CryoNet #32669 - #32675

CryoNet - Sat 26 Jun 2010

    #32669: Re: CryoNet #32665 - #32668 [Gerald Monroe]
    #32670: Retire the destructive scan [Brook Norton]
    #32671: brain preservation [Daniel Crevier]
    #32672: Re: Changing the metaphor [David Stodolsky]
    #32673: Question for Mr. Stodolsky [MARK PLUS]
    #32674: Deletion of Mike Darwin [Charles in Arizona]
    #32675: Re: Cryonet Post 32650 [Melody Maxim]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32669%2D32675

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32669
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:25:23 -0500
Subject: Re: CryoNet #32665 - #32668

--0016367f926c119a6b0489d908e6

>
>
>

Also, current scanners are macroscopic and scan from outside the body.
>  Is there anyone who doubts that future scanners will exploit micro-
> or nanoscopic agents which will non-traumatically scan the body from
> within? The circulatory system -- capillary bed -- provides
> comprehensive, fine-grained access to the most remote areas of the
> body, and that includes the brain.  And if we're dealing with a cryo
> patient, then use bots to clear the bulk perfusate from the
> circulatory system and replace it with say LN2 as a heat sink and
> navigable liquid medium for the bots.
>
> You all get my point, so when addressing the need for a brain scan,
> just leave out the "destructive"" part, will ya?  Please.
>
> Such high end techniques *might *be possible with the limitations set by
physics and available matter.  Cryonics has to limit itself to things that
we are almost certain are possible.  Nanomachines already exist - they are
the proteins in your body.  Every component of your entire body was
assembled from individual atoms through a series of converging processes.
 (your body cannot make every molecular part, bacteria have to do the low
end stuff, but everything was made using molecular manufacturing).

Since we know molecular manufacturing is real, Eric Drexler and others have
proposed ways to actually do it using advanced versions of conventional
technologies.  That's why Dr. Drexler's proposed designs look like
miniaturized versions of STM probes, since we already have these.    We know
a self replicating molecular manufacturing device can exist, because it
already exists in nature, and that human beings will eventually build one if
technology continues to advance.

So cryonics preserves the body in a way that we already can preserve small
living tissues with and revive them, and we propose to resurrect the
patients using improved versions of technology that already exists today or
exists in nature.  This is why cryonics is close to being a science and not
just wishful thinking.

And the 'destructive' nature of the scan really isn't the problem.  However
you get the blueprints, every cell in the brain of a cryonics patient will
probably need to be torn down and rebuilt. (and the body rebuilt from
scratch)  This creates philosophical dilemmas regardless, as it means that a
cryonics patient is 'dead' at the cellular level and every cell has to be
changed in order to revive them.  I suppose for superstitious reasons you
could use the same atoms in the same cells when you are rebuilding the brain
rather than new atoms from the molecular feedstock, but theoretically
there's no difference.

--0016367f926c119a6b0489d908e6

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32669

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32670
From: Brook Norton <[email protected]>
Subject: Retire the destructive scan
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 07:41:43 -0700

Jeff, thanks for pointing out the below scan process...

Excerpt from Jeff Davis post ----------------
Also, current scanners are macroscopic and scan from outside the body.
Is there anyone who doubts that future scanners will exploit micro-
or nanoscopic agents which will non-traumatically scan the body from
within? The circulatory system -- capillary bed -- provides
comprehensive, fine-grained access to the most remote areas of the
body, and that includes the brain.  And if we're dealing with a cryo
patient, then use bots to clear the bulk perfusate from the
circulatory system and replace it with say LN2 as a heat sink and
navigable liquid medium for the bots.
--------- end excerpt ---------------

My mental picture for how revival will happen has just been upgraded to v2.0. Everything about it makes sense.

Brook Norton

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32670

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32671
From: Daniel Crevier <[email protected]>
Subject: brain preservation
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:09:01 -0400

Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I've recently signed Dr. Ken Hayworth's open letter on brain preservation (http://www.brainpreservation.org/index.php?path=letter). In it, Hayworth offers chemical  fixation as an alternative to cryopreservation, and proposes legal and scientific  measures to enhance it.

 

This makes me wonder why we cryonicists are not giving this idea more consideration. Hayworth  claims that his proposed technology (glutaraldehyde perfusion followed by chemical fixation) can be perfected within five years to preserve brain tissue well  enough to allow eventual uploading, although reanimation is less likely. If the claim about uploading is true (and I agree it is an important if),  then the method would have several advantages over cryopreservation.

 

On the practical side, the cost of buying cryostats and periodically replenishing liquid nitrogen  would be eliminated, as well as the danger  of accidental thawing. Yet the marketing advantages might be even more important: I think this technology would be a heck of a lot easier to sell.

 

Due to the work of Gunther von Hagens a related technology, plastination, is already widely  known to the public as an efficient method of body preservation. Von Hagens'  BODY WORLDS  exhibitions have been hosted by museums and venues in more than 50 cities worldwide, attracting  more than 29 million visitors. In order to educate the public about health and anatomy, more  than 10,000 people have agreed to donate their bodies to von Hagen's Institute for Plastination  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastination). In contrast, most people seem to view cryonics  through the "frozen hamburger" objection, initially put forward by cryobiologists. 

 

Speaking of which, cryonics has always suffered active opposition from scientific circles. A different specialty, neuroanatomy, is concerned with chemical fixation of brain tissue. Hayworth's  letter has already been signed by two neuroanatomists (Hayworth himself being one). So adopting chemical fixation might very well be the road to scientific respectability for cryonic organizations.

 

Contrary to cryonics, which has a high tech, horror-movie connotation in the public mind, chemical fixation  could be marketed as simply a sophisticated embalming method. Bodies could be given the  customary religious send-off. Fixated brains and body ashes (or perhaps whole plastinated bodies) could be preserved in a columbarium-like environment where friends and  family could visit and pay their respects. 

 

Last but not least, chemical fixation could overcome the view that "You have to be very selfish (or weird, or a nerd, or a freak) to want to have yourself frozen." Strange as it may seem, downplaying the possibility of revival in exchange for that of brain simulation might actually make the concept easier to sell: it opens the market to those who don't believe in or want revival, and don't accept that the simulation would be "you" (i.e. the overwhelming majority). If the 10,000 anatomical gifts to von Hagen's foundation are any clue, many customers  would adopt the procedure for purely selfless purposes. Hayworth seems  to have realized that, as revival and uploading are last on the list of justifications he offers  in the letter. His first two justifications are to leave behind personal  
 memories and experience for: 

 

a) potential use by future society and 

 

b) to create richer and more meaningful personal histories and personality simulations for our  descendants.

 

So may I suggest that some kind of cooperation may be in order between cryonics organizations and Hayworth's Brain Preservation Foundation?

 

Daniel Crevier, Ph.D.

 

 


 Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32671

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32672
Subject: Re: Changing the metaphor
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:44:05 +0200
References: <[email protected]>

On 25 Jun 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> From: David Stodolsky 
> 
>> There is no evidence that people will remain rational on chemical 
>> fixation. The reason it sells better is because of the difference in price.
> 
>> This proposal doesn't really change the metaphor.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the metaphor changes from "frozen caveman" to "brain
> in a jar". When considering an uninformed public, the latter leaves less
> room for error regarding the fact that advanced science is very much
> anticipated as a part of the reanimation process.

About a third of the uninformed public will avoid any death-related thoughts. Overcoming this requires a totally different, and probably social, metaphor like 'saving your family' or 'reaching the stars'. 

The proposal is one of the many biotech 'solutions' to the marketing of cryonics. However, the survey evidence indicates that such changes will have little, if any, effect on acceptance.

Considering the bad press resulting from neuro cases, I have my doubts as to whether the proposed change is in the  positive direction. 

> 
> Once they make up their mind that cryonics is a scam or  on that basis,
> they are reluctant to move away from the position. 

These kinds of ideas are socially imbedded. People who are members of religious organization don't consider the 'after life,' etc. a scam, even though all scientific knowledge points the other way. So, the proposed change is not likely to have any effect, since it doesn't include the social element. 


dss


David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32672

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32673
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:36:13 -0700
Subject: Question for Mr. Stodolsky
From: MARK PLUS <[email protected]>

Mr. Stodolsky:

After reading your posts for the past several months, I have to ask
the following:

For someone who professes a sophisticated knowledge of social science
and who thinks he can communicate the cryonics idea to the public more
effectively than we've managed so far, why do you have such a hard
time convincing other cryonicists of your special competence in this
area?

In other words, your inability to sell your expertise to us seems to
conflict with your claim that you could sell cryonics to others
currently not disposed towards the idea.

Mark Plus

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32673

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32674
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:37:17 -0700
Subject: Deletion of Mike Darwin
From: Charles in Arizona <[email protected]>

I'm told, fairly reliably, that an anonymous entity is attempting to
delete the Wikipedia entry on Mike Darwin. I have always been annoyed
by Wikipedia's assumption that it owns, or at least controls, the
unauthorized and often inaccurate biographical information about other
people's lives. I tried to delete my own entry a couple of years ago.
If the action to get rid of Darwin's entry is successful, I would ask
the anonymous entity please to get rid of my entry next.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32674

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #32675
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 02:33:44 +0000 (UTC)
From: Melody Maxim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cryonet Post 32650

I believe Cryonet message 32650 (see below) was a perfect description of what has been happening in cryonics, for many decades. A small group of people, who have chosen to mostly ignore proven existing hypothermic technology, in favor of what they believe to be "the most reasonable and optimal option," fail to recognize they have performed poorly. These people, (none of who has been known to have participated in the successful hypothermic suspension of a human being), have chosen to ignore the advice of others, who HAVE actually participated in successful hypothermic arrest cases. I suppose their continued tendency to "grossly overestimate their skills and abilities" can be attributed to their "inflated self-appraisals."

That was a great quote...thanks.


X-Message-Number: 32650
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:36:19 -0700
Subject: competence
From: Charles in Arizona < [email protected] >

From "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's
Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" by Justin KRUGER,
David DUNNING, 1999.

"We believe focusing on the metacognitive deficits of the unskilled
may help explain this overall tendency toward inflated
self-appraisals. Because people usually choose what they think is the
most reasonable and optimal option (Metcalfe, 1998), the failure to
recognize that one has performed poorly will instead leave one to
assume that one has performed well. As a result, the incompetent will
tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities."
__

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge 

--Charles Darwin 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32675

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************