/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16585237
>We
By the time he is revived as Satoshi, Supreme Emperor of the Galaxy, we will be long dead.

>>16585237

Do the people who crionically preserve themselves actually believe that this revival is actually possible for them, or is it a 'too rich not to try it' affair?

>>16585381
It's a meme, can't believe people seriously fall for the criogenesis scam

>>16585381
Satoshi will come back to life when he has programmed it.

>>16585237
Based and immortalitypilled

>>16585392
If cryonics were a scam it would have far better marketing and be far more popular.

>>16585381
>possible
A 1 in 10,000 chance of it working means that it is still possible.

Also relevant:
https://www.cryonicscalculator.com/

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yKXKcyoBzWtECzXrE/you-only-live-twice

>Not signing up for cryonics - what does that say? That you've lost hope in the future. That you've lost your will to live. That you've stopped believing that human life, and your own life, is something of value.
>This can be a painful world we live in, and the media is always telling us how much worse it will get. If you spend enough time not looking forward to the next day, it damages you, after a while. You lose your ability to hope. Try telling someone already grown old to sign up for cryonics, and they'll tell you that they don't want to be old forever - that they're tired. If you try to explain to someone already grown old, that the nanotechnology to revive a cryonics patient is sufficiently advanced that reversing aging is almost trivial by comparison... then it's not something they can imagine on an emotional level, no matter what they believe or don't believe about future technology. They can't imagine not being tired. I think that's true of a lot of people in this world. If you've been hurt enough, you can no longer imagine healing.
>But things really were a lot worse in the Middle Ages. And they really are a lot better now. Maybe humanity isn't doomed. The Future could be something that's worth seeing, worth living in. And it may have a concept of sentient dignity that values your life more than you dare to value yourself.

Is Eliezer Yudkowsky right?

>>16585237
stop being a pussy and just accept death

>The same applies to the hypothesized survival of human minds in "uploaded" form inside machines. The uploaded minds will not be tolerated indefinitely unless they remain useful (that is, more useful than any substitutes not derived from human beings), and in order to remain useful they will have to be transformed until they no longer have anything in common with the human minds that exist today.
>Some techies may consider this acceptable. But their dream of immortality is illusory nonetheless. Competition for survival among entities derived from human beings (whether man-machine hybrids, purely artificial entities evolved from such hybrids, or human minds uploaded into machines), as well as competition between human-derived entities and those machines or other entities that are not derived from human beings, will lead to the elimination of all but some minute percentage of all the entities involved. This has nothing to do with any specific traits of human beings or of their machines; it is a general principle of evolution through natural selection. Look at biological evolution: Of all the species that have ever existed on Earth, only some tiny percentage have direct descendants that are still alive today. On the basis of this principle alone, and even discounting everything else we've said in this chapter, the chances that any given techie will survive indefinitely are minute.

>>16585561
>The techies may answer that even if almost all biological species are eliminated eventually, many species survive for thousands or millions of years, so maybe techies too can survive for thousands or millions of years. But when large, rapid changes occur in the environment of biological species, both the rate of appearance of new species and the rate of extinction of existing species are greatly increased. Technological progress constantly accelerates, and techies like Ray Kurzweil insist that it will soon become virtually explosive; consequently, changes come more and more rapidly, everything happens faster and faster, competition among self-prop systems becomes more and more intense, and as the process gathers speed the losers in the struggle for survival will be eliminated ever more quickly. So, on the basis of the techies' own beliefs about the exponential acceleration of technological development, it's safe to say that the life-expectancies of human-derived entities, such as man-machine hybrids and human minds uploaded into machines, will actually be quite short. The seven-hundred year or thousand-year life-span to which some techies aspire is nothing but a pipe-dream.

Is Ted Kaczynski right about immortality?

>>16585555
You might as well kys then. Also checked.

>>16585568
nice logic brainlet

>>16585508
based

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-UG-Xx6maY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF5dVjRgXeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUl-ek3P-08

Does special relativity guarantee that I am immortal?

>>16585581
Not an argument

>Millions of suckers fall for the crionic meme
>Meanwhile population exponentially rising
>3000 AD
>"Alright it's time to thaw these dudes"
>"Hol up we got way too many people already"
>"Welp.. let's just dump them in the ocean then"
>"lmao get fucked, frozen boomers"

>>16585237
Is his wife freezing herself as well?

>>16585608
The argument is you are not using logic.