75 replies to this topic

[garethnelsonuk]

muslim site ali kirca for Religion and Cryonics and another archive search

link spam





I disabled the links in your quote gareth. LL

Edited by Lazarus Long, 25 December 2006 - 04:57 PM.

[stephenszpak]

It is of course assumed that this period of time will be finite, because it
is assumed that modern medicine will find the cure for whatever. It is also
assumed the technology to operate the facility won't fail. It is assumed that
no worker at the facility would become disgruntled/crazy and turn off the
power over a holiday weekend, etc. etc.

Can't see Jesus signing off on this one.

Huh?!? You mean like the way it is assumed when you have heart surgery that the facility will have electric power, and some disgrunted/crazy person won't turn off the heart lung machine? Or the way it is assumed when a disabled person is committed to a long-term care facility that staff won't abuse them or stop feeding them? And if staff do (it has happened), does that invalidate the entire concept of caring for disabled people?

And when did God stop signing off on high risk medical procedures anyway, and who are you to say He did, as if no Christian hospital has ever engaged in long-term care of disabled or unconscious people in testament to the value of life?

bgwowk

To address this secondary point more clearly I would say this. If one likens cryogenic suspension (if this is the proper
terminology) to anesthesia before surgery, one would have to think the the greater the time period before surgery
the greater the probability of death. Whether it be by human error, technology failure, or whatever. Instead of minutes
with anesthesia we are talking about years or decades. That is if it is even possible to unfreeze a human.



-Stephen

[bgwowk]

Of course. The question is, is human life worth it? You obviously have opinions about when medicine should stop. But are you really justified in saying that those who disagree with you run afoul of Jesus Himself? That those who make extraordinary efforts to save life because of the extraordinary value they place on life are sinning?

While everyone is entitled to make decisions about what kind of care is appropriate for themselves or their families, you should pause before making your value of life (and limitations thereon) a universal theological standard.

[stephenszpak]

Of course.  The question is, is human life worth it?  You obviously have opinions about when medicine should stop.  But are you really justified in saying that those who disagree with you run afoul of Jesus Himself?  That those who make extraordinary efforts to save life because of the extraordinary value they place on life are sinning?

While everyone is entitled to make decisions about what kind of care is appropriate for themselves or their families, you should pause before making your value of life (and limitations thereon) a universal theological standard.

bgwowk

This was the very first question by the original poster:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, a few questions,

For everyone, are religion and cryonics compatible? ...and, more specifically, is Christianity and cryonics compatible?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I was asked, I answered.

I think the main problem that the *general* public at large has with cryogenics, is that a living volunteer has
never been frozen and brought back with all his mental and physical abilities. Frozen for a month.

Imagine a situation where a patient with cancer is going in for surgery today. He speaks with the anesthesiologist and
asks "So doc, what is the procedure/technique whereby I shall return to consciousness?" Would *YOU* enter into
surgery if the anesthesiologist said "I have no idea."

P.S. I'm sure this has been covered...so are there 2 cyrogenic ways, so to speak. Being frozen before death and
being frozen after death?

(There have been a number of posts, if these topics have already been covered in some respect I apologize.)

-Stephen

[garethnelsonuk]

The difference is that cryonics is a last hope for someone who is otherwise going to end up dead. If the doctor told you "well, this surgery may not work, but it's your only chance of survival" would you take it?

[stephenszpak]

The difference is that  cryonics is a last hope for someone who is otherwise going to end up dead. If the doctor told you "well, this surgery may not work, but it's your only chance of survival" would you take it?

garethnelsonuk

A Christian knows that God can heal him miraculosly, would thereby know
the doctor's statement "but it's your only chance of survival" would be a lie.

(This is not a insult to the medical profession.)

I think for the *general* public it all goes back to what I said before. Since you are
speaking about someone that is still alive, the analogy of anesthesia works well.
Anesthesia today starts by X process and ends by X process.

If one looks at cyrogenics (in this case taking a still living human) as anesthesia,
it should start by X process and end by X process. As it is now, I would compare it
to a doctor inducing a irreversible coma.

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

A nice quote from Edgar Allan Poe's short story, "The Premature Burial:"

"The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins? We know that there are diseases in which occur total cessations of all the apparent functions of vitality, and yet in which these cessations are merely suspensions, properly so called. They are only temporary pauses in the incomprehensible mechanism. A certain period elapses, and some unseen mysterious principle again sets in motion the magic pinions and the wizard wheels. The silver cord was not for ever loosed, nor the golden bowl irreparably broken. But where, meantime, was the soul?"

mike

It's not all 'Poe'. He took some scriptures from Ecclesiastes.


Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed;

then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

http://www.biblegate...r=12&version=49

The Byrds also took from Ecclesiastes in Turn Turn Turn.
Almost word for word, first verses of Chapter 3.

Lyrcis here:

http://www.sing365.c...82569A0000DF5B9

Scriptures here:

http://www.biblegate..... ;&version=9;


Video here:



-Stephen

[bgwowk]

P.S. I'm sure this has been covered...so are there 2 cyrogenic ways, so to speak. Being frozen before death and
being frozen after death?

Sure, but it's not the deep problem you probably think it is. Being declared "dead" is primarily a legal/social ritual used to justify withdrawl of medical care from dying people, not a deeply a significant biological event. The most significant biological process relevant to whether resuscitation is ultimately possible is so-called "information theoretic death", not clinical death. By any objective standard, most patients declared "dead" by present medicine are suffering from fundamentally treatable pathologies.

Recall that the key idea of cryonics is to reach distant, but foreseeable cures. From that perspective, the injuries that occur after a few minutes or even hours of clinical death (cerebral ischemic injury) are just another disease state to be treated.

Imagine a situation where a patient with cancer is going in for surgery today. He speaks with the anesthesiologist and
asks "So doc, what is the procedure/technique whereby I shall return to consciousness?" Would *YOU* enter into
surgery if the anesthesiologist said "I have no idea."

If my life depended on it, you bet. But even that's a misresentation of cryonics because the physical principles upon which cryonics and revival depend are well understand, just as the physics of space travel was well understand a century before it was done.

Let's take this a step at a time. Suppose you had a *demonstrably reversible* preservation technology. Would you be opposed to placing patients with say, cancer, in stasis until their cancer could be cured? Are you opposed in principle to any form of keeping people stable when immediate treatment is not possible?

[stephenszpak]

bgwowk

Stephen wrote>Imagine a situation where a patient with cancer is going in for surgery today. He speaks with the anesthesiologist and
asks "So doc, what is the procedure/technique whereby I shall return to consciousness?" Would *YOU* enter into
surgery if the anesthesiologist said "I have no idea."

bgwowk wrote>If my life depended on it, you bet.

Stephen wrote> This surprises me, but let's move on.

bgwowk wrote> But even that's a misresentation of cryonics because the physical principles upon which cryonics and revival depend are well understand, just as the physics of space travel was well understand a century before it was done.

Stephen wrote> The average person wants proof. (At least that's my guess.)
As I wrote before "a living volunteer has
never been frozen and brought back with all his mental and physical abilities. Frozen for a month."
To you, actually doing this might seem totally unnessary.


bgwowk wrote> Let's take this a step at a time. Suppose you had a *demonstrably reversible* preservation technology. Would you be opposed to placing patients with say, cancer, in stasis until their cancer could be cured?

Stephen wrote> I *think* cancer deaths in the U.S. are about 1500 per day.

===================================================

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, exceeded only by heart disease. Every year, cancer is diagnosed in more than a million people.

http://www.cdc.gov/n...900f3ec80193c0d

===================================================

"There were 369 fewer cancer deaths in 2003 (556,902 deaths) than in 2002 (557,271 deaths),..."

http://environment.a...ancerdeaths.htm

===================================================

I guess (since there are a number of cancers) you are assuming
they all can be 'cured'. 2006 and cancer isn't even close to being
eliminated.

We are back where we were. Cryogenics is currently a one
way trip. You will find many many people that would accept
cyrogenic suspension *IF* it can be made reversible.



bgwowk wrote> Are you opposed in principle to any form of keeping people stable when immediate treatment is not possible?

Stephen wrote> If someone has an accident and they are bleeding to death
it's fine with me if a tourniquet is applied. Of course one could
argue that this is "treatment" I suppose.

heading out,

-Stephen

[bgwowk]

I guess (since there are a number of cancers) you are assuming
they all can be 'cured'. 2006 and cancer isn't even close to being
eliminated.

If intrinsic curability of cancer is an issue in your mind, I can't blame you for being skeptical about problems 100 times more complex than cancer (curing aging) or 10,000 times more complex (reversing present-day cryonics). Suffice it to say that most people here operate under a different paradigm. We do not believe that medicine is going to grind to a halt anytime soon. If humans last long enough, it is instead more likely that medicine will eventually become so advanced as to be almost unrecognizable. You can get a glimpse of it here

http://www.alcor.org...rymedicine.html

and here

http://www.nanomedicine.com/

[stephenszpak]

bgwowk

bgwowk wrote>Recall that the key idea of cryonics is to reach distant, but foreseeable cures.

Stephen wrote> Curing cancer (all cancers) is unforeseeable. (Perhaps
possible though.) If U.S. cancer deaths *ever* get down
to an average of less than 100 a day, this would impress
me.

I don't know anything about cryogenics really. If today's
cyrogenic technology merely consists of freezing a living person,
it might not be possible with *any* technology to revive them.


I'm sure you've read about wood frogs. To those that haven't
there is this:

The Wood Frogs are one of serveral species that have the amazing ability to completely freeze solid! (Peepers can do the same...except that in their case they have lots of glycerol, not glucose, in their system)
Since there's so much glucose in the Wood Frog's system, their organs don't get damaged because the sugar in their blood acts as anti-freeze. They can stay completely frozen like that for 2 weeks or more.

http://allaboutfrogs...nge/freeze.html

The point is, that a living human might need some protective
agents injected into them to be revived from being frozen
solid for a month, or whatever. I'm sure you know more about
all this than I. I can imagine cryogenisists 100 years from now
laughing, if this is indeed the case. That is, thinking you could
just freeze someone and expect to revive them.

bgwowk wrote> We do not believe that medicine is going to grind to a halt anytime soon.

Stephen wrote> No, medicine will go on (IF the world goes on
pretty much as it has.)
I didn't post this recently, but I'll say it now.
To me it really looks like applied science will
go on for quite some time. One might almost say
that truly new science is probably over.

You, of course, don't have to read The End of Science by John Horgan.
It helped me understand where science is these days. I'm sure your
library has it or can get it.

(checking out future science link now)

-Stephen

[stephenszpak]

Mental and emotional skills someone would need to do well in 24th Century society won't just be enhancements of current abilities. To do well, we'll have to lose some abilities we now have. Someone from the 24th Century may well appear less intelligent on all our current tests. For instance, current tests require subjects to follow orders. With much or all of production and distribution automated and the disappearance of "workers," following orders could become a far less valuable and even contrasurvival trait.

The metamorphosis needed, a slightly rearranged brain, will be simple to carry out in practice. But our whole personality is bound up in our abilities or lack thereof. To change these abilities involves many questions medical technology won't answer. A sufficiently advanced technician might appear indistinguishable from an idiot. Do you want to become an idiot?

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

As adults, people are content to fulfill their destinies as part of five social classes, from the intelligent Alphas, who run the factories, to the mentally challenged Epsilons, who do the most menial jobs. All spend their free time indulging in harmless and mindless entertainment and sports activities.

http://www.enotes.com/brave/

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

bgwowk

The link was quite interesting. But even all this doesn't address a death
medical techology can't overcome. It reminds me of a Star Trek Voyager
episode where the Q beings were at war. (I like pop culture.)

http://en.wikipedia...._Q_and_the_Grey

Discription of how powerful the Q are:

In the Star Trek universe, the Q Continuum is an extradimensional plane of existence inhabited by a race of seemingly omnipotent, immortal and omniscient hyperintelligent godlike beings known as the Q.

http://en.wikipedia....uum_(Star_Trek)

Even the Q during their civil war found a way to kill other Q beings.

Ok so what.

There is no medical way to come back from instantaneous incineration.
A nuke going off in a shipping container at a U.S. port for example.
Your article was dated 1989 before the 9-11 attacks. But now the war is
on with no end in sight.

==============================================

And how disastrous for us is the continual remembrance of death which war enforces. One of our best weapons, contented worldliness, is rendered useless. In wartime not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever.

Screwtape Letter V

==================================================

-Stephen

[bgwowk]

In wartime not even a human can believe that he is going to live forever.

At no time can a human believe he is going to live forever. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. Were you under a mistaken belief that cryonicists perceive themselves as immortal?

As the article on 24th Century Medicine stated, we live our lives within a zone defined by a line between what can kill us and what can't. With advancing technology, the line moves, but it's always there. Since that article was written, death that is irreversible by any technology has been given a name: Information Theoretic Death. It's on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....eoretical_death

Edited by bgwowk, 29 December 2006 - 05:27 PM.

[stephenszpak]

bgwowk

bgwork wrote> At no time can a human believe he is going to live forever. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. Where you under a mistaken belief that cryonicists perceive themselves as immortal?


==============================================

Stephen wrote> The whole article presents a rosey Gene Roddenberry-like
view of the future. I realize it is about advancements in
medicine, but it goes *way* beyond that. I couldn't find the
word "war" mentioned even once.

==============================================


From link:

"Death" isn't the only "impossible" problem that will be treatable by 24th century medicine.

From link:

Of all the suggested modifications to human beings, only one has extremely vocal, serious, and organized proponents right now. That is biological immortality. Its most organized proponents are the cryonics societies.

bgwowk wrote> As the article on 24th Century Medicine stated, we live our lives within a zone defined by a line between what can kill us and what can't. With advancing technology, the line moves, but it's always there.

Stephen wrote> I don't want to get into a discussion of what future historians
will probably call World War III. The war that began for all
intents and purposes on September 11, 2001. Suffice it to say
it is on my mind and I have views about it.

With regards to the specific example I mentioned:

"""There is no medical way to come back from instantaneous incineration.
A nuke going off in a shipping container at a U.S. port for example."""

What you called "line between what can kill us and what can't"
will never move in this example. A human can't survive a
nuclear detonation.

One can look at other weapons as well. If we find a way medically,
to be immune from anthrax, won't the other side genetically
re-engineer the anthrax to a form we aren't immune to. And then
we respond, and then they respond. It is a contest against humans,
not against bacteria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Leon Trotsky

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

-Stephen

[bgwowk]

The whole article presents a rosey Gene Roddenberry-like
view of the future.

Then you missed the point of the article, which was that technology doesn't eliminate pain or suffering, life or death, it simply changes what these things are.

I realize it is about advancements in
medicine, but it goes *way* beyond that. I couldn't find the
word "war" mentioned even once.

War is a trivial given, but so what? That article is about the distant future of medicine, not what tangled course civilization may suffer on the way there. 300 years is a long time; a sobering long time compared to wild Singularitarian predictions that are common these days.

What you called "line between what can kill us and what can't"
will never move in this example. A human can't survive a
nuclear detonation.

That's why THAT line is called Information Theoretic Death.

Of all the suggested modifications to human beings, only one has extremely vocal, serious, and organized proponents right now. That is biological immortality.

Biological immortality merely means the elimination of aging. It is not theological immortality.

"Death" isn't the only "impossible" problem that will be treatable by 24th century medicine.

The reason "death" is in quotes is that the sentence refers to those medical conditions currently confused with death. There is an entire essay about that subject here

http://www.alcor.org...reForDeath.html

[stephenszpak]

bgwowk


bgwowk wrote> War is a trivial given, but so what?

Well with statements like this and "you missed the point of the article"
I think there isn't too much left to say.

-Stephen