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

Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Neuro ("Head Only") vs. Whole Body Suspension


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

Poll: Given the Choice Between Neuropreservation (aka "head only") and Full Body cryonic suspension, which do you choose? (if you have strong feelings one way or the other, please say why below) (177 member(s) have cast votes)

Given the Choice Between Neuropreservation (aka "head only") and Full Body cryonic suspension, which do you choose? (if you have strong feelings one way or the other, please say why below)

  1. Neuropreservation ("Head Only") (62 votes [35.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.84%

  2. Full Body Preservation (90 votes [52.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.02%

  3. Undecided (21 votes [12.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.14%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 garethnelsonuk

  • Guest
  • 355 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 November 2006 - 04:17 AM

For the record, another pile of options for regrowing whole bodies:
Rebuild from scratch using the same nanobots theorised will be used for brain repair
Heavily guided stem cells
Clone but avoid brain development in the clone
Tissue regeneration techniques (growing a new body around the isolated brain or head)

And, there's the ones transhumanists tend to love:
Scan and upload the patient's mind into a computer
Place the brain into a robotic body
Place the brain into a life support machine with remote interface to robotic body

Personally, i'd lean more towards tissue regeneration or controlling development in clones to avoid brain growth but will avoid speculating too much on such issues. The simple fact is that all you need is the DNA. You have a way with summing up complex issues in nice little phrases Brian. :)
"Generation of whole bodies from a single cell is a technology already demonstrated in nature"

#62 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:00 AM

You have a way with summing up complex issues in nice little phrases Brian.


Unfortunately, you must be very careful how you talk about cryonics in order for it to be perceived in the light in which it deserves. I have a feeling every word and phrase he says about cryonics has been thoroughly inspected.

#63 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 November 2006 - 05:53 AM

Assuming that the technology exists, one could upload the contents of one's brain, and then "program" a clone with the contents of whatever was uploaded. However, in the end, it's still a clone, its just that the contents can be stored in a computer and later recreated when needed. But the original being does not share any part of the experience of the clone. I could be cloned entirely, atom by atom while I sleep, awake and never know that a duplicate physical copy of my body, mind and therefore even my consciousness exists. The clone exists independently of the original being. So why would the original being even care?

#64 garethnelsonuk

  • Guest
  • 355 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 November 2006 - 02:24 PM

I hope the duplicates paradox does not kill yet another thread about cryonics!

My view is identical to yours ghostrider. Others disagree.

#65 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 27 November 2006 - 07:14 PM

Others disagree.


[sfty]

#66 deus_ex_machina

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 January 2007 - 07:02 PM

I favor the neuros procedure.

The idea that our bodies and brains could be repaired their freezing and toxicity damage etc. by way of nanotechnology is of course conceivable, plausibility not something we're in a just position to speculate on just yet I'd wager, but the ultimate question of course is if it is desirable (assuming you are one with an interest to preserve and restore your optimum youth and health, rather than simply die hah). Unlikely it is that, once the means is achieved to do so, the world will smiles and cheer while everyone who was going to die is apparently miraculously revived. Huzzah! And shortly thereafter the overpopulation and the talk about science's blasphemy against the alleged "natural" order of life, how dare we take food from the rest of the world etc. Remember this isn't just about if it can be done but if it will be allowed following the craze that will inevitably ensue once the 90% of the world who believe we're crazy widen their eyes in astonishment, and as we are prone to react to any supposed impossible and influencial force react instinctively with fear. Long story short, such people will not be safe; and you thought the stem cell debate was bad! Moreover, as a biological system we would still inherit all our traditional problems, though if nanotechnology were sophisticated enough to revive us it should also have evolved to the point many of our ailments are gone. Still, the human body is frail (insert knife here) and statistically speaking - especially if life is as dangerous as it is today, not to mention the fundamentalists that will be after our heads, if you'll excuse the pun - the longer you live, the greater your chances of encountering disaster. Hell, people get run over by trucks every day. Wouldn't you just hate to wake up after a 100 year cryosleep only to realize your head is being crushed by some massive semi? Pain for you. If I was going to scare anyone anyway and didn't want to be so vulnerable I'd rather opt for mind uploading. Now, whatever option you chose, by the way, the reason the neuros option is advantageous is that applying cryogenic temperatures to a smaller volume of mass means a correspondingly quicker time required to get you there, which is good since you'll suffer less ischemia (cell death, in this case neural, by lack of oxygen-supply to active cells). The issue might seem mute to someone who believes nanotechnology can hypothetically bring you back from extreme degrees of damage but remember that for the same reason of that we just don't know what kind of technology or techniques will be available who knows when it's not wise to take anything but the safest option, and for that reason I think it's better to be sure the process of cryonics goes as quickly as possible; the head is a lot smaller than the body as a whole. On that note, those signing up for the indeed cheaper Cryonics Institute should keep in mind that not only do they only offer whole body, they neither offer the option of perfusing vitrification solution through the bloodstream, as is only offered (and at its state of the art to boot) at Alcor of Scottsdale, Arizona (alcor.org). For those who don't know, neurovitrification is where the bloodstream within the brain is perfused with what's called a vitrification solution, which rather than letting the brain freeze causes it instead to become vitreous ice when deep-cooled, brought down to cryogenic temperatures. Vitreous ice acts like a solid in one sense because it is closely packed together, meaning your brain is just as still as if it were frozen, except it has the awesome advantage of preventing ice-crystal formation, which is what otherwise sprouts from the water surrounding cells to penetrate them, greatly damaging them. If you're not using a vitrification solution, you are undergoing tremendous structural damage to your brain, and neural structure is important. The only down-side is that it causes toxification that is lethal once we're rewarmed. It could probably be repaired with nanotechnology, but the benefit of almost perfectly preventing crystalization means structure is preserved, and since the the vitrification solution is local solely to the bloodstream, the chemical integrity of the surrounding brain tissue itself is unharmed, merely warped inward slightly by the compacting effect of cooling while under the solution's influence. If your brain is sufficiently well preserved, as it is so much more so by the neuros cryopreservation and neuropreservation procedure offered at Alcor (for $180,000 but payable by most good life insurance policies), you can be assured as best now possible that your mind will remain more or less in chronostatic template. The main trouble I see currently is that we are unreasonably prone to disaster while in the cryopreserved state. Turn off the power or run out of liquid nitrogen and the brain will warm up and turn to goo, as has already happened. It may seem like a long stretch now, but power failures and financial disaster aside - especially if a revival technique succeeds - I can imagine the government stating the practice or revival immoral and thus preservation illegitimate, and dangerous, enough that it be mandated what few institutions there are like CI and Alcor be terminated post haste, regardless of their voluntary funding status, all bodies and heads gooified on rationalization that the people are already dead to begin with, and should stay that way. Alas, that we are fated known by some as dark apostles of necromancy! Solar rays will be only hardly less sympathetic to the integrity of our dear brains.

#67 Neurosail

  • Life Member, F@H
  • 311 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth
  • NO

Posted 17 January 2007 - 08:27 PM

Here is an another poll about this subject. I'm a neuro.

#68 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 18 January 2007 - 01:03 AM

Although I was unable to ascertain a topic in deus_ex_machina's long paragraph, I will comment that there will never be a sudden ability to revive cryonics patients. Cryonics is a last-in-first-out process, and any revival of today's patient will have been preceeded by a long historical period of medical technologies vastly more advanced than today's. Cryonics, revivals from more advanced forms of cryonics, and routine reversal of severe trauma and clinical death will be old news. Any revival of today's patients will necessarily happen in a world with values, problems, and prejudices totally different from anything we have today.

#69 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 14 February 2007 - 06:30 PM

I favor the neuros procedure.

The idea that our bodies and brains could be repaired their freezing and toxicity damage etc. by way of nanotechnology is of course conceivable, plausibility not something we're in a just position to speculate on just yet I'd wager, but the ultimate question of course is if it is desirable (assuming you are one with an interest to preserve and restore your optimum youth and health, rather than simply die hah). Unlikely it is that, once the means is achieved to do so, the world will smiles and cheer while everyone who was going to die is apparently miraculously revived. Huzzah! And shortly thereafter the overpopulation and the talk about science's blasphemy against the alleged "natural" order of life, how dare we take food from the rest of the world etc. Remember this isn't just about if it can be done but if it will be allowed following the craze that will inevitably ensue once the 90% of the world who believe we're crazy widen their eyes in astonishment, and as we are prone to react to any supposed impossible and influencial force react instinctively with fear. Long story short, such people will not be safe; and you thought the stem cell debate was bad! Moreover, as a biological system we would still inherit all our traditional problems, though if nanotechnology were sophisticated enough to revive us it should also have evolved to the point many of our ailments are gone. Still, the human body is frail (insert knife here) and statistically speaking - especially if life is as dangerous as it is today, not to mention the fundamentalists that will be after our heads, if you'll excuse the pun - the longer you live, the greater your chances of encountering disaster. Hell, people get run over by trucks every day. Wouldn't you just hate to wake up after a 100 year cryosleep only to realize your head is being crushed by some massive semi? Pain for you. If I was going to scare anyone anyway and didn't want to be so vulnerable I'd rather opt for mind uploading. Now, whatever option you chose, by the way, the reason the neuros option is advantageous is that applying cryogenic temperatures to a smaller volume of mass means a correspondingly quicker time required to get you there, which is good since you'll suffer less ischemia (cell death, in this case neural, by lack of oxygen-supply to active cells). The issue might seem mute to someone who believes nanotechnology can hypothetically bring you back from extreme degrees of damage but remember that for the same reason of that we just don't know what kind of technology or techniques will be available who knows when it's not wise to take anything but the safest option, and for that reason I think it's better to be sure the process of cryonics goes as quickly as possible; the head is a lot smaller than the body as a whole. On that note, those signing up for the indeed cheaper Cryonics Institute should keep in mind that not only do they only offer whole body, they neither offer the option of perfusing vitrification solution through the bloodstream, as is only offered (and at its state of the art to boot) at Alcor of Scottsdale, Arizona (alcor.org). For those who don't know, neurovitrification is where the bloodstream within the brain is perfused with what's called a vitrification solution, which rather than letting the brain freeze causes it instead to become vitreous ice when deep-cooled, brought down to cryogenic temperatures. Vitreous ice acts like a solid in one sense because it is closely packed together, meaning your brain is just as still as if it were frozen, except it has the awesome advantage of preventing ice-crystal formation, which is what otherwise sprouts from the water surrounding cells to penetrate them, greatly damaging them. If you're not using a vitrification solution, you are undergoing tremendous structural damage to your brain, and neural structure is important. The only down-side is that it causes toxification that is lethal once we're rewarmed. It could probably be repaired with nanotechnology, but the benefit of almost perfectly preventing crystalization means structure is preserved, and since the the vitrification solution is local solely to the bloodstream, the chemical integrity of the surrounding brain tissue itself is unharmed, merely warped inward slightly by the compacting effect of cooling while under the solution's influence. If your brain is sufficiently well preserved, as it is so much more so by the neuros cryopreservation and neuropreservation procedure offered at Alcor (for $180,000 but payable by most good life insurance policies), you can be assured as best now possible that your mind will remain more or less in chronostatic template. The main trouble I see currently is that we are unreasonably prone to disaster while in the cryopreserved state. Turn off the power or run out of liquid nitrogen and the brain will warm up and turn to goo, as has already happened. It may seem like a long stretch now, but power failures and financial disaster aside - especially if a revival technique succeeds - I can imagine the government stating the practice or revival immoral and thus preservation illegitimate, and dangerous, enough that it be mandated what few institutions there are like CI and Alcor be terminated post haste, regardless of their voluntary funding status, all bodies and heads gooified on rationalization that the people are already dead to begin with, and should stay that way. Alas, that we are fated known by some as dark apostles of necromancy! Solar rays will be only hardly less sympathetic to the integrity of our dear brains.


Too many words mashed together. Head hurts...




Here is an another poll about this subject. I'm a neuro.

It looks like that in both this poll and that one that neuro is the preferred method.



Anyone know the breakdown of how many people are currently preserved and/or how many are currently signed up for both methods?

#70 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:35 PM

I think more than half are still going for neuro.

#71 rwoodin

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 1
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • NO

Posted 10 May 2007 - 03:31 AM

I'm signed up with CI for whole body. I was signed up for neuro with Alcor about ten years ago but life got busy and I let that arrangement lapse. I like the whole body deal. Who says you cant 'take it all with you' ? I also think CI's prices are much better. I also think (so many things...) one of which is, imagine how much different it will be in the future compared to now. Did you ever take a walk through a really old grave yard and read the inscriptions on tombstones from the 1600's? I used to live in the Northeast where those types of old graveyards and buildings were somewhat plentiful. Looking at and walking among those old stones gave me a palpable feeling of just how much time had passed and how very diferent the world had become, since those people had lived. How would those people who lived and died in those times feel if they were revived today? I dont think we have to much of a clue as to what we are in for should we make it to being reanimated 400 years from now. Which leads to the thought that the chances of survival in suspension and revival to life are so slim. Who will want to watch over the sleeping, waiting, frozen bodies while the centuries pass by? Who will there be to do that?
One final thought on the cloning/scanning sub-topic in this thread


Assuming that the technology exists, one could upload the contents of one's brain, and then "program" a clone with the contents of whatever was uploaded. However, in the end, it's still a clone, its just that the contents can be stored in a computer and later recreated when needed. But the original being does not share any part of the experience of the clone. I could be cloned entirely, atom by atom while I sleep, awake and never know that a duplicate physical copy of my body, mind and therefore even my consciousness exists. The clone exists independently of the original being. So why would the original being even care?


If ones brain could be scanned and those contents transmitted to a different location and stored as a functioning consious entity, whether that entity was comprised strictly of software or a combination of hardware and software. Then the trick to making you think that your still you, that you, as a concsiousness have continued uninterrupted, would be to have the subjective experience of 'you' moving from the old place (your human brain) to the new place (holographic dilithium storage crystal matrix or whatever). Whether that transfer actually occured would be irrelevant. As long as you 'thought' it happened. If the new conciousness copy in the new storage media had all thoughts and memories of you and the last of those thoughts and memories were the experience of your conciousness 'moving' as it was scanned and copied than for all intents and purposes - you have continued and transferred seamlessly from one storage media to another. You wouldn't know the difference and would not feel as your old body 'died'. Your old conciousness, unbeknownst to the new consiousness, could be terminated immeadiatly after the data copy was complete and all would be well. Denial and rationalizing in the transhuminist age! [thumb]

Edited by rwoodin, 11 May 2007 - 06:22 AM.


#72 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 10 May 2007 - 04:04 AM

Who will want to watch over the sleeping, waiting, frozen bodies while the centuries pass by? Who will there be to do that?

Who's been doing it for the last 40 years? Why? Answer that, and your question will be answered.

#73 rwoodin

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 1
  • Location:North Carolina, USA
  • NO

Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:41 AM

Volunteers have been doing it for the past 40 years. Because they believe very deeply in the idea and application of cryonics. That does not provide any answer to what I was musing about. It is easy to carry a cause through one generation. Well, maybe I should say possible, not easy, to carry on a cause for a generation. Down through the generations is a different story. I have almost no knowledge of my own ancestors beyond my grandparents. Time is a powerful force of change. I hope that we who are putting much faith in cryonic suspension and revival from that will be able to weather all the changes that time is sure to bring. That's all I'm saying.
In theory, I dont see anything that would be physically insurmountable in the idea or application of cryonic suspension.

#74 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 11 May 2007 - 04:50 PM

I agree with you that there is much uncertainty. The gulf between where society and technology are now compared to where they must be for cryonics to work is so vast that how we get from here to there is almost inscrutable.

However the common argument that nobody is motivated to keep cryonics going is clearly bogus.

Volunteers have been doing it for the past 40 years.... It is easy to carry a cause through one generation.

You are mistaken. Cryonics is not one generation old. It is three generations old. The parents of the youngest cryonics activists today were not even born when cryonics got started. None of the people that work at cryonics organizations today were the people that started cryonics.

Edited by bgwowk, 13 May 2007 - 03:38 AM.


#75 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 11 May 2007 - 05:09 PM

Yeah, I agree. My children have been explaining they are cryonicists to others since they started to walk. It is an accepted normal thing in our family---not that it will work, but that it might.

I am 31, and don't know the founders of cryonics. My daughter Avianna is already a cryonics activist, she spoke better than I to Barbara Walters :) She has also raised money for the Mprize, and wants to end hunger and inequality in the world.... kids have so much energy!

She sells True Majority pens each year, raises money for Unicef... there is much we can do. Cryonics is just a common sense safety net. Hey look I just got added to Lifeboat to help educate children! (I do that in my local Church, and schools along with through my book, "21st Century Kids") http://lifeboat.com/ex/main

#76 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:06 AM

I saw your name on the lifeboat front page the other day, Shannon. Nice job.

Also, it makes me happy that your kids are so accepting of cryonics and related ideas. Wouldn't it be wonderful if every child grew up as accepting of such ideas?

#77 John_Ventureville

  • Guest
  • 279 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 28 May 2007 - 10:45 AM

Bruce Klein wrote:
OK, Jay.. I am signed up as a head only. Total cost is about $600/yr, which includes a life insurance policy premium and an annual Alcor membership. This comes to less than $50/mth for the world's best human brain back-up program... in case of accidental power outage.
>

Wow. I somehow would have thought you would sign up for whole body. But perhaps you have in the time since you posted this about five years ago. I wonder what it says about a person's personal psychology when they go with head only as compared to whole body. I think I have seen too many episodes of Futurama and so I'm freaked out by the idea of head only! lol

I really don't see a scientific reason for the whole body option but I do feel future people/societies just may feel I am more legitimate/worthy to be reanimated if I am a whole body. Consider that my "gut" instinct about the decision. ; )

John Grigg

#78 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 28 May 2007 - 11:07 AM

Wow.  I somehow would have thought you would sign up for whole body.  But perhaps you have in the time since you posted this about five years ago.

Five years? It was less than a year ago when he posted that. (about 9 and a half months to be exact)

#79 John_Ventureville

  • Guest
  • 279 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 29 May 2007 - 07:18 AM

Damn time dilation!!

John ; )

#80 Live Forever

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 01 June 2007 - 08:20 AM

Damn time dilation!! 

John  ; )

Lol, damn time dilation, indeed.

#81 Harvey Newstrom

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 102 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Washington, DC & FL

Posted 02 June 2007 - 06:30 AM

I decided to sign up for the whole-body back in the late '80s. I figured they might be able to revive the body easier than rebuilding it. Or, if they rebuilt it, it might be helpful to have the original model to follow.

Genetics don't determine everything, since my identical twin brother and I don't really look identical. I want to wake up looking like me, not him or somebody similar.

I figured it wouldn't hurt to have extra parts if they didn't need them. But it would be bad to be missing parts that they wish they had. The only slight concern I have now is that whole-body perfusion might not be as efficient as neuro-only.

But I like my body, and thought I'd take it with me!

#82 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 April 2008 - 06:42 AM

I decided to sign up for the whole-body back in the late '80s. I figured they might be able to revive the body easier than rebuilding it. Or, if they rebuilt it, it might be helpful to have the original model to follow.

Genetics don't determine everything, since my identical twin brother and I don't really look identical. I want to wake up looking like me, not him or somebody similar.

I figured it wouldn't hurt to have extra parts if they didn't need them. But it would be bad to be missing parts that they wish they had. The only slight concern I have now is that whole-body perfusion might not be as efficient as neuro-only.

But I like my body, and thought I'd take it with me!



Exactly my thoughts. I don't know how much better Alcor can just preserve my brain if they only did neuro and not waste efforts on body. Then they only have one concentrated target to put the attention to. If I do whole body, then my brain might not have preserved as carefully as it would have been. It's easier to vitrify a nice single compact organ than do my whole darn body at the expense of head.

I want to wait until the technology is good enough to preserve body as well as head. Maybe do them separately and reconnect them, have the best of both worlds. If I get revived/rescued 100 years later, people will look about same as we do today, if 1,000 years later, everyone may have robot bodies or become cyborgs, then no need to vitrify whole body and have to cut off my head again to attach to robot.

Edited by HYP86, 13 April 2008 - 06:45 AM.


#83 neonnexus

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 1
  • Location:England

Posted 25 April 2008 - 02:20 PM

I am planning on full body with Alcor. I hope that by the time my preservation is required (if at all), the technology would be much more advanced than it is today and the neuro preservation process for full body preservation will be improved upon. No scientific basis for this just my preference. I would like the option to be able to change to neuro though if I change my mind in the future for any reason.

#84 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 April 2008 - 10:41 PM

I am planning on full body with Alcor. I hope that by the time my preservation is required (if at all), the technology would be much more advanced than it is today and the neuro preservation process for full body preservation will be improved upon. No scientific basis for this just my preference. I would like the option to be able to change to neuro though if I change my mind in the future for any reason.



eXACTLY! If an emergency happens, i'll tell them to " Just cut off my head and freeze it. screw the body."

Edited by HYP86, 25 April 2008 - 10:42 PM.


#85 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 08 June 2008 - 10:11 PM

If the technology improves, I'd rather have full body preservation. However, as long as vitrification isn't available for the full-body, I'd stick with neuro. I'd rather wake up in a different body than risk death or brain damage from poor preservation.

#86 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 08 June 2008 - 11:08 PM

If the technology improves, I'd rather have full body preservation. However, as long as vitrification isn't available for the full-body, I'd stick with neuro. I'd rather wake up in a different body than risk death or brain damage from poor preservation.



Yea me too. Fortunately (and hopefully) there's still a considerable time for cryonics to advance until we get to need it.

#87 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 09 June 2008 - 03:23 AM

Since this thread has re-awakened, I'll bite: Neuro. By the time we can read a dead brain sufficiently to extract a consciousness and some memories, building you a new body from scratch, using your DNA (if you insist), will be relative child's play. Consider that by the time you are ready for cryo, your body is not going to be the handsome, finely tuned machine it is today. It will be a broken down, painful, decrepit piece of crap. By the time we are able to read a dead brain, it will probably be considered criminal to implant a consciousness in such a broken down body. I don't expect very many parts of me to emerge unscathed from all the bad things that happen between my last healthy day and the time I'm vitrified, not to mention between now and then. I'm particularly concerned about the period between death and vitrification. If I am to come back, I want a nice shiny new body, with a lot of improvements over the current model.

#88 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 09 June 2008 - 03:32 AM

Since this thread has re-awakened, I'll bite: Neuro. By the time we can read a dead brain sufficiently to extract a consciousness and some memories, building you a new body from scratch, using your DNA (if you insist), will be relative child's play. Consider that by the time you are ready for cryo, your body is not going to be the handsome, finely tuned machine it is today. It will be a broken down, painful, decrepit piece of crap. By the time we are able to read a dead brain, it will probably be considered criminal to implant a consciousness in such a broken down body. I don't expect very many parts of me to emerge unscathed from all the bad things that happen between my last healthy day and the time I'm vitrified, not to mention between now and then. I'm particularly concerned about the period between death and vitrification. If I am to come back, I want a nice shiny new body, with a lot of improvements over the current model.


Good point about an old busted up body so far in the future maybe seeming even criminal to revive. But how can you survive as a brain with no nerve center? What if science advances greatly but they just never figure out a way to fix nerves? Wouldnt you want your old busted up body in that case?

And if that wasnt the case, then they could just sever your busted body, throw it in a dumpster and let your cranium choose from a host of online bodies anyways.

#89 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 June 2008 - 05:36 AM

I was in this discussion with a man today driving back from a training in Dallas (am now certified to teach human sexuality to middle and high school programs with the OWL 'Our Whole Lives' program) but I explained that some cryonicists put in their contract that they only want to be revived if they would have their original body, or have it rejuvenated, some say being a robot/cyborg would be fine, some would not care if their mind/consciousness was disembodied and living in an internet. You can choose, some cryonicists have volunteered to be the first revived--when the procedure is still new and all the risks would not be known, others want to be revived after a certain amount of successful reanimations have occurred. The point is, that it is a chance--and if it does not work, you would not know (or may from heaven, or some sort of different dimension/alternate universe-- and be just fine and more knowledgeable than the humans you left, and somehow so happy you are not upset with not being able to help humanity... ;)) nevertheless--we don't know, and cryonics is a reasonable thing to try. Many people at the training I was at, M.D.'s, therapists, a rocket scientist and his wife from NASA--they all liked the idea of cryonics and I was an interesting person to sit by at lunch or during breaks. :) :)

#90 neonnexus

  • Guest
  • 51 posts
  • 1
  • Location:England

Posted 09 June 2008 - 03:59 PM

Some good points made, however I still am going to go for full body. I'd like to be revived after the first few. If my body isn't required then I'll happily take whatever works! I'd rather be in some physical form than a virtual entity though. If my body can be revived along with my brain then even better! I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I wouldn't wait just because they can't revive my body, as I said before, my body is preferred but I'd drop it in an instant if I needed to. I am going to take my body along for the ride just in case. If by the time I reach 70, cryopreservation procedures have not improved (an unlikely scenario) then I may change and opt for neuro to get a better preservation. I was also thinking of moving to Arizona to be near Alcor (if they don't have a UK facility by then) when I reach my 70's.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users