• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

link to excellent in-depth glutaraldehyde discussion

alcor forum

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Rib Jig

  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 22 December 2017 - 07:50 PM


Finally.

After ~4 yrs. as Alcor associate & trying

to get interesting discussions started on

their own forum site: (2 others take all the credit)

 

http://www.alcor.org...c.php?f=3&t=224

 

(non-members can read-post AFAIK)



#2 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 22 December 2017 - 11:42 PM

aldehyde is destructive is it not? I don't see any value to cryonicists in being digital entities... 



#3 Rib Jig

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 23 December 2017 - 12:02 AM

aldehyde is destructive is it not? I don't see any value to cryonicists in being digital entities... 

 

Cyanide contains carbon, therefore carbon is destructive is it not?

We are not chemist are we...

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Glutaraldehyde



#4 cocoonman

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Croatia
  • NO

Posted 23 December 2017 - 06:13 PM

It's a interesting, but rather typical conflict between the standard conservative view (you are the matter in your brain) and the patternist view (you are information). However, many thought experiments have shown that both are unsustainable when brought to their logical conclusions.

 

For example, if you are the matter in your head, at which point in the process of continuous exchange of matter you stop being "you"? Where is that magical atom which says "as long as I am here, you are conscious, if I am gone, someone else wakes up in your skull"?

 

Similarly, if you believe you are information, then you die multiple times over your lifetime, as your memories fade away or get distorted, when you change your attitudes and start feeling different desires. People have experienced drastic changes in personality, suffered heavy amnesia, etc. Theoretically, if you lived long enough, say several thousand years, these memories you have now will all have disappeared in their original form.

 

An alternative view, sometimes defended, is that your "self" depends not exactly on the composition of matter or information, but on the continuity of those. For example, if you switch gradually, you "survive", but if an evil neuroscientist changes your synapses all at once while you sleep, then you have "died". I see this as nonsense as well, because no one can tell why does that count if the result (total change of a person) is the same in the end? Because some mystical substance would be too upset by rapid switch and leave the substrate?

 

Therefore, my position is that there is no identity that is sustained over time. There is no self, just feelings and thoughts that the brains produce. Feeling that there is a special snowflake at the "center" of each mind is just another mental product of the brain, an illusion of separateness, if you wish. Me and you are simply "what exists". There is no "real death", just transformation of one and the same consciousness. It can be called open or empty individualism, which I consider to be interchangeable views. Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are the mystical equivalents.

 

As I discussed in my essay, this perspective is rather unsettling, because it doesn't give you any control over what happens after death. There is no any meaningful way of knowing what or who would your next instantiation of consciousness be. The question itself is pointless. Cryonicists believe that they would deanimate, and then instantly wake up in the future, rejuvenated. Mind-uploaders believe pretty much the same thing. It is all quite convenient and comforting. If you are your substrate, then just freeze the body and whoever gets recreated from the same atoms will be you. If you are your neural code, whoever gets reconstructed precisely according to those instructions will be you.

 

I suspect that I will have to get reincarnated billions of times and live horrible miserable, small ignorant lives (as humans and animals) before someone finds my time capsule and revives this particular identity (if that ever occurs).



#5 Rib Jig

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 23 December 2017 - 07:28 PM

cocoon & all,

 

if willing & interested, post same or similar in that glutaraldehyde Alcor thread?

am very interested in what response will be over there...

regards


Edited by Rib Jig, 23 December 2017 - 07:29 PM.


#6 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 December 2017 - 04:47 PM

 

aldehyde is destructive is it not? I don't see any value to cryonicists in being digital entities... 

 

Cyanide contains carbon, therefore carbon is destructive is it not?

We are not chemist are we...

 

https://en.wikipedia.../Glutaraldehyde

 

Got confused, thought this was another name for ASC. Even so:

 

 

 

Glutaraldehyde is used in biochemistry applications as an amine-reactive homobifunctional crosslinker and fixative prior to SDS-PAGE, staining, or electron microscopy. It kills cells quickly by crosslinking their proteins and is usually employed alone or mixed with formaldehyde[14] as the first of two fixative processes to stabilize specimens such as bacteria, plant material, and human cells.

 

Sounds very toxic, not that other solutions aren't, but unless their is a management plan for the toxicity, it could be fairly damaging.



#7 Rib Jig

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 24 December 2017 - 05:03 PM

It kills cells quickly

 

a. neither of us are chemist

b. killing cells AFTER death, the only living cells might

be those that consume our former living cells...?

c. looking at exponential growth in science over

the centuries, future mankind -- if no interruptions -- will

eventually find solutions to almost anything, IMO...

It may not be until 2200, 2300, or whenever...



#8 YOLF

  • Location:Delaware Delawhere, Delahere, Delathere!

Posted 24 December 2017 - 05:37 PM

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.



#9 cocoonman

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Croatia
  • NO

Posted 24 December 2017 - 06:24 PM

if willing & interested, post same or similar in that glutaraldehyde Alcor thread?

am very interested in what response will be over there...

 

 

Nah, I already posted the whole text on New Cryonet forum. Not much response; cryonicists are not interested in alternatives to cryonics.

 

Sounds very toxic, not that other solutions aren't, but unless their is a management plan for the toxicity, it could be fairly damaging.

 

 

Aldehydes work exactly because they are toxic, they bind to proteins and lock them in place. That's why they preserve information so well. In theory, nanotechnology would be able to cleave all the cross-links, one by one, and use the same proteins to reconstruct the brain, but I think it would be unnecessary. What worries me more is that post-humans may not care. Do we care about resurrecting mosquito in amber. Compared to the amount of knowledge and richness of experiences that they will enjoy, our brains would seem no better than insect's ganglions.



#10 Rib Jig

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 24 December 2017 - 06:48 PM

a. glutaraldehyde is alternative to cryonics??  or one form of preservation employing cryonics?

 

b. some scientists are absolutely interested in reviving ancient mosquitos;

sort of stunned when I encounter scientific minds in these cryonics forums

that predict future lack of interest in revivals;  would scientists today be

disinterested in reviving Lucy the Hominid!!!!?

 

My worry is revival into negative situation, e.g., being a pet, slave, laboratory animal...

(pet not so negative if one can do what one wants at amusement of pet owner...?)

Would like to hear percentages from statistician, assuming revival, good outcome % vs. bad outcome %

(factors?: civilization in control, culture in control, evolution of human temperament, etc.)

 

Three possibilities?:

1. die permanently

2. revive to good situation (possibly eternally) % chance of this outcome based on what we know

(heaven-like outcome)

3. revive to bad situation (possibly eternally) % chance of this outcome based on what we know

(hell-like outcome)

 

if 2 vs. 3 is now logically 50/50, then 1 looks a lot better,

me: need to believe 90/10 is reasonable assessment...

 

a. cryonicists are not interested in alternatives to cryonics.

 

b. Do we care about resurrecting mosquito in amber. Compared to the amount of knowledge and richness of experiences that they will enjoy, our brains would seem no better than insect's ganglions.

 


Edited by Rib Jig, 24 December 2017 - 07:00 PM.


#11 cocoonman

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Croatia
  • NO

Posted 26 December 2017 - 02:25 PM

a. glutaraldehyde is alternative to cryonics??  or one form of preservation employing cryonics?

 

 

Not yet, but it is what people at Brain Preservation Foundation advocate. They wish to make room-temp. chemopreservation available for a fraction of the cost of cryonics.

 

would scientists today be

disinterested in reviving Lucy the Hominid!!!!?

 

 

Well put, but this is, as you say, today. The same technologies needed for revivals would be transformative for humans and society beyond we can imagine now, that's basically the idea of Singularity. If we could bring back dinosaurs, mammoths, even human ancestors,  they would be kept in natural reserves where we could observe them leading their ancient lifestyles. The point is not to revive every specimen that can be recovered, just a representative sample for the sake of science. However, civilization of the 30th century might have very different interests, such as mega-scale cosmic engineering.

 

My worry is revival into negative situation, e.g., being a pet, slave, laboratory animal...

 

 

Ethical constraints on research are ever greater and more limiting, this is a long term trend. When we can perfectly simulate an organism without sentience, I think it will be done by default for any obsolete darwinian life form, perhaps even Homo sapiens.

 

Some imagine that we will always remain "human" and have the same basic desires, personalities, etc., and therefore care about the same things (such as individual resurrection). Apes with nanotechnology and quantum magic. That's what typical SF depicts; still people with all their flaws, only in space. I just can't see that happening. Jupiter-minds seem more likely. Perhaps Overmind as imagined in Childhood's End.

 

The reasons to bring us back, if any, would be purely sentimental. Post-humans could decide to resurrect us and allow us to slowly progress to their level. This would be like growing up; we would have a happy childhood first, fulfill all our human dreams from the past, and eventually transcend them and join the cosmic consciousness.



#12 Rib Jig

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 206 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 December 2017 - 03:43 PM

a. civilization of the 30th century

 

b. Ethical constraints on research are ever greater and more limiting, this is a long term trend.

 

a. 2900???  That long?

Graph history of scientific progress.

Exponentially increasing at accelerating rate, right?

IMO, revivals by 2150, maybe 2100.

Related: significant life extension for the living ~2050...

For currently-terminally-ill, suspended animation until cure ~2070

 

b. dictators & their scientists have ALWAYS existed,

the risk is whether or not one is revived into such a society;

ethical vs. unethical science has ALWAYS existed, even

recently using prisoners in exchange for privileges...?

(LSD testing, STD testing, etc.)







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alcor forum

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users