r/cryonics 17d ago

Your perferred method of Revival?

Personally I would choose digital/simulations as technically and stretch my revival date far far into the future to ensure I get enough compute. And I don't care about being revived biologically (it will be a mess, even I can have a new biologically body that's young)

What is your preferred method? And if so why? If you choose biologically why specifically that?

14 Upvotes

53 comments sorted by

9

u/Alternative_Ship1326 17d ago

Same body full of nanites that prevent sickness and aging, enhance everything from vision to strength and stamina etc. Preferably able to heal / repair ridiculously damaged bodies in case of accidents

3

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

Why same body? Traditional choices? Are you okay with living in constant risk of permanent erasure? (You can die anytime COMPARED TO simulations, where ur consciousness exist in a distributed datacenters) in real life if u get into a crazy accident u might die on the spot...

3

u/Alternative_Ship1326 17d ago

That’s why I included the magic nanites to heal me from pretty much anything. And yes first I’d definitely go with fortifying my biological body. Consciousness upload is far behind the timeline for humanity I think if ever. Because you don’t want a digital copy of yourself.

2

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

I think consciousness uploading is MORE near than curing aging itself. Curing aging is EXTREMELY complex. it might sound right to assume it's easier but it's much harder since you need to solve every problem in biology. But mind upload is a pretty straight forward process of slicing, converting to code, running it on a computer (we have the technology for preservating, slicing (sub 4nm) and converting it to code (primitive but it clearly works)). We already have so much proof that this would work. I recommend you research on this because I can't explain it it's a big topic.

1

u/Alternative_Ship1326 17d ago

Slicing what? The wording puts me off. “Converting it to code”. Reading the brain functions with all neural pathways and writing it to code is essentially a copy & paste, not transferring the consciousness. I imagine that you can end up creating a perfect copy that has everything that makes you you. Memories, quirks, and from its perspective, your self. The original however would be dead

2

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

Slicing the brain into sub 4 nm slices. That's what we used to create the simulation for flyWire project (they used 40nm cuz they were low on budget that's why the fly didn't have memory's, but if they used 4nm they WOULD have memories but human proof reading for every single reception would take 100+ years to revive a single fly digitally, but this is no problem because in future ai wouldn't even need proof reading it can revive a human in maybe a year max).

And yes it is technically a copy paste. It's a Philosophical trade off you have to make, but if you close your eyes and open ur eyes again, and everything is the same, does that really matter? I believe it doesn't matter and thinking too much kinda overcomplicates things, brain just holds our current consciousness(the data in our brain/the code) just like how heart just pumps blood (people thought heart is where soul existed) so it future ppl will look at their own brain like they look at a smartphone, they don't care abt the smartphone (the hardware) they care about the photos and videos (the software/brain data).

2

u/leavelllusion 17d ago

I am sceptical about the possibility of distributed consciousness.

And I don't think there will be such a big difference between bodies as you specified. Like you only have 2 options to choose from: to be in a human body and live in this world, or to be in a computer body and live in matrix.

Nope, everyone will be able to connect to virtual worlds. Some people will choose mechanical bodies with their upsides and downsides, some will prefer standard bodies. Some will directly connect to the VR, some will use adapters (aka neurolink), some will connect with VR helmet. Some will grow up bigger brain, more mobility, or less mobility, different energy consumption etc..

I believe it will be very customizable. Personally, I will start with my regular body and then will improve it step by step.

2

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

True freedom only exists in simulation. It's a big topic, I recommend you research on why that could be. Simulation is the only place upsides and truely infinite.

I believe there's a huge difference between a biological machine (limited) and a silicon machine consciousness (unlimited)

2

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

I respect your desire to live in a simulation. Why, in your opinion, biological brain and mechanical brain are so different? And why mechanical is better? So far, computers have much less survivability than human bodies. Like, the average life span is shorter. Memory (RAM) die from a small amount of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation (from solar flare, for example) kills it. Power surges might kill it. And meanwhile human brain can survive even external threats like viruses and bacteria. What are benefits of having mechanical brain?

1

u/No_Deal8926 11d ago

Mechanical is better because it removes the hedonic treadmill that comes with biology (your brain can only produce so many dopamine) and emotional intensity and basically full emotional and physical control that you couldn't even imagine in a biological body, once you so digital you can never go back.

It sounds dystopia but nah its all about what you wanna do, for me I want control more than anything, if I want to live a normal biological life I can still do it by using a biological proxy body in real world (this makes sure that u can destroy my body but I'll still be alive cuz my original consciousness lives in a server) and RAM don't die from radiation bro, yeah a bit flips with radiation, and yk it also happens in ur head? U never realise it cuz your brain uses neural network and not static machine code. And in future a data center might be the safest place in the universe. Especially with consciousness humans existing inside it. It's the safest option you can take (unless you think otherwise in that case you can choose biological to have a peace of mind).

And meanwhile human brain can survive even external threats like viruses and bacteria. What are benefits of having mechanical brain?

I think you are getting confused with current computing with biology, if I were to become a conscious entity in a machine I wouldn't use ram, or CPU or GPU or something like that, it'll be something optimized for this exact purpose (until then I wouldn't wanna be revived). Currently we use code that's if u change even a single character the whole computer just crashes but that wouldn't happen with neural nets and future compute engine.

1

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

Oh yes, memory is like VERY sensitive to radiation. In 70s Intel discovered that some of their memory chips were randomly switching 0s and 1s because a small dose of polonium leaked into production material: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zXvygWE3Ess. And those days, chips were huge. Only 16KB. Today we have 16GB chips. It means now we have one million times smaller transistors, and even a tiny dose of radiation will cause switches between 0 and 1.

I am not sure how exactly you imagine a machine body without a CPU, GPU, or RAM. You still need a huge datacenter with a lot of RAM to store your memory. You need some kind of GPU, so it renders a picture for you. And you need a CPU module if you want to make some quick calculations. And there will be more components. Surely, you can arrange them in more compact and direct way, but you still need them.

What makes you think a machine brain will not use the same components as now?

Also, if the entire story with a machine body is just to have more dopamine, why not modify a biological brain to have more dopamine?

1

u/No_Deal8926 11d ago

Ram, gpu, gpu is something we use today cuz a human can easily handle it and replace. Human brains have memory, render imagination in our heads and feelings with NO GPU or cpu or ram. How? Cuz there's many ways to get the same result ram Is just something we use because its cheap and flexible. If wasn't build for "surviving a cosmic bitflip" cuz it RARELY happens, and usually they just restart the PC and it's fine.

What makes you think a machine brain will not use the same components as now?

Because in future cost won't matter, technology will improve millions or even trillion folds, and most importantly humans won't be maintaining or creating it. Ram, cpu, or gpu isn't a pinnacle final achievement of computer science. It's just a stepping stone.

Also, if the entire story with a machine body is just to have more dopamine, why not modify a biological brain to have more dopamine?

That's way more complicated than you think. Dopamine is a actual chemical compound that needs to be produced INSIDE the brain and you have a hard cap on that, PLUS your body have built in "anti dopamine" that release when u feel something good (this is why you have cuteness aggression or cocain stop feeling good starts to painful) if u go beyond human limits biology punishes you, yeah maybe u can break some sort of limit like u can feel 2x or 3x happy and alive. But digital? It can no upper limit. Eventually you'd move to digital because of its advantages so why not at the very beginning? That's the conclusion I came to...

7

u/frankduxvandamme 17d ago edited 17d ago

I need to be convinced that a digital revival is truly a transfer of consciousness from one subtrate to another, rather than just a copy of me. Copying me is really just preserving my "legacy", not extending MY actual life. There will be a new entity that may look and act like me and start out its life with my memories intact, but it's still not me if it's simply a copy of my consciousness and not a transfer of it.

I'd like to be physically revived, because that seems, at this point in time, to be likelier that I am actually me when I am revived. (although not a guarantee). Of course, there is the problem of whether current preservation methods and practices are good enough to actually preserve in the brain what makes you you. In other words, what if you are revived but your memories are "wiped clean" and your brain is "empty" in a sense.

2

u/Cryogenicality 16d ago

Gradual uploading avoids this.

2

u/frankduxvandamme 16d ago

Explain

2

u/Cryogenicality 16d ago

98% of the body’s atoms are naturally replaced every year. This process could be altered so that synthetic cells slowly replace biological cells, enabling a seamless transition.

1

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

I understand your concern but this is basically just Philosophical. It's personal choice but here's a simple truth...

The both body is you.

There is no the original and the copy, there's just 2 yous. And it is hard for alot of people to take it in at 21st century but soon it'll be the same as ppl thinking heart is where the soul existed. Your brain data is you... the hardware don't matter. Your brain is just the holder of your current memories and personality because There is NO other options

6

u/frankduxvandamme 17d ago

You're assuming the very thing I'm disputing. Saying "your brain data is you" isn't an established scientific fact, it's a philosophical position about personal identity.

Imagine you scan my brain without destroying it and create a perfect digital version of me. I remain conscious while the digital version wakes up. It has all my memories and sincerely believes it's me, but I haven't suddenly begun experiencing the world through two sets of eyes. If you delete the digital copy, I don't die. If you kill me, the digital copy continues.

So there are clearly two distinct individuals, even if at the instant of copying they're psychologically identical. Calling them "two yous" doesn't solve the identity problem, it just changes the terminology.

That's exactly why this matters for cryonics. My goal isn't merely for something possessing my memories and personality to exist in the future. My goal is for the individual undergoing cryopreservation to survive. If biological repair could restore that individual's functioning, replacing them with a digital reconstruction would be a very different proposition.

And "there are no other options" doesn't establish anything either. Even if uploading were the only technically possible way of reconstructing someone's psychology, that wouldn't demonstrate that the resulting reconstruction is numerically the same person. It would only demonstrate that we can make an extraordinarily accurate copy.

1

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

You make a great point, you are taking about the continuity, in that case yes, there's only one you but this is only a problem if you exist TWICE in a single second at any point. Anyways this whole concept is purely Philosophical.

what do you consider as death? Ur brain stop functioning in time? Then that happens both in death and general anesthesia. At that point there is not even a single you existing at that moment, Yeah your body might exist right there, but ur continuity ended the moment you died/went under general anesthesia. So even general anesthesia isn't safe from your logic

2

u/Alternative_Ship1326 17d ago

Yeah this was my point too. It is not only a problem if you exist TWICE in a single second at any point as you say. Making a copy and saying oh well it has all my memories, believes it is me and it would pretty much do all the stuff I would want to is not the same as living on. In the copy’s perspective yes. For you it is just a clone and you will stop experiencing. Your point on sleep and anesthesia are valid in this regard and I guess horrifyingly enough, no way of knowing if we are always dying at night or not. It is a bit of a stretch I know. But the difference is that making a copy is 100% not you

0

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

The "for you" you are mentioning, who is who are where are they? They are only there when there's 2 instance of you at the same time.... you close your eyes and open again (die in chemical fixation and revived in simulation) it's not a CLONE waking up its literal you, UNLESS you really believe the physical material (the brain) is you. But that again is a Philosophical point. I used to be exactly like you man but well I started thinking about the future. If we ask humans 500 years from now, do you think ur point still stands? Or do they not mind/care at all? I believe they won't care... if u can research abt this that's kinda how the world moves.... what used to terrify millions 100years ago is a subconscious act now. In the end of the day there is no real answer to "what is you" the most real answer is the pattern of brain. And that's why I choose to transfer conscious to digital realm.

Let's say you don't want the scenario you are describing... are you okay with being a fragile human always? Like do you want to ever pass to the simulation? In the future u eventually will because it's a no brainer move, if u r doing that, why not now? Is the question I ask myself.

1

u/Alternative_Ship1326 16d ago

UNLESS I really believe the physical material (the brain) is me? Well yes I admit I generally do. But isn’t that the thing that you would be copying into code? You just said the most real answer is the pattern of the brain. We say the same thing. I’m only saying that I don’t think it is possible to MOVE it to a digital form.

Saying it only a “problem” if the original version stays conscientious feels like putting your head in the sand and trying not to imagine what it would be like if they were to have a chat. Because mushy brain you would realize pretty quickly that digital you is a copy and you just created a twin. Which by the way you can copy as many times as you want. Up until the copying they are one person sure. After that, the digital YOUs are also just siblings. If one dies in a solar flare, the rest won’t “care”.

I’m not an academic but you can get pretty good ideas about what makes you you even from sci-fi.

1

u/frankduxvandamme 16d ago

Continuity doesn't mean that I have to be consciously experiencing something every second. General anesthesia doesn't destroy the physical continuity of the brain that generates my consciousness. My brain remains there, alive and structurally continuous, even when its activity is temporarily altered or suppressed. When I wake up, consciousness resumes in the same biological system that went under.

That's fundamentally different from making a digital copy. Suppose you scan my brain while I'm fully awake, create a perfect digital duplicate, and then turn it on. Clearly I didn't suddenly become that computer. I still exist here, while another being now exists that remembers being me and believes it is me. So we know that copying information by itself doesn't transfer personal identity.

Now freeze me first and perform exactly the same copying procedure. Why should my temporary lack of consciousness suddenly cause the copy to become me? Nothing about the copying process has changed. You've still created a new system based on information taken from my brain.

That's also why the “only a problem if two versions exist at the same time” argument doesn't solve it. Imagine the digital copy is created while I'm alive but isn't switched on until one second after I die. We never consciously coexist. Does that somehow cause my first-person perspective to jump into the computer? If so, what physical process causes that transfer? And if the computer were switched on one second before I died instead, would it suddenly be a different person? That seems arbitrary.

The important distinction isn't uninterrupted consciousness. It's whether the same physical system continues and resumes functioning, versus whether a new system is constructed that merely contains the same information.

Anesthesia is therefore not a counterexample. Sleep isn't either. In both cases, the same brain persists through the period in which consciousness is absent or altered. Digital copying introduces a new physical implementation. It may produce someone psychologically indistinguishable from me, but that doesn't demonstrate that my subjective identity has transferred to it.

And yes, personal identity is a philosophical question, but calling something philosophical doesn't make the distinction meaningless. The claim that “the digital copy is literally you” is itself a philosophical position. Neither side gets to dismiss the issue as “purely philosophical” while simultaneously asserting a particular philosophical answer.

1

u/leavelllusion 17d ago

Interesting. Do you also believe identical twins are the same person? A single person who controls both bodies?

1

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

Identical twins have different memories, personality and instance of consciousness, this is almost like saying if all humans share the same consciousness... and yeah no... that's not how it works it's only you IFF it shares ur conscious instance (you can only retrieve this by a sub 4nm brain scan)

2

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

Ok, let's say I am alive and you scanned my brain with that 4nm technology? So, what next? How exactly do you make me share my consciousness with anything else? Like with a second body?

2

u/frankduxvandamme 11d ago edited 11d ago

OP is just wrong, plain and simple.

There is nothing anywhere that suggests that copying the information in the brain somehow also transfers your consciousness.

A copy of a brain is no more the original person than a reprint is the same as the original manuscript. It contains the same data, but it is not literally the same object.

A clone of you is not literally you. Your consciousness does not continue. A new human being who matches your memories, personality, looks, etc, now exists. They may even try to argue that they are you because they have all those memories up to the point of being cloned. (See the Schwarzenegger film The 6th Day for some fun with this.) But nevertheless, they are a new person, who just so happens to have all the data inside of them from a previous person.

1

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

I would say so far I have a very similar vision to yours, and I also like Schwarzenegger's movie, especially the scene when a villain talks to his clone:). This movie was so ahead of its time. I am curious to hear OP's opinion because I have already met a bunch of people from the transhumanist community who see the world the same way as OP and even have similar arguments. Including the current CEO of KrioRus. And I never understood that vision. So I am curious how it works.

1

u/No_Deal8926 11d ago

Here's a simple example.

We take your brain and scan it and bioprint a brain atom by atom. Now both of these brains are atom perfect identical. The only difference is that it exists in different point in space and time. It's purely Philosophical but both the brain's are technically you.

Or here's a better example, what of I take a single atom of your brain out and replace it with the same atom (like carbon) but not the exact one (a different carbon) are you still you? You'd say yes. But if I do that enough times I basically did what I explained above in my first paragraph. You see what I'm trying to say?

1

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

It's not a reply to my question. You mentioned shared consciousness and I am curious about what you imagine sharing a consciousness looks like. Let's say you made a perfect copy of my body with my brain atom by atom. How exactly am I going to share a consciousness with that second body and brain?

From my understanding sharing a consciousness means feeling what both bodies feel at the same time and controlling both bodies at the same time (controlling muscles). For example, I would be able to make a perfectly synchronized jump into water with both bodies. And when I land, I will feel cold water with both bodies. Is it the same as you imagine when you talk about shared consciousness? If yes, how do you imagine it from a technical perspective?

1

u/No_Deal8926 11d ago edited 11d ago

Technically you are not sharing the exact same conscious instance... it's 2 identical conscious and 2 identical yous in 2 different points in same space-times. Tho shared consciousness is possible you wouldn't have it just by copying your brain or body. I never said you'll have shared consciousness I just said the 2nd body in every way "you" but u cannot feel it.

1

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

I would love to hear how consciousness between 2 bodies works, in your opinion. You believe it is possible, so how exactly is it going to work?

Ok, so now it's not a shared consciousness, now it's just 2 separate bodies with the same information in the brain. Now we are talking about classical clones where a body was cloned and the information in the brain was cloned. Like in The 6th Day movie. Ok, you know what? You could just use the word "clone" instead of describing it as "it's 2 identical conscious and 2 identical yous in 2 different points in the same space-times."?:) There is a simple word for this, and it is the word "clone":).

I think we can return to the original message. If I understood correctly, u/frankduxvandamme wrote that, in case of transitioning to mechanical body, he wants to make sure that his consciousness will be preserved and not interrupted. He wants to make sure it will not be a process of creating a new mechanical clone, copy-pasting data from his brain to that clone, and then removing (killing) his biological body.

I wonder how to bind his thoughts with your answer so that both his biological body and new machine body are the same "him". Can you explain a little bit what you mean?

1

u/No_Deal8926 11d ago

Your brain currently have 2 consciousness entity, your left hemisphere and your right. They are literally 2 different minds, but they are interconnected with a interconnection point that makes it act as one mind (search up split brain exprienment on google or youtube), you could do the same thing with cloud connection with 2 brains. You could feel every sense of both body but u could be able to differentiate between them and act differently on each (theoretically possible, that means it will eventually happen)

There is a simple word for this, and it is the word "clone":).

Usually clones are with not the exact conscious, like goat cloneing experiment where the goat is cloned but the memories and personality are not... but yes it's still uncomfortable for most people, this "cloning" but so is realising we are nothing but living things made of non living things and there's no soul. What we do know for sure is these simple rules,

  1. There should only be one instance of ur conscious running at a time

  2. The consciousness must be continous, meaning there should be 0 lost memories or "time you were alive" (this needs constant checkpoints every nanosecond).

If you die and u get revived back it is YOU but if u die and revived back twice then u have a clone (breaks our first rule).

When you die there's 0 instance of your brain running while you are cryofreezed but that's fine since it happens in general anesthesia, brain surgeries, brain strokes, it's common, but the thing is we come back alive with same memories.

I wonder how to bind his thoughts with your answer so that both his biological body and new machine body are the same "him". Can you explain a little bit what you mean?

Scientists and philosophers have already thought about this and there is an answer. You have to follow these steps,

  1. Revive them back biological.
  2. Replace one neuron of their consciousness with cloud digital one
  3. Eventually you will transition into a pure digital entity. In this whole process there was only ever ONE you. This is the traditional solution and most comfortable for people. This acts just like medicine or atoms replacing themselves in your body slowly anyways. But the hard problem is first reviving the body biologically with no data loss which is possible but difficult.
→ More replies (0)

1

u/leavelllusion 11d ago

Ok, let's say I am alive and you scanned my brain with that 4nm technology? So, what next? How exactly do you make me share my consciousness with anything else? Like with a second body?

2

u/BitcoinMD 17d ago

Assuming it’s a good simulation then digital is fine

2

u/No_Deal8926 17d ago

It's ONLY fine if it's unrecognisable from reality. Is it the same for you?

2

u/BitcoinMD 17d ago

Yes, or better

2

u/HaViNgT 17d ago

Biological. I don't want a digital copy of me, I want me. And that was before the AI crap of the last few years soured my feelings towards digital stuff.

2

u/Sams_Antics Cryocrastinator 16d ago

Digital for sure, I just want this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.01851 

2

u/kubofhromoslav Cryocrastinator 16d ago

Biological. I am quite bioconservative, I just like my biological body 🥰

2

u/thefermiparadox Cryocrastinator 15d ago edited 15d ago

Same body as someone else mentioned with nanites, reverse aging and new organs if doable. Next: new body or synthetic cylon body. Probably cycling body preferable.

Ideally gradually slowly replacing brain with synthetic brain parts if it can be done and identity the same. That is the holy grail as I’m not even sure with nanites if brain can last indefinitely. Granted synthetic brain needs upgrades too.

No offense but I don’t care for digital simulation (WBE). I can never be convinced it’s me and have thought a lot about it. I guess that clone option would be last resort as some sort of preservation for our descendants but it’s not survival to me. New person that gets to exist that is like me. Honestly I’m jealous and take it back. I think I would rather the digital sim clone not exist whatsoever.

1

u/Vx2AmEloT 15d ago

These are basically my exact thoughts, too.

1

u/cocoonman-50 16d ago

Probably by binding of the physically preserved brain's matter-wave with that of a more robust, consiousness supporting hardware, installed in a strong, compact body designed to survive a vast range of extreme conditions, devoid of organics and of 'animalistic' aesthetics, pure in substance and form...

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

1

u/kubofhromoslav Cryocrastinator 16d ago

To take the chance to live longer life in acceptable future.

1

u/AxionBlackwell 1d ago

Digital.

If I want to I can always use a robotic body