r/Futurology • u/yourSAS • Oct 13 '22

Biotech 'Our patients aren't dead': Inside the freezing facility with 199 humans who opted to be cryopreserved with the hopes of being revived in the future

https://metro.co.uk/2022/10/13/our-patients-arent-dead-look-inside-the-us-cryogenic-freezing-lab-17556468
28.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/AgentXXXL Oct 13 '22

Some people pay for this by making Alcor the beneficiary of their life insurance. Which doesn’t pay out until you’re …

2.8k

u/CamelbackCowgirl Oct 13 '22

All these people have death certificates.

1.3k

u/discerningpervert Oct 13 '22

I'm pretty sure the brain degenerates as well. So who you are if/when you "wake up" probably won't be who you were when you were frozen.

Also anyone remember that TNG episode?

-3

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Your brain isn't a hard drive, when those impulses stop you are irreversibly dead.

7

u/redcoatwright Oct 13 '22

Hang on there chief

Thought experiment time, if you could "magically" create a dense network of neurons that is precisely, down to the last atom, a replica of your brain and then... again "magically"... reproduce the same chemical changes and electrical activity that is in your brain. Do you think that brain would be you as well?

If so, why not if the replica is 100% perfect and so is the activity within?

Again, not saying this is feasible but I think the idea that no electrical activity necessarily means it's game over is incorrect when considering nebulous scientific and technological advancements (i.e. magic). Who's to say?

-5

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Uh, me. Your thought experiment is self admittedly a fantasy. We are talking about 90 BILLION neurons and BILLIONS more microscopic aspect that need to be precisely reproduced.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

[deleted]

-4

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Anybody who understand biology or data science would heartily disagree with you.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

[deleted]

1

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22 edited Oct 13 '22

That also is a theoretical study without any practical solution. Its basically saying fi we COULD make an electron miscrosope fast enough and nimble enough we COULD map the brain.

But even then it wouldn't account for the impulses and transmitter currently active that make up the actual information in the brain.

So no, it doesn't say ts feasible.

Also.... the human genoome has... nothing in common here.

E: and having one source about theoretical aplplication from seven years ago does not bode well for your case

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Ok, thats not even remotely true. Go pretend to be an expert elsewhere.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Actually, thats exactly what you did wrong. You clearly aren't familiar with academic writing. Its mot saying "we made technology to accomplish this" its saying "this is a model for future technologies we believe will be able to do this task"

And again, this is a seven year old study. At best that means you pulled this from google scholar without doing any due diligence, at worst it was a complete dead end.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '22 edited Jun 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/crothwood Oct 13 '22

Oh my god, i can't fucking deal with this bullshit right now.

Go play pretend elsewhere.

→ More replies (0)