CryoNet #33038 - #33042

CryoNet - Mon 8 Nov 2010

    #33038: Re: CryoNet #33036 - #33037 [Gerald Monroe]
    #33039: Nano-swimmers / nanomachines [Jens Rabis]
    #33040: Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation [David Stodolsky]
    #33041: Re: CryoNet #33036 - #33037 [J Coetzee MSc]
    #33042: October 2010 Cryonics Symposium in Germany [benbest]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33038%2D33042

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.

Since all CryoNet messages are archived and accessible via WWW,
including search engines, make certain that your postings
reflect how you want the world to see you.

To retrieve past messages, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the message numbers in the subject line.
(Message 0003 describes the advanced syntax.)
You also can retrieve them via the CryoNet web page at URL:
    http://www.cryonet.org/

For administrative or other questions/suggestions, send email
to me at "[email protected]" with "cryonics" in the subject line.
    - Kevin Q. Brown


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

Message #33038
References: <[email protected]>
From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 06:30:14 -0600
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33036 - #33037

--00163630f0e993bb92049475ac86

Perry : for the repair task to ever complete it has to happen faster than
cosmic rays damage what you are working on.  There is such a thing as "too
slow".  Also, how could you test or validate a process that takes a century?

  Even if you could construct "free floating" nanomachines capable of
operating while immersed in liquid nitrogen, how would you get the data out
of them?  You'll need a gigantic computer with enough memory to store a
compressed form of an atomic map of every single atom.  (well, you probably
would run compression filters at the very start of the process on the
incoming data, but it would still need ridiculous amounts of memory)
Nanobots working alone probably cannot have enough intelligence to make
meaningful repairs within the laws of physics.  And THIS law is a basic
assumption : that you cannot make a computing element out of anything
smaller than clusters of a few atoms each)

 When I say "gigantic", I mean in capabilities compared to the current state
of the art.   With molecular circuitry, which you would have the ability to
create by definition if you had molecular manufacturing, the computer might
fit in a closet - but it would need to be supplied with many watts of
cooling and power.  (unless you could somehow make "reversible computing"
work but that only works with limited types of algorithms)

Anyways, here's the "base assumption" that a working device might resemble.
 It's how I visualize it, I'm aware there's probably many other ways that
might work better.  The machine's a flat plate, about the size of two human
heads and a few centimeters thick.  It's probably all the same color on the
outside because it's entirely composed of identical repeating blocks of
nanomachinery.  On the edges there are all sorts of data and power and
coolant connections.  At the molecular level the device is composed of many
many trillions of nanoscale parts that can remove chunks of tissue a few
atoms at a time.  The patient is still at the same temperature they were
stored at, but the machine might operate at higher temperatures internally.

Internally the machine can analyze these chunks to determine exactly which
atoms are in each and then the machine then pipes the along along a highway
of molecular conveyer belts to the other side where it reassembles the brain
a chunk at a time.  It also reports to the control computer a compressed
version of the atomic structures it discovers.  Software determines from
analyzing the orientations and densities of the proteins and signalling
molecules the 'state' of each synapse in the brain.  It then corrects the
damage by substituting in to the molecular 'printing pattern' the templates
for cells that we know from experimentation are "known good", except that
these cells will have the consensus DNA sequence of the original patient and
the synaptic states of the original patient.  These cells will have to
survive thawing, so they would probably be reinforced or have temporary
support nanomachinery that would mostly remove itself after you warm up the
brain and have it running again.  You could also insert "boot up code" into
the genomes of each neuron that would cause certain changes to be made after
warming, to further put the neurons closer to the original condition they
were in when the person was alive.

The computational algorithm you would need to do this process would probably
perform many complex decisions that require knowledge of large sections of
the brain's structure.  Repairing a crack, for instance - said crack would
cleave many axons and require some kind of simulation involving billions of
atoms to calculate what the original structure prior to freezing was.  No
way a bot composed of a few hundred thousand atoms and stiff from low
temperature could figure out how to correctly fix a crack, unless there are
properties of matter we are unaware of.  Not to mention - how would the bot
eliminate the waste products it would produce?  Any energy-using device must
emit waste of higher entropy than the starting materials.  Not a good idea
to poop out waste while floating in the middle of a brain you are trying to
fix, whether that waste is heat or chemicals.

 This process, in order to create a working brain that is not afflicted by
all the biochemical changes caused by death, will have to make many many
changes.  Some information will be lost.  For ethical reasons, we could do
the process in 2 passes through this machine (the first pass gets the atomic
map but just creates the brain again like it was and the second rebuilds
everything with healthy neurons).   We could also store a copy of how the
brain was originally so that as technology advances more information could
be extracted from it.

I think the most accurate revivals could be done by using the synaptic
mappings to create emulated minds that run on molecular computing hardware
at millions of times faster than current human thought.  I would guess that
if you could even poorly copy a few scientists this way, they could solve
the more complex problems very well with a million years of time to consider
the problem for every year on earth.  These super-intelligent beings would
probably be able to fully extract nearly all of the information contained in
an atomic map of a person's brain, and make a version of the person
indistinguishable from the original.

Regarding cost - building a single instances of one of these machines would
be cheap.  While an end use device like this might be too specialized to
self replicate, molecular manufacturing equipment will be able to copy
itself, making additional copies cost very little.    All the cost is in
building copy number 1.

This is also why it probably won't matter much for those rich folks
considering cryonics whether their wealth is kept in trust to be 'used only
for them' or 'diluted' among all of the patients.  It's also hard to imagine
how standard investments would hold their value in a world that has
molecular manufacturing.

This is also why putting the majority of the funds into the Patient Care
Trust for keeping the patients frozen makes the most sense.  In a century
from now, when molecular manufacturing is available and it is obvious that
repair of cryonically frozen humans is practical, there would be enormous
pressure to develop the technology.  All those billions of people living
then would want medical care that could bring them back no matter what.
 With any luck, after developing the tech for common use they would use it
on those dusty old cryostats containing their sloppily frozen ancestors.
 (by the standards of a century from now)

--00163630f0e993bb92049475ac86

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

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33038

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

Message #33039
From: "Jens Rabis" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Nano-swimmers / nanomachines
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 17:57:28 +0100

Hi Cryonauten,


who can give up his memories, recycles itself with nanomachines.
This also works after(!) the thawing to mush. 
That would be then none ethically problematic cloning.

Keywords: metamorphosis
Example Photo: http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/Bio/wandlungen1.jpg

***************

wer auf seine Erinnerungen verzichten kann, recycelt sich mit Nanomaschinen.
Das funktioniert auch nach(!) dem Auftauen zu Matsch. Das ware dann kein
ethisch problematisches Klonen.

Stichwort: Metamorphose
Beispielfoto: http://www.wellermanns.de/Gerhard/images/Bio/wandlungen1.jpg

Best greetings
Jens Rabis
Germany-Berlin



-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im
Auftrag von CryoNet
Gesendet: Sonntag, 7. November 2010 11:00
An: [email protected]
Betreff: CryoNet #33036 - #33037

CryoNet - Sun 7 Nov 2010

    #33036: Re: Nano-swimmers [benbest]
    #33037: nanomachines [Perry E. Metzger]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33036%2D33037

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 #33036
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 09:25:56 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nano-swimmers

   Ben Best wrote:

> Neither a desktop nanofactory nor glucose
> oxidation can adequately explain how
> untethered nanobots could operate at
> cryogenic temperatures.

Freeposity wrote:

> Why would you want to? Certainly you would want to work in  
> temperatures slightly above freezing during restoration work.

  For patients who have been straight-frozen
warming above freezing temperatures will
immediately give "mush" -- just like thawing
frozen strawberries (as so many of our ignorant
critics like to point out). You will actually
start to get "mush" well below freezing
temperatures because salt solutions turn
liquid well below freezing temperature.
Nanobots needing a liquid environment in
which to operate create the paradox that
as soon as a liquid environment becomes
present, broken tissues are subject to
hydrolysis and dissolution, if not chemical
reactions.

   For vitrified patients (or partially
cryoprotected patients) the liquid state
will begin to occur well below -100oC.
Possibly you could do repairs at those
temperatures, but any damaged tissues
will again be subject to dissolution
and drifting-away of fragments.

       -- Ben Best

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33036


Message #33037
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 16:57:54 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email protected]>
Subject: nanomachines
References: <[email protected]>

> From: Gerald Monroe <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 08:54:09 -0500

> >
> >   Neither a desktop nanofactory nor glucose
> > oxidation can adequately explain how
> > untethered nanobots could operate at
> > cryogenic temperatures.

Neither of those assertions is correct.

> We don't need untethered nanobots to bring back the cryonically
> frozen
> patients.  In fact it might not even be possible within the laws of
> physics for untethered nanobots to do the job, because the
> machinery will probably require a large amount of energy and
> coolant to remove waste heat.

Which law of physics would this be specifically? Have you done
calculations here? Can you show the calculations?

I doubt you can show such a thing, since simply by slowing down
operations you can reduce the amount of energy released per unit time
to an arbitrarily low level, and at some point, cooling will be
feasible. If it would take too much energy to do the repair in a week,
then do it in a month, or over a year, or over 100 years -- at some
point, you won't be using enough energy to make cooling
impractical. That's not to say that I think cooling actually would be
impractical even at pretty high throughput, but the assertion here was
even more bold, invoking the "laws of physics" without considering how
simple it would be to get around the proposed objection.


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		[email protected]

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33037


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

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33039

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

Message #33040
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Subject: Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:44:00 +0100

Ph.D. Defendant:
Cand. Med. Vet. Line Olrik Berthelsen
 
Time and Place:
Friday 19 November 2010 at 14:00 p.m. in Lecture Hall A1-01-01 (1-01), Bulowsvej 17, Ground Floor, 1870 Frederiksberg C
 
Subject Area:
Veterinary Hemostasis and Thrombosis
 
Title of PhD Thesis:
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation; Development and Standardization of a non-clinical rabbit Model
 
Title of Lecture:
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation; Development and Standardization of a non-clinical rabbit Model
 
Summary:
The overall hypothesis of the present thesis is that a disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) scoring system can be applied to a rabbit model of thromboplastin induced DIC. This approach could lead to a standardized and clinical relevant animal model of non-overt and overt DIC, which would ease the comparison of findings in animal models of DIC to human DIC in the search of treatment modalities for DIC.
 
Principal Supervisor:
Professor Annemarie Thuri Kristensen, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen
 
Project Supervisor:
Head of Department Mikael Tranholm, Haemostasis Pharmacology, Novo Nordisk A/S
 
Co-Supervisor:
Head of Department Henrik Duelund Pedersen (previous project supervisor) Diabetes Research Unit, Novo Nordisk A/S
 
Preclinical Project Director Niels Chresten Berg Nyborg, Preclinical Development Management Novo Nordisk A/S
 
Head of Department Asger Lundorff Jensen Department of Basic Animal and Veterinary
Science. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen
 
Assessment Committee:
Associate Professor Mads Kjelgaard Hansen, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen (chairman)
 
Dr. Aage Christian Olsen Alstrup, PET Center, Aarhus University Hospitals
 
Professor Timothy C. Nichols, Francis Owen Blood Research Laboratory, University of North Carolina State, Chapel Hill, USA


David Stodolsky
[email protected]  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33040

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

Message #33041
From: "J Coetzee MSc" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #33036 - #33037
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:17:03 -0500

With radiation such as IMRT cells can be stabilized while still frozen and 
then be repaired with nanobots. 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33041

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

Message #33042
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:56:41 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: October 2010 Cryonics Symposium in Germany

  In the first week of October I was an invited speaker
at the ?Applied Cryobiology ? Scientific Symposium on Cryonics?
held in Goslar, Germany. My write-up of the event appeared
not long after that on Aschwin de Wolf's blog "Depressed Metabolism":

http://bit.ly/aBoLml

Now videos of my presentation are available on YouTube.
YouTube has a restriction on length, so the presentation
is necessarily broken into five segments:

http://bit.ly/aDiFBW

http://bit.ly/cBs6Wo

http://bit.ly/9GG2Go

http://bit.ly/aevOMb

http://bit.ly/cMkqyB

My laser pointer worked well during my presentation,
but does not show-up well on the videos, which makes
it a little less clear what I am referring to during
my talk.

I am hopeful that these videos can help to educate
people -- especially including cryonicists -- about
cryonics technology. There is much written
cryonics/cryobiology technical information on my website

http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/cryonics.html

but some people learn better from lectures and
videos of lectures.

As a cautionary note I must warn that my analysis
of the Circle of Willis and carotid perfusion was
a preliminary conclusion which subsequent discussions
with scientific advisers have shown to be based
on incomplete information. I plan to write a more
thorough explanation of the subject for the
January/February 2011 issue of LONG LIFE magazine.

There are a number of erroneous statements that
I made that are mainly attributable to me fumbling
my words. For example I make it sound as though
administering CPR always works if done within
a minute or so after cardiac arrest. I know better
than this, and I cannot explain why I cannot
explain myself better at times.

   -- Ben Best

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33042

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

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