I’m just saying, i know IQ is a common measurement, and that it’s directly correlated with work. I’ve not seen that many comparison between IQ and machine intelligence in subs, certainly not low “IQ”. Even though the comparison is true, it’s still “offensive” to some cuz there’s discriminatory undertones to it. Like you said, taking the “slice of a 70IQ brain”, bruh, you could’ve made any other example. Like just a repetitive task, or taking the slice of a simple program that does the same thing over and over again.

But it’s still a human, you just said “lowest working human”, why lowest? Why 70IQ? Just say factory worker, even a repetitive one, I’m not denying that repetitive simple jobs usually have people that aren’t good at complex tasking or of particular intelligence, but still, no need to bring IQ into this, that’s kinda rude. It’s like saying “Just need an AI who can do a repetitive task like a cashier with Down Syndrome’s.”

“70IQ factory worker's brain”

Bruh, disrespectful, you had to compare it to a human being?

The ones I talk to about it, who unanimously don't want to cryonify, seem to be morally objected to it, but they don't know explicitly that they are morally objected to it. It's not really morals. It's more like an ill-defined value system that hasn't been examined . Like I've heard "well it's just weird. I mean it's not natural you know." Yeah I do know, the natural thing is dying, which I'm not into.

It just seems like a value judgment because most people don't explore or think about the fact that they're going to die all the time. Like I expect many cryonicists actually do. I bet that most people in our group are thinking oh boy, I don't want to die and I think of that all the time and that's why cryonics is like. Hey, maybe you won't. Yeah, maybe he's good enough for me. That sounds like a pretty good reason to try something that works on other organisms. Sure.

But if you've never thought about that and if you've grown up with either a religious upbringing where there is supposedly a guaranteed afterlife or you are just brought up where you've seen your grandma and grandpa die and then someone when you were younger told you that this is the way of life. This is the natural thing you are born. You grow old and die. Then most people I think have a very permanent view of life and death.

They think all right. Well I'm going to get old and die and there's nothing I can do. And if you say well there might be something you can do. Everyone will think you're crazy because you're speaking outside of their fish bowl.

You're giving someone perspective. What is a concrete reality in their mind? You're trying to convince them that it is a more malleable concept.

As technology develops, it'll become less antithetical to people. You know you couldn't explain what a bullet train was going to be to someone living 200 years ago. They'd be like look. I know horses, horses don't go that fast and you'd be like no no, this is not a horse. It's totally different. This is a new thing. They wouldn't believe you, but now everyone knows what a bullet train is.

Before germs were scientifically pinpointed it was whatever your particular folk story was. There was a demon in you that day or it was an ill wind that made you act a certain way and now we're all like. Oh yeah it's germs.

With death people think. Oh yeah that's death. I know what that is. That's that thing where you stop, it's that solid wall that is inevitable that everything living hits at some point, but it isn't that at qleast I don't think it is. I think it's a series of mechanical biological processes that deteriorate slowly until they cease functioning all together but they don't have to.

Heat death? As we get a better understanding of the universe, each new step takes more and more resources. 150 years ago a single physicist or astronomer could on their own still make a world-changing discovery. Now, most major research is done by large groups working together. In the case of particle physics, the research involves literally the largest machines any humans have ever built. And the discoveries are getting smaller. Once one has the basic idea of evolution and DNA, and how RNA functions, in some sense what remains in biology, while quite interesting, just aren't as large or as amazing questions, even if their answers may have a lot of important applications and will continue to help us understand life. And one sees some of this issue also in where practical engineering has gone with science also- between 1885 and 1910 you have the first practical cars, the first radio and the first airplanes. People often like to say were in the midst of a technological revolution, but the turn of that century was far closer to that. Now, while we still have game-changing technologies, they aren't coming as fast. We may be moving into a long plateau.

We absolutely cannot decrease the entropy of a closed system. It's (almost) physically impossible. But it doesn't seem implausible that future engineers might be able to build machines that are efficient enough to approximate processes with zero net entropy increase. Perhaps they could get close enough for all intents and purposes? That's science. Heat death of the universe is what matches the data we have at this moment the best. We might get new data tomorrow.