We Have to Start to Think About Eternity

[arebelspy]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

[forummm]

To die seems to me a big giant waste. All that knowledge and ability then at the sieze of your heart it all goes poof! Imagine if some of the ancient scientists could have been cryonized! No more having to rediscover a bunch of theories and ideas, no dark ages, someone around to remind people that certain past actions result in folly. I for one am glad people are working on this and have made it known to people since childhood that I want to live forever. I can't imagine a more human thing. Why would anyone wish to end learning, experiencing, loving and being loved, growing and exploring.

Surely there is some loss when some people die. But people are born in a particular era and grow up looking at life a particular way and get set in their particular way of thinking. It can be a huge benefit to society to have those people no longer hanging around criticizing new ways of thinking that are better simply because they are different. Much science (and social progress) has been hampered by the old guard shooting down the upstarts with their new ideas. And the old guard tends to have much greater power and influence. Death can be very healthy for human progress.

[Doubleh]

I found the article interesting as a likely atheist who had previously thought that people chosing cryonics were demonstrating an almost juvenile inability to accept the reality of life. But I guess you could say the same of using a defibrillator.

I'm not sure I'd say I would do cryonics now, but I certainly understand better why someone would choose to. A couple of important points from the article for me regarding the why as opposed to the how were:

- if it doesn't work you'll never find out so you've lost nothing beyond the Financial cost which with life insurance is actually pretty manageable
- By definition any future society which both has the technology to bring you back and the motivation to actually do so seems likely to be a pretty interesting place to be
- If you do come back and really don't like it hit should still be able to check out the old fashioned way.

ARS I'd be very interested to hear what your concerns are which weren't covered in the article?

As to the question of what makes you you, he did cover this in pretty good depth in an earlier post that should make good reading

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/12/what-makes-you-you.html

[Eowyn_MI]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

Starting from zero: yes, there is a 50/50 chance
Starting with what I know about unicorns: the answer is false

If you are starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as an afterlife then of course you would think that there is not a 50/50 chance of its existence.  If you are starting with the assumption that we don't know (or we can't know for sure) if there is an afterlife then there should be a 50/50 chance of its existence.

[Guses]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

Starting from zero: yes, there is a 50/50 chance
Starting with what I know about unicorns: the answer is false

If you are starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as an afterlife then of course you would think that there is not a 50/50 chance of its existence.  If you are starting with the assumption that we don't know (or we can't know for sure) if there is an afterlife then there should be a 50/50 chance of its existence.

So why do you presume to know Unicorns don't exist but you assume that afterlife does exist? The empirical evidence of their existence is identical.

[shadowmoss]

I can't believe no one has mentioned Robert Heinlein's Time Enough For Love.  This sci-fi novel explores just this thing.  In the book essentially immortal life is accomplished by cloning a person's body and transporting the brain to the new clone at necessary intervals.  This was done by first pre-selecting individuals who had the genes for long life per lifespans of their grandparents, etc.  But enough of the fiction.

One of the key points is that there are large buttons in the facilities that someone could push to die.  Choosing to die was considered a fundamental right.  The rest of the book explores what happens when people have no time limits to their choices.  Excellent book.  Most quotes you have ever read from Heinlein are from this story.  If this stuff interests you, read it.

[Eowyn_MI]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

Starting from zero: yes, there is a 50/50 chance
Starting with what I know about unicorns: the answer is false

If you are starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as an afterlife then of course you would think that there is not a 50/50 chance of its existence.  If you are starting with the assumption that we don't know (or we can't know for sure) if there is an afterlife then there should be a 50/50 chance of its existence.

So why do you presume to know Unicorns don't exist but you assume that afterlife does exist? The empirical evidence of their existence is identical.

I disagree that the evidence for their existence is identical.

If you have evidence that unicorns exist, I would love to see it.  I am open to changing my mind on this topic.  I think that unicorns would be awesome!  Especially if they speak in English like in The Last Battle. However, the sum of the knowledge that I have gained so far in life tells me that they currently don't exist here on earth.

I think that there is valid evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  If you don't think so, that's fine too.  Here is a question: Are you open to changing your mind on this subject?  (i.e. Is there any type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of an afterlife?)

[Northwestie]

We're a speck of carbon in the wider universe.  When we've gone - that's it.  The stories humans have made up to help them deal with uncertainty are interesting.  If you believe it and feel you need it -- that's cool.

I'm pretty amazed with the limited time I have on the blue rock and glad that advances in medicine have extended my time here with family and friends, to get out and climb and ski,  and be astonished by the natural world.

[Guses]

I disagree that the evidence for their existence is identical.

If you have evidence that unicorns exist, I would love to see it.  I am open to changing my mind on this topic.  I think that unicorns would be awesome!  Especially if they speak in English like in The Last Battle. However, the sum of the knowledge that I have gained so far in life tells me that they currently don't exist here on earth.

I think that there is valid evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  If you don't think so, that's fine too.  Here is a question: Are you open to changing your mind on this subject?  (i.e. Is there any type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of an afterlife?)

Do you have examples of this evidence? Are you referring to stories or "experience" written by people of the past? If so, the Unicorn is also a prolific subject of mythology and of past people's "experiences".

I would love to change my mind on the subject. It would totally be awesome if my great grandfather could be reincarnated in a frog and then back into a human and then tell me about it in such a way that I would know it is him.
 

[Northwestie]

That's a hard path to try and walk.  Science and faith are not compatible items.

[I'm a red panda]

I'm really curious where all these bodies go if everyone gets frozen.  And then where they all go when everyone gets unfrozen....

[arebelspy]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

Starting from zero: yes, there is a 50/50 chance
Starting with what I know about unicorns: the answer is false

If you are starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as an afterlife then of course you would think that there is not a 50/50 chance of its existence.  If you are starting with the assumption that we don't know (or we can't know for sure) if there is an afterlife then there should be a 50/50 chance of its existence.

So why do you presume to know Unicorns don't exist but you assume that afterlife does exist? The empirical evidence of their existence is identical.

I disagree that the evidence for their existence is identical.

If you have evidence that unicorns exist, I would love to see it.  I am open to changing my mind on this topic.  I think that unicorns would be awesome!  Especially if they speak in English like in The Last Battle. However, the sum of the knowledge that I have gained so far in life tells me that they currently don't exist here on earth.

I think that there is valid evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  If you don't think so, that's fine too.  Here is a question: Are you open to changing your mind on this subject?  (i.e. Is there any type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of an afterlife?)

I think there's as much evidence for unicorns (or possibly more) as there is for something of a person's intelligence/consciousness existing after their brain activity has ceased, and never starts again.

What scientific evidence do you have for existence of an afterlife (something from someone that had brain activity cease and never start again)?

[forummm]

I'm really curious where all these bodies go if everyone gets frozen.  And then where they all go when everyone gets unfrozen....

There's a lot of empty land in the world. And a lot of people would just be taking up some of that land when they died anyway--in a cemetery.

[I'm a red panda]

I'm really curious where all these bodies go if everyone gets frozen.  And then where they all go when everyone gets unfrozen....

There's a lot of empty land in the world. And a lot of people would just be taking up some of that land when they died anyway--in a cemetery.

A lot fewer people go into cemeteries than they used to, and a lot of cities are running out of space for them.  Plus, I imagine some energy source is needed to keep these things frozen, so it becomes a lot more complicated than a cemetery. If they need to be there for a thousand years before the technology advances to defrost them, that's a heck of a lot of bodies. As is, a cemetery from 100-200 years ago is pretty likely to be paved over, for instance.

I'm also curious about what becomes of the people when they defrost. I assume their assets could no longer be handed down, instead waiting for them, so like Fry, they'd probably have a shit-ton of money available (assuming the economy worked correctly and things compounded, rather than currencies completely disappearing and changing, which seems more likely); but the whole economy of inheritance would have to change greatly.  When these people come back- where do they live? How do they integrate back into society?

I just don't see it working.

[big_owl]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

[matchewed]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

Two very different things. Humanity has been a steady example of efforts in achieving some semblance of immortality, can't say the same for your impending baldness.

AKA false equivalency.

[arebelspy]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

Didn't read the article, huh?  :)

This isn't about immortality, but suspending yourself in a state to when we can cure whatever was killing you.  Don't you think our medical care will be much better in a few hundred years?  Lifespans longer?  Think about the vast medical changes in the last hundred years.

Immortality doesn't come into it until much later.

If we were talking about Ray Kurzweil or something, who actually does think we'll achieve immortality in the next few decades, that would be a valid criticism.

[big_owl]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

Didn't read the article, huh?  :)

This isn't about immortality, but suspending yourself in a state to when we can cure whatever was killing you.  Don't you think our medical care will be much better in a few hundred years?  Lifespans longer?  Think about the vast medical changes in the last hundred years.

Immortality doesn't come into it until much later.

If we were talking about Ray Kurzweil or something, who actually does think we'll achieve immortality in the next few decades, that would be a valid criticism.

Yes I did.  There's been a rash of articles recently on the news sites about immortality.  This is similar.  Suspended animation keeping me alive for hundreds of years when they can't even keep my hair from falling out?  It's BS.

[arebelspy]

It doesn't keep you alive.  It puts you in a state where you don't decay.

Even if we can't put you in that state and take you out today (which we can't), they're saying they can get into that state today, and think we will be able to take you out of it at some point in the future.

I may have other issues with it, but I don't find that idea particularly unbelievable.

[big_owl]

It doesn't keep you alive.  It puts you in a state where you don't decay.

Even if we can't put you in that state and take you out today (which we can't), they're saying they can get into that state today, and think we will be able to take you out of it at some point in the future.

I may have other issues with it, but I don't find that idea particularly unbelievable.

They still can't keep my hair from falling out.  They're not going to be reanimating me any time soon, or keeping me alive or reversing my aging or uploading my brain to some software polis.  Or freezing my head, that one's been around forever. 

Today I still can't go and get any treatment to slow my aging, I can't take any pills to grow all my hair back, hell I can't even get an infection cured properly. 

So far these are all just like cold fusion...right around the corner.  And I have a litmus test, if the news story is on dailymail.co.uk then it's even more BS (I had previously read the thread's article linked through Drudge to dailymail) . 

About the only one of these fad stories I believe we are closing in on is VR porn with robots.  But since science can't get the aging thing down I'll be too old to care by the time it's mainstream.

[arebelspy]

Again, everything you say is true, but irrelevant.

For example:

They still can't keep my hair from falling out.

No, they can't.

They're not going to be reanimating me any time soon, or keeping me alive or reversing my aging or uploading my brain to some software polis.

No, they aren't going to be doing any of those four things soon.

They don't claim to.  They think, however, that someday we may be able to do those things.  It may be a long time from now. 

Again, I don't find that claim particularly astonishing.

[Eowyn_MI]

I disagree that the evidence for their existence is identical.

If you have evidence that unicorns exist, I would love to see it.  I am open to changing my mind on this topic.  I think that unicorns would be awesome!  Especially if they speak in English like in The Last Battle. However, the sum of the knowledge that I have gained so far in life tells me that they currently don't exist here on earth.

I think that there is valid evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  If you don't think so, that's fine too.  Here is a question: Are you open to changing your mind on this subject?  (i.e. Is there any type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of an afterlife?)

Do you have examples of this evidence? Are you referring to stories or "experience" written by people of the past? If so, the Unicorn is also a prolific subject of mythology and of past people's "experiences".

I would love to change my mind on the subject. It would totally be awesome if my great grandfather could be reincarnated in a frog and then back into a human and then tell me about it in such a way that I would know it is him.

Yes, I am referring to stories or knowledge written by people of the past and present.  Most people (past and present) would agree that the existence of the Unicorn is a myth.  Billions of people (past and present) would not agree that the existence of eternity/an afterlife is a myth.  Sure, it is possible that they could all be wrong.  However, if you really don't see a difference between these two, then I do not have any evidence for you.

[Eowyn_MI]

To me, it seems like a true or false, 0 or 1, on or off situation.

"You can guess the number I'm thinking of" is a true or false, on or off situation.

But okay, how about this one:
There is a unicorn in my bathroom right now.

True or false.  Is there a 50/50 chance it's true/false?

Starting from zero: yes, there is a 50/50 chance
Starting with what I know about unicorns: the answer is false

If you are starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as an afterlife then of course you would think that there is not a 50/50 chance of its existence.  If you are starting with the assumption that we don't know (or we can't know for sure) if there is an afterlife then there should be a 50/50 chance of its existence.

So why do you presume to know Unicorns don't exist but you assume that afterlife does exist? The empirical evidence of their existence is identical.

I disagree that the evidence for their existence is identical.

If you have evidence that unicorns exist, I would love to see it.  I am open to changing my mind on this topic.  I think that unicorns would be awesome!  Especially if they speak in English like in The Last Battle. However, the sum of the knowledge that I have gained so far in life tells me that they currently don't exist here on earth.

I think that there is valid evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  If you don't think so, that's fine too.  Here is a question: Are you open to changing your mind on this subject?  (i.e. Is there any type of evidence that would convince you of the existence of an afterlife?)

I think there's as much evidence for unicorns (or possibly more) as there is for something of a person's intelligence/consciousness existing after their brain activity has ceased, and never starts again.

What scientific evidence do you have for existence of an afterlife (something from someone that had brain activity cease and never start again)?

Science is really good at explaining things that are observable, measurable and repeatable.  The concept of eternity/an afterlife is none of those things.  It is not observable because it happens after death.  Therefore, I would not expect to find any scientific evidence for the existence of an afterlife.  This is why I asked if there was any other type of knowledge that you would trust.  Why do you want scientific evidence? 

[arebelspy]

What other type of evidence do you mean, if it's non-scientific?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

A story is not evidence of something.  We have stories of Zeus, but I don't consider that evidence for the existence of the God of Thunder.

Is there anything besides stories/myths that people believe are real, that may indicate the existence of an afterlife?

Whether or not an afterlife exists, I won't state positively, but I feel pretty confident in stating I know of no evidence for one.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

FWIW, Time put out an interesting piece:  'The Surprising Link Between Dreams and Faith'.  It references 'Big Dreams:  The Science of Dreaming and the Origins of Religion' by Kelly Bulkeley.

It’s easy to assume that dreams are nothing but neural nonsense: a series of random scenes and images, with few discernible health benefits, that distract us while we sleep. But modern neuroscience tells a different story–namely, that dreams can prime us to be spiritual, in one form or another.

To understand why, it helps to understand what happens to our bodies when we dream. Though we may not be physically conscious during sleep, at times our brains remain extremely active, especially in the networks responsible for visual imagination, emotional memories and instinctual responses.

These are the elements that characterize what psychologist C.G. Jung called “big dreams”: intense, memorable experiences such as magical flying, visitations from the dead, nightmares of demonic attack and lucid dreams of higher consciousness. And such dreams are fairly common. My research with the Sleep and Dream Database has found, for instance, that about half of American adults (51% of women; 38% of men) say they’ve had at least one visitation dream, and well over half (75% of women; 68% of men) say they’ve had one involving lucid self-awareness.

Science may not be able to prove the existence of God or the gods. But it can prove that, for many people, dreams offer a way to expand their sense of reality and attain a higher level of being–not unlike religion.

[Eowyn_MI]

What other type of evidence do you mean, if it's non-scientific?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

A story is not evidence of something.  We have stories of Zeus, but I don't consider that evidence for the existence of the God of Thunder.

Is there anything besides stories/myths that people believe are real, that may indicate the existence of an afterlife?

Whether or not an afterlife exists, I won't state positively, but I feel pretty confident in stating I know of no evidence for one.

Stories of eye witnesses are presented in a court of law as part of the evidence.  Humans communicate through stories.  In my experience, the best public speakers always use stories to get their point across.  Unless if you personally do the empirical research then you are believing the story (as presented in the research paper) of whatever scientist did do the research.  Since we don't have enough time in this life to figure out everything empirically we have to choose what stories to believe.

[Guses]

What other type of evidence do you mean, if it's non-scientific?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

A story is not evidence of something.  We have stories of Zeus, but I don't consider that evidence for the existence of the God of Thunder.

Is there anything besides stories/myths that people believe are real, that may indicate the existence of an afterlife?

Whether or not an afterlife exists, I won't state positively, but I feel pretty confident in stating I know of no evidence for one.

Stories of eye witnesses are presented in a court of law as part of the evidence.  Humans communicate through stories.  In my experience, the best public speakers always use stories to get their point across.  Unless if you personally do the empirical research then you are believing the story (as presented in the research paper) of whatever scientist did do the research.  Since we don't have enough time in this life to figure out everything empirically we have to choose what stories to believe.

Not too long ago, the entire population of the Earth all believed that the planet was flat and that you would fall off the edge if you traveled too far in one direction. Surely all these people could not be wrong! They had nice little stories to explain it too!

[matchewed]

What other type of evidence do you mean, if it's non-scientific?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

A story is not evidence of something.  We have stories of Zeus, but I don't consider that evidence for the existence of the God of Thunder.

Is there anything besides stories/myths that people believe are real, that may indicate the existence of an afterlife?

Whether or not an afterlife exists, I won't state positively, but I feel pretty confident in stating I know of no evidence for one.

Stories of eye witnesses are presented in a court of law as part of the evidence.  Humans communicate through stories.  In my experience, the best public speakers always use stories to get their point across.  Unless if you personally do the empirical research then you are believing the story (as presented in the research paper) of whatever scientist did do the research.  Since we don't have enough time in this life to figure out everything empirically we have to choose what stories to believe.

Also much to the original idea of unicorns, why are they not possible to exist as there are stories of them?

[mrpercentage]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

[MOD EDIT: Game of Thrones Spoilers below.] 

Spoiler: show

You obviously didn't watch the Red Woman take her necklass off.

[MOD EDIT: We have spoiler tags for a reason.] 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

[MOD EDIT: Game of Throne spoilers below.] 

Spoiler: show

You obviously didn't watch the Red Woman take her necklass off.

[MOD EDIT: We have spoiler tags for a reason.] 

[MOD EDIT: Game of Throne spoilers below.] 

Spoiler: show

OK, so with as cryptic as this post was, I went to the internets.  Apparently the GoT writers had hoped viewers would be thoroughly preoccupied with boobs.  Might've worked before this...  But to be honest, immortality of the sort we should be considering has nothing to do with limitations like balding (there are plenty of bald guys who have gone on to successful movie careers, as well as balding politicians which are combing over their issues).  I just hope, in my small posting on a seldom visited corner of the internet, that people consider what it could mean to them if immortality becomes reality in our lifetime...

[big_owl]

I'm sick of reading about all this immortality bullshit lately.  And that's all it is, bullshit.  For Christ's sake, we still haven't come up with a way to prevent, yet alone cure my slowly balding head of hair.  And you're gonna tell me we're right around the corner from immortality?  My ass we are...

[MOD EDIT: Game of Thrones Spoilers below.] 

Spoiler: show

You obviously didn't watch the Red Woman take her necklass off.

[MOD EDIT: We have spoiler tags for a reason.]

Naturally I don't have cable TV, yet alone pay for HBO. I searched the internets for some meme about this but couldn't come up with anything. 

[Leisured]

I am surprised at the number of posters who grossly overestimate the how much science knows about the possibility of an afterlife. Science knows a lot about our world, but knows nothing – nothing about an afterlife.  We cannot even the estimate the odds of some form of afterlife, so the odds are 50:50.

The boundaries of scientific knowledge expand all the time. There was a time when people believed that all swans were white – until black swans were seen in Western Australia. Radio waves were unknown until about 1850, and radioactivity unknown until about 1890. None of these phenomena has any connection with an afterlife, if it exists, but it is possible that what we now regard as supernatural might become natural in the future.

A baby in the womb thinks that the womb is all there is. Where is the evidence that there is anything else? Then the baby is born into a much larger world.

Get the drift?

[matchewed]

Binary setup != 50/50 odds necessarily.

While I agree that science has not explained everything I personally think that there has to be some nods given to what is reasonable. Unicorns don't exist, we can say that with some certainty even if science has yet to show that they do. If I continue to believe in the easter bunny because science has nothing to say about the easter bunny you'd probably think I'm pretty weird.

See the difference between the radio waves and afterlife is that there is a phenomenon which is detectable with radio waves. When you provide a phenomenon which is detectable that "proves" an afterlife I'll be willing to change my tune.

Note this says nothing about faith. Faith is an altogether different creature than knowledge.

[arebelspy]

We cannot even the estimate the odds of some form of afterlife, so the odds are 50:50.

You'll have to explain to me how you went in the same sentence from "cannot even estimate" to giving an exact answer.

[Allen Farlow]

Someone asked me once, "How do you know God exists?"

I replied, " Well, how do you know your great-great-great grandfather existed? Have you ever met him? How did you get here? All you know is what you've been told about him, perhaps you've seen old photos of someone somebody told you was your great-great-great- grandfather but how do you know they told you the truth?"

Some have trouble believing that God created us. I have the same trouble believing that we morphed from salamanders in the mud to what we are today.

[big_owl]

What's the universe and how was that created?  Ugh it makes my brain tired after a long day at work.

[Northwestie]

Someone asked me once, "How do you know God exists?"

I replied, " Well, how do you know your great-great-great grandfather existed? Have you ever met him? How did you get here? All you know is what you've been told about him, perhaps you've seen old photos of someone somebody told you was your great-great-great- grandfather but how do you know they told you the truth?"

Some have trouble believing that God created us. I have the same trouble believing that we morphed from salamanders in the mud to what we are today.

Science is based on the concept that as more knowledge is gained one is willing to adapt conclusions based on the evidence.  Faith, in contrast, is the blind acceptance of an orthodoxy no matter what evidence is presented.

There is no evidence for faith.  Which is how that term is defined.

[markbike528CBX]

....  I read this primer on Cryonics (http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html) and began to realize the choice we must make as the Human race.  ....

Ultimately, we are deciding between being human, or being something else.  And the sooner we realize that we are headed toward a choice, the better prepared we will hopefully be.
....

I would prefer to think of cryonics  as a very individual choice.

the article has the "upload" option as only one of several possibilities.   Of course on awakening, you'll find out which one became reality.

Scifi has extensively and entertainingly explored this issue.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpsicle
I've read all the Niven stories.   Thanks to the poster who reminded me of the cryonics scenes in Time enough fo Love.

[Guses]

Some have trouble believing that God created us. I have the same trouble believing that we morphed from salamanders in the mud to what we are today.

Sorry, can't take you seriously now. Creationists are as relevant as Flat Earthers in 2016...

[Allen Farlow]

Creationists will always be relevant. ;)

If people freeze their bodies in the belief that they will be thawed and brought back to life in a year when their ailments can be cured, assuming that can actually happen without adverse side effects, what do you think will be the effect upon Social Security (again, assuming it still exists when they are reanimated)?

As it stands today these 'medical advances' are resulting in longer lifespans, which in turn results in more people living longer and using resources that are already stressed by the people who are not passing away as they would have without such medical advances.

[arebelspy]

If people freeze their bodies in the belief that they will be thawed and brought back to life in a year when their ailments can be cured, assuming that can actually happen without adverse side effects, what do you think will be the effect upon Social Security (again, assuming it still exists when they are reanimated)?

I don't expect money to be nearly as relevant at some future point, personally.

[Guses]

Creationists will always be relevant. ;)

If people freeze their bodies in the belief that they will be thawed and brought back to life in a year when their ailments can be cured, assuming that can actually happen without adverse side effects, what do you think will be the effect upon Social Security (again, assuming it still exists when they are reanimated)?

As it stands today these 'medical advances' are resulting in longer lifespans, which in turn results in more people living longer and using resources that are already stressed by the people who are not passing away as they would have without such medical advances.

First of all, people are vitrified, not frozen. Freezing tissues would damage them. Vitrifying them does not (at least not to the same extent).

Second, how is social security even an issue? In a world where we are so advanced that we are not only able to resuscitate and cure vitrified people, but we also have the resources and the willpower to do it, your concern is the impact that this will have on social security?! In such a society, social security would be as much of an irrelevant relic of the past as feudalism is today.

Thirdly, not too sure why you used quotes on "medical advances" do you also not believe in modern medicine?

Finally, as a Creationist, the obvious answer to your initial question (and any question really) is god. So there you go. If god wants us to have social security in the future, he will make it so. Otherwise, it will not have been meant to be...

[Leisured]

If you do not like odds of 50:50 that there are other realms beyond this one, ARS, then I will restrict myself to saying that the odds are unknown. Unicorns, if they exist, will exist in this world, and are irrelevant to what we have been discussing.

It is important to understand that an afterlife - if any - need not be as described by Dante or Milton, and that celestial beings – if any – need not be a creator God.

I have seen the suggestion that if God – or celestial beings – do not exist, then they could evolve.

Which leads to my next point. Life often improves its environment. Photosynthesising organisms produce oxygen as a by-product, and unwittingly benefitted higher forms of life. When plants colonised the early land on Earth, their roots stabilised the ground, thus dramatically reducing erosion, and microbes turned earth into soil. Rabbits dig burrows and birds build nests. North America is much better to live in now because of the efforts of generations of European settlers.

The next step is immortality, either in this world, or beyond. Beyond may be a realm of spirit, or it may be material, but better. The idea of parallel universes goes back over a hundred years, and H G Wells used the idea in his 1922 novel Men Like Gods. The Fermi Paradox may come about because once advanced aliens reach a certain stage of technical development, they find a way to migrate to a better parallel universe, or to a spiritual realm. That is why we do not observe alien spacecraft flitting through our skies, although I know there are other explanations.

Cryonics is an attempt to gain an extended life in the same body, but improved, in this world, in the future. It is a form of reincarnation.

The late British astronomer and science fiction writer Fred Hoyle wrote a novel Black Cloud which proposed a sentient interstellar gas cloud which aimed itself at our Sun and wrapped itself around it to get energy. Hindus are likely to accept such a gas cloud as a celestial being, and would point out that such a celestial being, while ostensibly immortal, still depends on the universe, and will die if the universe dies.

[Gone]

I would put more money on life extension in this day and time being completely successful than I would on there being an entity that fits the description of the Christian God, and that's from a Christian, mind you.  But in either case, I don't see either one as anything to worry about. I can't afford any form of possible life extension like cryonics or vitrification right now so it's sort of like asking which Tesla I'd like to pay for today. And God isn't going to be bothered by much whether he's there or not.

Instead of worrying about Eternity, I'll try to make sure today is good, plan for tomorrow to be better, work so that next year will work, and take everything one resource at a time. It's not like I'll be doing things different if I end up living forever. Forever only gets you one day at a time.

[arebelspy]

I can't afford any form of possible life extension like cryonics or vitrification right now so it's sort of like asking which Tesla I'd like to pay for today.

It costs about $300/yr. (for the membership and life insurance to cover the costs when you die).  I think almost anyone could find $25/mo in their budget if they wanted.

[ender]

Science is based on the concept that as more knowledge is gained one is willing to adapt conclusions based on the evidence.  Faith, in contrast, is the blind acceptance of an orthodoxy no matter what evidence is presented.

There is no evidence for faith.  Which is how that term is defined.

The interesting thing to me is your underlying unshakable faith in science and the scientific method (and by extension, empiricism).

[Gone]

I can't afford any form of possible life extension like cryonics or vitrification right now so it's sort of like asking which Tesla I'd like to pay for today.

It costs about $300/yr. (for the membership and life insurance to cover the costs when you die).  I think almost anyone could find $25/mo in their budget if they wanted.

That's insurance. I said life extension. I could take a loan out if I wanted to buy a Tesla right this second. Same with life insurance for life extension.

[arebelspy]

I don't think I follow you.  Define life extension.

[Gone]

Life extension is a procedure that costs between 80-200,000 dollars. Insurance is a method used to pay for such a procedure by people who do not have 80-200,000 dollars lying around by taking out a policy for the requisite amount then spending the rest of their life paying for that policy. It is a method that I find less effective than simply earning the money.

When I say I "can't afford life extension," I don't mean I can't go out and apply for insurance. I mean I do not have 80-200,000 dollars lying around that I could put to life extension of any kind. Taking the insurance method out of it, life extension is simply outside of my budget range. If I want it and I refuse to do the insurance method, I simply have to save for it.

[arebelspy]

Alright then.

I can afford the whole thing, and I'd still take the life insurance method, because I think it's more mathematically optimal (not that their actuaries are wrong, but that my rate of returns are higher)--the same reason I keep low, fixed rate mortgages, even though I could pay them off.