Comments on: Nano Nonsense & Cryonics

By: Alex Erler

Alex Erler — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:13:51 +0000

I’m afraid the anonymous Michael (not Shermer) is somewhat confused: Ben Best is clearly saying that “the core comparison of (Shermer’s) analogy is wrong”, since he is essentially saying that contemporary cryonics procedures are not at all the same as what happens when Shermer freezes his strawberries and then thaws them out, in an attempt to demonstrate the unfeasibility of cryonics. As Ben says, contemporary procedures notably involve the injection of cryoprotectants to minimize freezing damage. Ben’s objection is not simply that “Shermer uses an analogy to make a point”.

As for Shermer, while I very much respect his commitment to debunking pseudo-science and promoting critical, rational thinking, I can’t help but being very disappointed by this post, for reasons already mentioned above by insightful commentators: Shermer is basically criticizing, on the basis of mere hunches, an enterprise he knows very little about, and which seems to hold great promise for mankind. Skepticism is certainly a healthy attitude, but it should not go so far as to become indiscriminate.

Oh, and the argument that cryopreservation is impossibly expensive doesn’t hold water either: most people could in principle afford the costs via life insurance.

By: Dennis K

Dennis K — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 02:08:11 +0000

To frank Erdman. I see some flaws in your computer analogy. In fact, the analogy does more to support the idea of cryonics then to disprove it. For instance, You can reboot your computer and restart it and have the same program running. As for Ram, I think it represents consciousness and/or short term memory. Both can be swithched off in a computer or in a person with no damage to the core hard drive. The mind or long term memory of a person is also left intact when consciousness is switched off say under general anestesia. Physics clearly supports cryonics and that is why Shermer who I otherwise respect can only make personal or emotional judgments. The proper skeptic and/or scientist would say cryonics may be technically feasible but we will not know until the results are in. The problem being is that the results could take 100+ years and would by defacto be too late to benefit any die hard skeptic demanding absolute proof. Again, this doesnt mean cryonics doesn’t work, it may but we shall have to wait and see.

By: Steven Brown

Steven Brown — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:35:10 +0000

To me it’s simple. Suppose there’s a one in a billion, or whatever finite number you want, chance of cryonics working. Well, if you die normally, you’re buried, burned, or whatever, and there’s zero chance of being repaired, resurrected, or whatever term you want to use. What’s the ratio here? Given a finite chance, however small, it’s 1 to infinity. That seems good odds to me; some chance, however small and seemingly ridiculous, is better than none.

By: Frank Erdman

Frank Erdman — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:16:31 +0000

I agree with all the reservations about cyronics herein stated, and would like to add a further, more fundamental perhaps, reservation. It seems to me, for cyronics to work at all, even in principle, that our personalities, our continuity, whatever you want to call it, must be preserved structurally in the brain, and not be a function of the brain’s electrical (computational) activity. As a software programmer, it feels more intuitively correct to me to say that our “persistence” is something rather like a “while true” loop in a software program, that is, we exist in RAM, not in our hard drives. We in terms of our continuity are like the activity of a program in its main() loop, and when that exits, so do we. I can’t prove this, but it just seems more correct to my gut. Some will say, well, what about people revived when their EEG’s were flat lined? I would say, EEG’s are course-grained, and do not pick up all electrical activity that is going on. Probably at least some of that neuron-to-neuron activity keeps going well after clinical death, perhaps up to 30 minutes or so, who knows. But after that, I think that is probably all the fat lady sings. So, even if we do have all kinds of cool nanotechnology in the future, that does not mean we can restore our selves, anymore than after I reboot my computer can I have same program instance running I had before I did the reboot. Just a thought.

By: Mike Anzis

Mike Anzis — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:24:38 +0000

I am a great fan and admirer of Michael Shermer and will continue to be. I have also been signed-up as a cryonicist since 1985, and on reading this post by him, I am very disappointed. Not only has Michael taken an uninformed and cavalier approach in his criticism, as noted by Ben Best, but he sets up straw men for easy (though entertaining)ridicule.

Few if any cronicisits believe that “immortality is virtually certain”, and no cryonics organization promises any particular result (much less “everything”). The hallmarks of religion (dogma, moral code, tradition, etc.) are simply not part of cryonics, and, with few exceptions, cryonicist simply sign-up and go on with their lives, rather than losing “all our present state, And relegate to worlds yet distant our repose”.

Cryonicists do, indeed, look at astonishing scientific and technological progress such as the Wright brothers to Neil Armstrong, antibiotics, artificial hearts, the Internet, gene therapy, etc., with encouragement. A bigger problem with Michael’s commentary is that it fails to address at least two larger issues with which cryonicits must deal: (1) In current and future social and political environments, can cryonics organizations get it’s “patients” from now to then (i.e., maintain them is suspended state until “reanimation” is practical)? And (2) will one want to “live” in an unknown future world that could be anything from utopia to one in which you could be a slave, a scientific freak show, or a disembodied brain used for some unknown purpose, etc.

These are the issues about which I would like to see the kind of thoughtful, non-prejudicial discussion of which Michael Shermer is usually a part. For to quote Carl Sagan, one of Michael’s (and my) heroes, “Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.”

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:57:14 +0000

Shannon,

Ben Best actually refutes very well Michael Shermer’s rather unscientific derision of cryonics and if “your Michael” is so unsupportive – I am not sure if I were you I would be linking the two of you. Especially if you are in favor of the right of those to choose Cryonics.
With frienes like these!

By: Shannon Vyff

Shannon Vyff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:53:29 +0000

The Michael above, is my husband Michael Trice :-). I like what Michael Shermer had to say in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things” about cryonics, his piece in it on Immortality was positive in that it could happen someday. He is right that many take it too seriously, almost religious-like, but also many just live their lives enjoying their families and support extreme life extension “just in case” or are signed up for cryonics, as our family is–for that very small and mostly unlikely chance that it might work. Shermer is correct to say Cryonics’ biggest challenge is that it is not yet proven. That being said there is evidence that it might someday work (if society keeps advancing, the cryonics companies stay in business, etc.) the evidence is based on studies of mammalian brain preservation at cryogenic temperatures. http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/caseforcryonics.html Beyond that, there need to be a lot of advances in science to be able to re-animate a cryonicaly preserved person (or head), advances in nano-tech, bio-tech, or artificial general intelligence. Supporting Cryonics now though by being a member does help the research of how to better preserve and transport donor organs needed to help save lives now.

I support the view that cryonics should be an end of life option–to me it doesn’t matter either way, it will either work or not and I get to donate my body to science either way ;-) http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/preserve-the-right-of-those-who-are-dying-to-choose-cryonics

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:08:06 +0000

I’m afraid Ben’s post comes off more as “nuh-uh” tactics than a compelling counterargument. His main objection is that Shermer uses an analogy to make a point. Imperfect but stimulating analogies have been trademarks of scientific communication (like most literary forms to actual communicate with a broad audience) from before the Greek and up until today. Worse, Ben isn’t even saying the core comparison of the analogy is wrong, just that the coded statement behind the analogy–ignoring the analogy’s true or false value–is explained imprecisely. Thus Ben’s argument becomes, “it doesn’t matter if you’re right because your proof lacks specificity.” I think for many, many people, actually being right likely matters more.

Shermer’s points about the limitations and the psychology of the cryonics movement go completely unaddressed. Really, outbursts like this seem to push his points because they wholly ignore the actual criticism. That, indeed, is a rhetorical choice that can be easily associated with apologists and ideologues.

By: Shannon Vyff

Shannon Vyff — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:00:56 +0000

I’d like to just add that many who are signed up for cryonics do not “believe” that it will work. Quite the opposite, they feel it won’t matter to them either way as they’ll be dead, just a benefit if some sort of re-animation occurs, through bio-tech or nano-tech. Here is a link to a petition I started as I feel people have the right to choose cryonics as an end of life option, just as much as they have the right to choose cremation or burial. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/preserve-the-right-of-those-who-are-dying-to-choose-cryonics
By the way, I love Michael Shermer’s work and often use his talks or writings in my Unitarian Universalist Children’s Religious Education classes :-).

By: Sknir Notyad

Sknir Notyad — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:54:12 +0000

Excellent post Ben. You are absolutely correct that Shermer’s criticism is both unscientific and ignorant. I am in no way the greatest proponent of cryonics (though in theory, reanimation may one day be possible), but I can certainly recognize that this article is filled with bogus assertions.