalism" is an ersatz religion when you say absurd statements like that?
"People who trumpet their cryonics affiliations are by-and-large people trying to make a living as futurologists or writers, speakers, or consultants on the 'future'."
Circular reasoning. People with a motive for trumpeting an unpopular viewpoint tend to trumpet an unpopular viewpoint.
Notwithstanding, my original point was that cryonics leads to benefits in terms of character and perspective, not in terms of money and social status. The latter only apply to a minority and may even negatively apply to the majority (which seems to be why you consider it a bad bet to begin with).
"Danila, can you look in the mirror and honestly say that your statement is based on reason as opposed to faith?"
I would consider it a rational guess based on probablistic criteria rather than faith. The penalty for being wrong is lower for immortalists than for mortalists. Not only do you lose a shot at life if you are wrong, you look stupid for not trying regardless.
Of course that comes with the obvious qualifier that as an absolute position, "I will live n more years" is inherently a statement of faith since the causes of death tend to be unpredictable. You are not ridiculing people who suppose they will live to see old age however, only people who think they will survive old age.
Yes, Luke, of course you think highly of your own character and perspective. Tell me something I don't know.
As to circular reasoning, you gave a great example of it. And if this were a class, you'd get an A. But it's not a class, and what I wrote is still there, right up above, for you to go read again.
Or don't. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not interested in changing your mind about your religious beliefs. I'm quite tolerant of them. No, this is just about seeing how many stupid things you are willing to say in public, so I can ridicule them. Hopefully my modest contribution to Dale's monumental effort here will help keep some impressionable future reader from going down the silly delusional path you have.
"As to circular reasoning, you gave a great example of it. And if this were a class, you'd get an A. But it's not a class, and what I wrote is still there, right up above, for you to go read again."
You claim to note a pattern that people many people who spend the most time and effort promoting cryonics have some kind of professional motive for doing so. That says nothing about whether their opinion is well grounded. Maybe you weren't making the point I thought you were trying to make, in which case I apologize.
"Or don't. It doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not interested in changing your mind about your religious beliefs. I'm quite tolerant of them."
Good to hear you are tolerant of my "religious" belief that cryonauts might not be dead due to insufficient destruction of information in their brains. That doesn't excuse you from pretending to know otherwise on scientific grounds, if in fact you do not.
"No, this is just about seeing how many stupid things you are willing to say in public, so I can ridicule them."
Nice to be assured that my time spent talking with you is utterly wasted...
"Hopefully my modest contribution to Dale's monumental effort here will help keep some impressionable future reader from going down the silly delusional path you have."
I've been reading Dale's blog a bit more and my respect for him has increased due to the amount of time he has evidently spent thinking about this stuff. Your contribution as far as I have seen is not a positive one, but hey at least you're trying to do a good work in your own mind so kudos on that.
Luke, nothing against you, but if you're trying to 'debate' cryonics with me, your time spent is utterly wasted. I know what cryonics is and I've read the Alcor contracts (which is where my charge of 'ponzi!' comes from) and no amount of dithering is going to change my mind about it, certainly not the sort of dithering to which you seem most prone.
If there's one thing that Dale's work here has proven to me to an absolute certainty it's that there is no point in putting forth any effort to change the transhumanist or cryonicist mind. To me, the real value is in warning away impressionable others who might be on the fence. And so I'm not surprised you would see me as not-so-positive for your efforts to proselytize. But, at least we can agree that I wouldn't be the first choice for your spokesperson.
And speaking of proselytizing I see you just started a blog to promote the cryonics con. Why does it seem like cryonocists have this religious fervor about proselytizing for converts? It seems oddly out of place until you see cryonics organizations for the ponzi schemes they are.
Hmm, I'm not quite following the Ponzi scheme reference. What about cryonics specifically reminds you of a Ponzi scheme?
Luke, you're going to die, you really are. You're mortal, you can come to terms with this thing, it's gonna be okay. Time to give up the diapers and move on to the training pants now.
In a ponzi scheme, promises made to earlier investors are kept using the flows from later investors while the purveyors of the scheme collect their skim.
In cryonics, the promise to keep corpsicles on ice indefinitely requires a never-ending stream of cash flow from new marks. The Alcor contract actually goes so far as to acknowledge this: 'Part III, sec 8 says 'Alcor does not warrant that the minimum required amount of the Cryopreservation Fund will be adequate to pay for the Member's cryopreservation and maintenance."
Yeah, they can't warrant anything because when that money is gone, the only way to keep grandpa on ice is a new mark.
Why would anyone ever sign up for such a terrible deal? I think the fear of death makes people do some extraordinary things. That, and perhaps most cryonics customers have money to throw away on navel-gazing narcissism like this.
The good news for Alcor, I guess, is that when your customers are all dead corpses on ice in your basement, there's nobody to complain to the Justice Department.
Thanks for that Dale, but I'm not dead yet, and neither are you.
The substance of your argument is that focus on living "forever" gets in the way of getting real work done. I can respect that.
But you don't get to claim to know with certainty that death by aging is unavoidable.
The facts, although they do include every historical death denier's detestably decided death, also include that our knowledge of the biomechanics pertaining to death is increasing, with at least some consequent control of the mechanisms.
It is okay if you want to say death is probably coming within the century for all of us, or that cryonics probably involves too much damage for it to ever work out for anyone. Where I would have a problem is if you pretend that these are 100% certainties and not simply opinions.
As to the whole "mortality" thing, I am actually pretty sure I will die some day. I just don't claim to know it will be soon or by any particular mechanism. I have much less reason to accept "mortality" (inevitable death of any natural cause currently known) than had I been born at any point in history. By all appearances, people born after me have even less reason to do so.
"Whether frozen or vitrified the brain is scarcely "preserved" by the process but profoundly transformed, be it mulched, sheared, toxified, and who knows what else. We do not know remotely enough to declare that selfhood retrievably continues to exist in the aftermath of these processes."
It is the very requirement of confidence that I am at odds with. You see uncertainty regarding the outcome and that automatically translates to shady business? What about the shady business of declaring someone dead to get out of the cost of cryopreserving them?
Frozen corpses are dead. No one's bodily incarnated self will ever "migrate" into cyberspace or get nanotransubstantiated into a shiny robot body. One should certainly struggle to universalize access to healthcare, struggle to get access to the clean water -- the closest thing to a real "miracle medicine" in the actual world -- to the overexploited people of the world, and increase funding of medicine research to remediate diseases and increase public access to reliable information (including information about about dangerous pharmaceuticals and bogus anti-aging therapies and cryonics scams) so that people actual make informed healthcare decisions. But Robot Cultists have no ditinctive role to play in such struggles while they are defined by the effort to derange and distract these efforts into faith-based initiatives organized by their wish-fulfillment fantasies. Every single person reading these words is going to die. Reconciling oneself to this fact is an indispensable precondition for sanity. Best of luck to us all in managing some measure of sense and happiness and justice in the meantime.
> Granted, you prevent them from rotting much better than
> the Egyptians ever did. . .
Or not. Mummies, after all, have lasted for thousands of years.
There are horror stories in the cryonics world about clients
turning into a sludge with the consistency of used motor oil
after spending a few years in an iffily-maintained Dewar.
> Where I would have a problem is if you pretend that these
> are 100% certainties and not simply opinions.
This is a false dichotomy more appropriate to a fundie Creationist
than to anybody who considers himself a rationalist. The fundie
version being "Evolution isn't 100% certain; therefore, it's
'only' a theory." The dismissive "only" carrying the same freight as
your equally dismissive "simply opinions."
**Nothing** is certain in this world. (Even the facts of arithmetic,
if you believe somebody like W. V. O. Quine.) **Some** things
(like the facts of arithmetic) are so nearly certain that you'd
be a fool not to treat them as such. Other things, such as
evolution, or Newtonian mechanics (on ice-skating rinks) or
relativistic mechanics (in particle accelerators) are rather
less certain than the facts of arithmetic, but are hardly
candidates for serious doubt without overwhelming evidence
to the contrary.
At the other extreme are assertions like "Evangelical Christians
have a detrimental effect on the state of Mississippi"
which might be dismissed with some justification as "simply
my opinion".
The assertion that "I, and Dale Carrico, and 'Luke', and
everybody old enough to be posting on the internet in 2010
will be dead by the year 2150" is not, of course,
100% certain, but it is far from "simply an opinion".
It is so likely that anybody asserting the contrary who
expects to be taken seriously had better have overwhelming
evidence to make the case.
------------------------
Woodrow Wyatt: Do you think it is certain there is no such
thing as God, or merely that it is not proven?
Bertrand Russell: I don't think it is **certain** that there
is no such thing as God, no. I think it's on exactly the
same level as the Olympic gods and the Norwegian gods,
the gods of Olympus and the gods of Valhalla -- they also
**may** exist. I can't prove they don't. But I think the
Christian god has no more likelihood than they do.
I think they're a **bare** possibility.
"Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind",
Woodrow Wyatt interviews, 1959
RCD: Danila, can you look in the mirror and honestly say that your statement is based on reason as opposed to faith?
RCD: In other words, how can you possibly defend yourself from the accusation that "immortalism" is an ersatz religion when you say absurd statements like that?
I understand that I am dealing with anti-techprogress fanatic, but I will still try to show the underlying rationality of my view.
First, yes I can look in the mirror and honestly say that my statement was based on reason and not faith. I don't see why you think the statement can't stand on its own (I think it can), but if you will be happier thanks to the mirror voodoo and assurances of honesty, so be it.
Belief in cryonics is based on reason, as evidenced by a number of articles about it.
My statement, however, had nothing to do with cryonics, but everything to do with the happyness of immortalists. Dale Carrico likes to believe that immortalists will die. Immortalists like to think they will live. You may think the reason for Dale's position is intelligence and rationality, I think it's pessimism and misantropy.
If you think my statement implies faith in immortality just because we want it, read it again. It implies no such thing.
So I don't see how there is anything absurd about it. It doesn't show any "faith", just some statements of fact and rational beliefs. It's not a belief in a deity, so you can't call it a religion, even an "ersats" one. I am leaving aside the absurdity of you equaling immortalism with a single blog post made by me. It's extremely simple to defend myself. You make it trivial.
First, a claim that immortalism is an ersats religion is hardly an accusation. Second, it can't possibly be an accusation against myself from which I will have to defend myself. Using such retarded rhetoric is lame and stupid. Only the fact that you are an internet troll, who intentionally tries to provoke other people, can excuse (and more importantly explain) such behaviour.
To conclude, immortalists are happy to live and aren't worried about being revived, uploaded or enhanced. Dale Carrico is happy to insult immortalists and cryonicists, throwing facts, reason and logic out of the window. That's a key distinction. Also, Dale Carrico claims to be happy to die (when his time comes or otherwise), to which I can happily reply with my wishes that this does indeed happen and make him happy.
P.S. This post is not endorsed by any immortalist organisations.
It is interesting that you fancy you are dealing with with "anti-techprogress fanatics" despite the fact that you are addressing actually secular democratic progressives who are technoscientifically literate and at the center of whose politics are efforts to ensure that the costs, risks, and benefits of technoscientific change are equitably distributed to the diversity of stakeholders to that change by their lights, a politics that tends to encourage research, funding, investment, regulation, and the dissemination of reliable information about technoscience development to solve actually shared problems and facilitate the scene of informed nonduressed consent to the terms of personal and collective prosthetic self-determination. I daresay you have to be a True Believer in some sect of the techno-transcendenalizing Robot Cult to think of such a perspective as "anti-tech-progress fanaticism." This is an example of what I mean when I say that superlative futurological aspirations and framing of technodevelopmental questions deranges actually technoscientifically-literate, actually urgently necessary, actually progressive deliberation.
Dale Carrico likes to believe that immortalists will die.
But of course you will die. "Liking" doesn't come into it.
Post a Comment