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

Photo
- - - - -

Cryonics


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Poll: Cryonics (118 member(s) have cast votes)

Cryonics

  1. Yes, cryonics will work. (44 votes [39.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.64%

  2. No (7 votes [6.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.31%

  3. Maybe (60 votes [54.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.05%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 September 2002 - 01:50 PM


[Topic from BJKlein.com]

Originally posted by Peromnia:
I have heard that Cyronics will not work because water expands as it turns to ice. Therefore water in the cells will rupture the cells as the temperature is lowered below zero degrees Celsius. This would cause irreparable damage to the cells, preventing any possible resusitation.



Originally posted by thefirstimmortal:
I would like to know how those who belive that Cyrionics would answer this fundamental law of physics.


O'Rights, I think I posted the following in another forum, but I couldn't find it, so if this is a repost of a post, my apologies.


There is little dispute that the condition of a person stored at the temperature of liquid nitrogen is stable, but the process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology. Whether or not the damage inflicted by current methods can ever be reversed depends both on the level of damage and the ultimate limits of future medical technology. The failure to reverse freezing iniury with current methods does not imply that it can never be reversed in the future, just as the inability to build a personal computer in 1890 did not imply that such machines would never be economically built. I will consider the limits of what medical technology should eventually be able to achieve (based on the currently understood laws of chemistry and physics) and the kinds of damage caused by current methods of freezing.

So what were talking about here is essentially stopping biological time. Contrary to the usual impression, the challenge to cells during freezing is not their ability to endure storage at very low temperatures, rather it is the lethality of an intermediate zone of temperature (-15 to -60 degrees C.) that a cell must traverse twice. No thermally driven reactions occur in aqueous systems at liquid N2 temperatures (196 degrees C), the refrigerant commonly used for low temperature storage. The only physical states that do exist at -196 degrees C, are crystalline or glassy, and in both states the viscosity is so high that diffusion is insignificant over less than geological time spans. Moreover, at -196 degrees C, there is insufficient thermal energy for chemical reactions.

The only reactions that can occur in frozen aqueous systems at -196 degrees C are photophysical events such as the formation of free radicals and the production of breaks in macromolecules as a direct result of hits by background ionizing radiation or cosmic rays. Over a sufficiently long period of time, these direct ionizations can produce enough breaks or other damage in DNA to become deleterious after rewarming to physiological temperatures, especially since no enzymatic repair can occur at these very low temperatures. The dose of ionizing radiation that kills 63% of representative cultured mammalian cells at room temperature is 200-400 rads. Because terrestrial background radiation is some .1 rad/yr,, it ought to require some 2,000-4,000 years at -196 degrees C to kill that fraction of a population of typical mammalian cells.

Needless to say, direct experimental confirmation of this prediction is lacking. but there is no confirmed case of cell death ascribable to storage at -196 degrees C for some 2-15 years and none even when cells are exposed to levels of ionizing radiation some 100 times background for up to 5 years. Furthermore. there is no evidence that storage at -196 degrees C results in the accumulation of chromosomal or genetic changes.

Stability for centuries or millennia requires temperatures below -130 degrees C. Many cells stored above -80 degrees C are not stable, probably because traces of unfrozen solution still exist. They will die at rates ranging from several percent per hour to several percent per year depending on the temperature, the species and type of cell, and the composition of the medium in which they are frozen.

Most implications and applications of freezing to biology arise from the effective stoppage of time at -196 degrees C. Tissue preserved in liquid nitrogen can survive centuries without deterioration. This simple fact provides an imperfect time machine that can transport us almost unchanged from the present to the future: we need merely freeze ourselves in liquid nitrogen. If freezing damage can someday be cured. then a form of time travel to the era when the cure is available would be possible.

As you know, this option, far from being idle speculation, is available to anyone who so chooses. Of course the most important question in evaluating this option is its technical feasibility.

Given the remarkable progress of science during the past few centuries it is difficult to dismiss cryonics out of hand. The structure of DNA was unknown prior to 1953, the chemical (rather than “vitalistic”) nature of living beings was not appreciated until early in the 20th century, it was not until 1864 that spontaneous generation was put to rest by Louis Pastur, who demonstrated that no organisms emerged from heat-sterilized growth medium kept in sealed flasks, and Sir Isaac Newton’s principal established the laws of motion in 1687, just over 300 years ago. If progress of the same magnitude occurs in the next few centuries, then it becomes difficult to argue that the repair of frozen tissue is inherently and forever infeasible. Ultimately cryonics will either (a) work or (B) fail to work. It would seem useful to
know in advance which of these two outcomes to expect. If it can be ruled out as infeasible, then we need not waste further time on it, if it seems likely that it will be technically feasible, then a number of nontechnical issues should be addressed in order to obtain a good probability of overall success. Here, we will focus on technical feasibility.

While many isolated tissues (and a few particularly hardy organs) have been successfully cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen arid rewarmed, further successes have proven elusive. While there is no particular reason to believe that a cure for freezing damage would violate any laws of physics (or is otherwise obviously infeasible), it is likely that the damage done by freezing is beyond the self-repair and recovery capabilities of the tissue itself.. This does not imply that the damage cannot be repaired, only that significant elements of the repair process would have to be provided from an external source. In deciding whether such externally provided repair will (or will not) eventually prove feasible, we must keep in mind that such repair techniques can quite literally take advantage of scientific advances made during the next few centuries. Forecasting the capabilities of future technologies is therefore an integral component of determining the feasibility of cryonics.

Such a forecast should,in principle be feasible. The laws of physics and chemistry as they apply to biological structures are well understood and well defined. Whether the repair of frozen tissue will (or will not) eventually prove feasible within the framework defined by those laws is a question which we should be able


Current research supports the idea that we will eventually be able to examine and manipulate structures molecule by molecule and even atom by atom. Such a technical capability has very clear implications for the kinds of damage that can (and cannot) be repaired. The most powerful repair capabilities that should eventually be possible can be defined with remarkable clarity. The question we wish to answer is conceptually straight forward; will the most powerful repair capability that is likely to be developed in the long run (perhaps over a few centuries) be adequate to repair tissue that is frozen using the best available current methods? There if no implication here that the most powerful repair method either will (or will not) be used or be necessary. The fact that we can kill a gnat with a double-barreled shotgun does not imply that a fly-swatter won’t work just as well. If we aren‘t certain whether we face a gnat or a tiger, we’d rather be holding the shotgun than the fly-swatter. The shotgun will work in either case.. but the fly-swatter can’t deal with the tiger. In a similar vein, we will consider the most powerful methods that should be feasible rather than the minimal methods that might be sufficient. While this approach can reasonably be criticized on the grounds that simpler methods are likely to work, it avoids the complexities and problems that must be dealt with in trying to determine exactly what those simpler methods might be in any particular case and provides additional margin for error.

There is widespread belief that such a capability will eventually be developed though exactly how long it will take is unclear. Sources include Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler. “Nanotechnoloey: Wherein Molecular Computers Control Tiny Circulatory Submarines”, “Foresight Update”, a publication of the Foresight Institute, “Scanning Tunneling Microscopy: Application to Biology and Technology, “Molecular manipulation using a tunnelling microscope. Molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation.” by K. Eric Drexler, “Rod Logic and Thermal Noise in the Mechanical Nanocomputer,” Proceedins of the Third International Symposium on Molecular Electronic Devices. “Machines of Inner Space’ Yearbook of Science and the Future. “A Small
Revolution Gets Underway”, by Robert Pool, “Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope”, by D.M. Eigler. “Nonexistent technology gets a hearing.” by I. Amato Science News. “The Invisible Factory,” Nanosystems, Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing and Computation, John Wiley. Atom by Atom, Scientist Build Invisible Machines of the Future, Andrew Pullack “Theoretical Analysis of a Site-Specific Hydrogen Abstraction Tool” by Charles Musgrave and William A. Goddard III. Nanotechnology, Jason Perry. Nanotechnology Research and Perspectives, B.C. Crandall and James Lewis. “Self Replicating Systems and Molecular Manufacturing” by Ralph C. Merkle. “Computational Nanotechnology” by Ralph C. Merkle. “NASA and Self Replicating Systems” also by Ralph C. Merkle.
Nanotechnology 1991. special issue on Molecular manufacturing.

Although how long is unclear, New York University Scientists recently announced the development of a machine made out of a few strands of DNA, representing the first step toward building nanorobots capable of repairing cell damage at the molecular level and restoring cells, organs and entire organisms to youthful vigor.

The long storage times possible with cryonic suspension make the precise development time of such technologies noncritical. Development anytime during the next few centuries would be sufficient to save the lives of those suspended with current technology.

You are already familiar with nanotechnology so I will just clarify the technical issues involved in applying it in the conceptually simplest and most powerful fashion to the repair of frozen tissue.

Broadly speaking, the central thesis of nanotechnology is that almost any structure consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics that can be specified can in fact be built. This possibility was first advanced by Richard Feynman when he said, “The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom”.

This concept is receiving increasing attention in the research community. There have been two international research conferences directly on molecular manufacturing as well as a broad range of conferences on related subjects.

The ability to design and manufacture devices that are only tens or hundreds of atoms across promises rich rewards in electronics, catalysis, and materials. The scientific rewards should be just as great, as researchers approach an ultimate level of control-assembly matter one atom at a time.

Within the decade, John Foster at IBM, Almaden or some other scientist is likely to learn how to piece together atoms and molecules one at a time using the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope.

Eigler and Schweizer at IBM reported on the use of the STM at low temperatures to position individual xenon atoms on a single-crystal nickel surface with atomic precision. This capacity has allowed us to fabricate rudimentary structures of our own design, atom by atom. The processes I describe are in principle applicable to molecules also. In view of the device-like characteristics reported for single atoms on surfaces, the possibilities for perhaps the ultimate in device miniaturization are evident.

J.A. Armstrong, IBM Chief Scientist and Vice President for Science and Technology will be central to the next epoch of the information age, and will be as revolutionary as science and technology at the micron scale have been since the early 70’s. Indeed, we will have the ability to make electronic and mechanical devices atom-by-atom when that is appropriate to the job at hand.

Scientists are beginning to gain the ability to manipulate matter by its most basic components, molecule by molecule and even atom by atom, and that ability, while now very crude, might one day allow people to build almost unimaginable small electronic circuits and machines, producing for example, a super computer invisible to the naked eye. Some futurists even imagine building tiny robots that could travel through the body performing surgery on damaged cells.

Drexler has proposed the assembler, a small device resembling an industrial robot which would be capable of holding and positioning reactive compounds in order to control the precise location at which chemical reactions take place. This general approach should allow the construction of large atomically precise objects by a sequence of precisely controlled chemical reactions.

You have already read what is possibly the best technical discussion of nanotechnology that has recently been provided to mankind. The engines of creation by Drexler.

The plausibility of this approach can be illustrated by the ribosome. Ribosomes manufacture all the proteins used in all living things on this planet. A typical ribosome is relatively small (a few thousand cubic nanometers) and is capable of building almost any protein by stringing together amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) in precise linear sequence. To do this,the ribosome has a means of grasping a specific amino acid (more precisely, it has a means of selectively grasping a specific transfer RNA, which in turn is chemically bonded by a specific enzyme to a specific amino acid), of grasping the growing polypeptide, and of causing the specific amino acid to react with and be added to the end of the polypeptide.

The instructions that the ribosome follows in building a protein are provided by mRNA (messenger RNA). This is a polymer formed from the 4 bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil. A Sequence of several hundred to a few thousand such bases codes for a specific protein. The ribosome “reads” this “control tape” sequential, and acts on the direction it provides.

In an analogous fashion, an assembler will build an arbitrary molecular structure following a sequence of instructions. The assembler, however, will provide three- dimensional positional and full orientation control over the molecular component (analogous to the individual amino acid) being added to a growing complex molecular structure (analogous to the growing polypeptide). In addition, the assembler will be able to form any one of several different kinds of chemical bonds. not just the single kind (the peptide bond) that the ribosome makes.

Calculations indicate that an assembler need not inherently be very large. Enzymes typically weigh about 10-5 amu while the ribosome itself is about 3x10-6 amu. The smallest assembler might be a factor of ten or so larger than a ribosome. Current design ideas for an assembler are somewhat larger than this cylindrical arms about 100 nanocomputers in length and 30 nanometers in diameter, rotary joints to allow arbitrary positioning of the tip of the arm, and a worst-case positional accuracy at the tip of perhaps .1 to .2 nanometers, even in the presence of thermal noise. Even a solid block, of diamond as large as such an arm weighs only sixteen million amu, so we can safely conclude that a hollow arm of such dimensions would weigh less, six such arms would weigh less than 10-8 amu.


William O'Rights
thefirstimmortal

#2 AIGuy

  • Guest, F@H
  • 12 posts
  • 22

Posted 13 September 2002 - 02:33 AM

Aren't there stories about animals that fell into frozen lakes and were later thawed an revived?

If so did they die later from the cell damage caused by the freezing?

Can certain fish be frozen an thawed out without dieing?

I seems that minnows and such in shallow streams that freeze would have to freeze and thaw or they would die each year as many streams freeze completely.

What about the insects that lay their eggs in shallow ground an inch or two deep?

Surely the ground reaches freezing temperatures at these depths!

Wouldn't the cells in the eggs be destroyed too?

What I'm suggesting is that evolution may have developed some type of defense mechanism to prevents the cells in certain species from rupturing when they are frozen.

Possibly some type of an antifreeze that would prevent the frozen water from expanding and rupturing the cell walls or an adaptation that causes the organism to eliminate sufficient moisture from it's cells to prevent rupture from freezing prior to the freezing occuring.

They say that a cold winter does kill more of the bug larvae in the ground and produces less insect the following summer but obviously many survive. And some insects such as cicadas eggs can survive underground for 7 years and they still hatch out!

Something has to be occuring at the cellular level here.

Maybe by isolating that mechanism in the DNA and introducing the mechanism into a mouses DNA via a retrovirus or something we could duplicate the effect in mammals!

It might not help those already in cryonic suspension but it could possible pave the way suspended animation in long space flights and the freezing of people with incurable diseases until a cure was found!

#3 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 September 2002 - 02:40 AM

Hmm, I know there are certain frogs that can survive a solid freeze and there are many insects that will survive after being frozen...

However, as for making the effort to change our cells to make them more susceptible to cryonics suspension... I'd say we might better use our time developing antiaging cellular techniques.

#4 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 13 September 2002 - 03:52 PM

EVEN IF you believe that cryonics as currently practised offers next to no hope of revival, you have to think that there will be major improvements in the manner in which people are preserved in the coming decades.

Have you noticed that the people who dismiss it as unworkable also make the implicit assumption that it will ALWAYS be unworkable? If you don't think current cryonics techniques are effective that is all the more reason to investigate ways in making it more effective, in my view! However you NEVER hear the cryonics skeptics say " I think this won't work as it currently being done, therefore they need to improve the preservation process" Instead they consistently ridicule both the idea and more visciously those who express an interest in it.

Heather Pringle, author of The Mummy Congress is typical of this
The quotes below are from Wired magazine

"Instead of preserving the finest physical specimens of 21st-century humanity -- the athletic, the attractive, the physically fit, the Adonis and Venus de Milo types whose bodies are so well deserving of eternity -– we seem to be conserving geeks with taped-up glasses and bad haircuts, people whose idea of dinner ranges only a little further than Frito-Lays, Cheetos and Jolt," Pringle said.

"What a warped view the 40th century will have of the rest of us."


The only warped view I here see is Heather Pringle's. Her Nazi-like criteria
for ascribing value to other people utterly digusts me. Undoubtedly she thought this witty and clever.


On a more positive note, I honestly think Cryonics will pick up quite a bit in the coming decades. Never underestimate the self-absoption of baby-boomers! As they hit retirement age the boomers will act like they are the first generation ever to get old. Most will turn to religion but I anticipate that others of a more practical/materialist bent will search for more realistic solutions to the problem of death

#5 Bruce Klein

  • Topic Starter
  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 September 2002 - 06:30 PM

Thanks Utnapishtim,
Good post...

Here's a link to above referenced article in wired.

http://www.wired.com...4,45188,00.html

#6 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 18 September 2002 - 12:49 AM

To add a sort of bright side to the cryonics.

This would be for the really old people that may not be around for the distant achievements of immortality (its general I know).

I am trying to find a site or some glycobiology book on how this works but there are such animals that can live in freezing environments without harm to the organ tissue. I remember Discovery Science Channel talking about how the arctic cod uses some sort of sugar-protein mix that keeps them healthy as ever. No, the fish didn't swim slow or anything but this could be useful on an evolutionary standpoint. Heck i bet that the government would fork over good money for some troops to be able to function normally in arctic conditions.

Overall, if this was applied to the human body then the only problem would be seeing how far we could lower the temperature. I swear these fish were in negative degree water though. Ill look around more, in the mean time here is a little something about glycoconjugates (sugar-proteins and stuff).


http://wizard.pharm....conjstrfxn.html

#7 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 11 October 2002 - 01:22 AM

Have you noticed that the people who dismiss it as unworkable also make the implicit assumption that it will ALWAYS be unworkable?

Those who try it may have, in short, a blank check on life.
More than that, we may have a pretty substantially unrwritten guarantee of continuing life itself.

#8 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 11 October 2002 - 01:26 AM

Have you noticed that the people who dismiss it as unworkable also make the implicit assumption that it will ALWAYS be unworkable?

At the temperature of liquid helium, chemistry stops. On this fact, and on one reasonable hope, the largest industry late this century will be built.
The reasonable hope will be that the progress of medicine will be matched by similar progress in the future-so that, no matter what a person might die of, at some future time a way would be found to cure it, to repair it, or at least to make it irrelevant to continuing life and activity (including a method of repairing the damage done by freezing a body to that temperature).

#9 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 11 October 2002 - 01:32 AM

Instead they consistently ridicule both the idea and more visciously those who express an interest in it.



On a more positive note, I honestly think Cryonics will pick up quite a bit in the coming decades. Never underestimate the self-absoption of baby-boomers! As they hit retirement age the boomers will act like they are the first generation ever to get old. Most will turn to religion but I anticipate that others of a more practical/materialist bent will search for more realistic solutions to the problem of death

Immortality through freeing? Robert C. W. Ettinger has been on a crusade for years now. The funny thing about it is that it will probably work. (I offer no money-back guarantees, you understand, only an opinion. But it is an opinion shared by such prestigious men as Jean Rostand, France’s most illustrious biochemist. The other funny thing about it is that there have been very few takers for this offer of immortality in the flesh as Bob Ettinger says, most are cold, but few are frozen. There are fewer than a hundred corpses currently in the deep freeze, although there are some thousands of persons who would be, except that they haven’t yet happened to die.

The odds appear to be very great that it will happen some time, and according to my personal reading of human psychology, the minute it does we will have a rush to the freezers comparable to no human migration since the opening of the Cherokee Strip, it strikes me that we are all, from birth, so often reminded that we are inevitably going to die that we cannot accept an offer of immortality when it is presented, until and unless it is shown to work. Demonstrate that it works one time, and we’ll grab for it as we’ve grabbed for few things before ...

#10 AIGuy

  • Guest, F@H
  • 12 posts
  • 22

Posted 11 October 2002 - 05:44 PM

A recent rerun of StarGate, a popular SciFi show showed a woman being revived after being frozen in ice for thousands of years.

The show's scientist postulated that the reasons her cells had not ruptured could be the same reason that a species of salmon could be frozen and revived. They mentioned something about enzymes that the fish had evolved from living in the arctic environment for millions of years..

This was possibly just Hollywood attempting to prop up a weak storyline.

But often Hollywood will research a subject or bring in technical advisors to make their stories more plausable. Does anyone know if any species of fish can be frozen and thawed and resusitated.

You mentioned frogs before. Why don't their cells rupture? They must surely have water in them just as ours do. The why is what's important!

Scientists are now talking about DNA therapy. If there was a gene that produced this possible enzyme perhaps it could be introduced to a human over a period of time by means of a genetically engineered virus.

#11 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 11 October 2002 - 10:29 PM

Like I was takling about, glyco-conjugates.


Some basic links, and if you want to understand the atomic structures then click on the link I posted above already.

Basic
http://www.gi.alaska...m/ASF5/558.html

Structure
http://users.rcn.com...coproteins.html

Evolutionary
http://www.oxy.edu/d...eze_article.pdf

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 12 October 2002 - 12:53 AM

Thisis also related to the issue I was raising about raising the temperature of the subject. I do not think that it is absolutely necessary to attempt to freeze tissue as to as low a temperature as has been the method chosen.

I want a "hibernation" method that allows for true suspended animation. There is a different mission profile suggested by this but one that has a much higher probability of returning "Me" to life and not just my body. I don't think that we should depend upon a method that waits until we are determined to be brain dead. It seems to be simply counterintuitive.

As I've suggested before, if all we are interested in is "cloning" my DNA then the freezing method offered by current cryotech methods are a combination of too much and too little. And the success of revival is completely predicated on the continued operation of the "support system" regardless of economics, politics, and environmental conditions. I don't think such guarrantees of social and technological stability are so reasonable to make. I think methods for DNA preservation can be "hardened" but would still be dependant upon the society of the future to make viable. That is a bet on continuity that is still a long shot.

But suppose the suspension method could be better hardened and made more self sustaining? Then it improves the still very tenuous odds. Even so if you don't go into Cold Sleep alive the odds of reviving your body with your identity, experiences etc. intact are minimal to zero. I would rather that if I had an incurable disease to current technology that I had the option of "Buying time" until such methods could be developed.

To that end Helix I find the links you offer very interesting because it is much more in line with my suspicion that we would do better to emulate proven methods that nature has already developed. One way of these ways is to effect the tissues through DNA modification, or the alteration of body chemistry and another for example is to develop a method of creating a metamorphic phase that emulates sporification. These are only a few of nature's proven methods of achieving suspended animation. I believe there are more.

As the last is still too foreign to our type of organism I suspect the former to be more likely to yield results sooner. I also think it will allow freezing that is closer to 0 degrees celsius. This would reduce the nucleus crystalization damage and dehydration of tissue inherent through the sublmation process. There is just not too many ways to stop the dehydration effect that will cause the equivalent of "Freeze Drying" at sustained deep cryogenic suspension. Even at extremely low temperatures one of the "strange" properties of water is that it will skip the phase transition to liquid and evaporate directly from a solid to a vapor.

As I study the graph of votes an interesting curve is suggested. All of us think that cryo is either a yes or a maybe, but none here say no.

Fascinating.

I still think it would be fruitful to create a marketable ancillary service involving stored Bone Marrow, Elected Harvested Stem Cells and perhaps even some externally grown and stored organ tissues, for example liver, kidney, pancreatic, lung and skin tissues that we are getting better at being able to induce to grow with stem cells.

These "Artificially Grown" DNA matched organs (tissues) could then be stored in anticipation of need, "sans sangre".

Opinions folks?

#13 thefirstimmortal

  • Life Member The First Immortal
  • 6,912 posts
  • 31

Posted 12 October 2002 - 02:09 AM

Robert Ettinger proposed a biostasis technique in 1962. He stated that Professor Jean Rostand had proposed the same approach years earlier, and had predicted its eventual use in medicine. Why has biostasis by freezing fail to become popular? In part probably because of its initial expense, in part because of human inertia, and in part because means for repairing cells remained obscure. Yet the ingrained conservation of the medical profession has also played a role. Lets consider once again the history of anesthesia.
In 1846, Morton and Warren amazed the world with the ‘discovery of the age,’ ether anesthesia. Yet two years earlier, Horace Wells had used Nitrous Oxide anesthesia, and two years before that, Crawford W. Long had performed an operation using ether. In 1824, Henry Hickman had successfully anesthetized animals using ordinary carbon dioxide. He later spent years urging surgeons in England and France to test nitrous oxide as an anesthetic. In 1799, a full forty-seven years before the great "discovery,” Sir Humphry Davy wrote, “As nitrous oxide in its extensive operation appears capable of destroying physical pain, it may possibly be used during surgical operations.” Yet as late as 1839 the conquest of pain still seemed an impossible dream to many physicians. Dr. Alfred Velpeau stated! “The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera, it is absurd to go on seeking it today. Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. To this compulsory combination we shall have to adjust ourselves."

Whether people choose to use biostasis will depend on whether they see it as worth the gamble. This gamble involves the value of life (which is a personal matter), the cost of biostasis (which seems reasonable by the standards of modern medicine)! the odds that the technology will work (which seem excellent) and the odds that humanity will survive, develop the technology, and revive people. This final point accounts for most of the overall uncertainty.

Assume that human beings and free societies will indeed survive. (No one can calculate the odds of this! but to assume failure would discourage the very efforts that will promote success). If so, then technology will continue to advance. Developing assemblers will take years. Studying cells and learning to repair the tissues of patients in biostasis will take still longer. At a guess, developing repair systems and adapting them to resuscitation will take three to ten decades, though advances in automated engineering may speed the process.

The time required seems unimportant, however, most resuscitated patients will care more about the conditions of life, including the presence of their friends and family, than they will care about the date on the calendar . With abundant resources, the physical conditions of life could be very good indeed. The presence of companions is another matter.

In a recent. published survey, over half of those responding said that they would like to live for at least five hundred years, if given a free choice. Informal surveys show that most people would prefer biostasis to dissolution if they could regain good health and explore a new future with old companions. A few people say that they “want to go when their time comes,” but they generally agree that, so long as they can choose further life, their time has not yet come. It seems that many people today share Benjamin Franklins desire, but in a century able to satisfy it. If biostasis catches on fast enough (or if other life-extension technologies advance fast enough), then a resuscitated patient will awake not to a world of strangers, but to the smiles of familiar faces.

But will people in biostasis be resuscitated? Techniques for placing patients in biostasis are already known, and the costs could become low, at least compared to the costs of major surgery or prolonged hospital care. Resuscitation technology, though, will be complex and expensive to develop. Will people in the future bother?

It seems likely that they will. They may not develop nanotechnology with medicine in mind-but if not, then they will surely develop it to build better computers. They may not develop cell repair machines with resuscitation in mind, but they will surely do so to heal themselves. They may not program repair machines for resuscitation as an act of impersonal charity, but they will have time, wealth, and automated engineering systems, and some of them will have loved ones waiting in biostasis. Resuscitation techniques seem sure to be developed.

#14 Cyto

  • Guest
  • 1,096 posts
  • 1

Posted 12 October 2002 - 08:24 AM

It will be an interesting feat being able to form organs for people. I still want to focus on forcing micro-enviroments to induce, or just induce the stem cells themselves, to regenerate organs.

In my eyes that's no real quality loss and you can avoid expensive "incubation units" for your organs along with doctors "installing" the organs.

Don't get me wrong I know growing organs can have its pros, I'm just trying to make a effective point. And by inducing it could be local injections at first then gene therapy later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And does anyone (Laz?BJK?thefirst?) think that this hype about "maverick" scientists making clones is really going somewhere? To clarify I mean, I wouldn't worry about a hidden clone army or some copy of someone, chances are they would be different. Is is JUST the "moral" issue? *twitch*

#15 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 October 2002 - 09:44 PM

Robert Ettinger proposed a biostasis technique in 1962


back then, many "transhuman" people (the word had yet to be invented) were *convinced* that within 20 years Cryonics would be a HUGE industry and that the first patients would be tawed in the year 2000. Some made even bolder predictions.

Why has in not happened that way? I have many answers but none.
Could this teach us a lesson? You bet.

.

#16 Guest_johnnygone@hotmail.com_*

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 06 November 2002 - 11:19 PM

i'm afraid i have a stupid question, but what happens if these cryonics companies go out of business? would the government step in? is there some sort of international agreement for preserving the person, say if, the u.s. goverment became no more? god, i wish i was as smart about this as all you......

#17 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 07 November 2002 - 04:05 AM

NOt a stupid question at all and what I refer to as the social weaknes of the technology; war, economics, and general politics, are all what make the human element of the technology too unreliable and unpredictable still. After one generation of overseers it is not likely that any guarantee of conduct is reliable.

I trust humans to keep the bills paid even less then the technology to make it work.

#18 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 November 2002 - 06:18 PM

would the government step in? is there some sort of international agreement for preserving the person, say if, the u.s. goverment became no more?


No it would not. No there is not. That's why the idea of having the cryotanks in the Anktarktik has always appealed to me.

Admittedly sheer maintenance costs are not very high. However, as the CI gleefully pointed out, having your premises on rented land does not exactly add to reliability.

#19 Ladon

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Portland, Orgeon

Posted 09 February 2003 - 03:40 AM

I have read through the majority of the posts and one assumption that cryonics makes is the physical structures of memory in the brain. As I understand Dr. Lehmler assumes that maintaining brain structure correlates to the physical structures of memory. That being, as long as the physical structure of the brain maintains itself through the cryonic procedure, personality, memory, etc are maintained.

Can it be assumed that structure of neurons are maintained means that personality is intact? Are they assuming this or is there some evidence and research out there that hasnt been given forth that they can resonably assume this position?

To determine whether or not cryonics will work, it has to show that personality and memory are indeed intact through the process. If this assumption is true then we are in the clear. But it has yet to be shown.

#20 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 February 2003 - 04:36 AM

Welcome Ladon! ;)

I have read through the majority of the posts

An older and therefore far better resource is http://www.cryonet.org/

one assumption that cryonics makes is the physical structures of memory in the brain

Not necessarily. But to many the memory thing is indeed very important.

Can it be assumed that structure of neurons are maintained means that personality is intact?

Ahh! Are we talking PERSONALITY now, or MEMORY?

Are they assuming this or is there some evidence and research out there that hasnt been given forth that they can resonably assume this position?

There is a rather substantial body of research (called Neuroscience) that leads us to assume that the neural structure, viability and location of neurons and their dendrites is very closely linked to what appears to be memory (hippocampus) and personality. Lamentably, Alzheimers disease is a prime example.

To determine whether or not cryonics will work, it has to show that personality and memory are indeed intact through the process.

Famous dilemma:
1) You cannot freeze (or vitrify, which is the way the cryonic institutes are going) a human being for research purposes.
2) No cryonicist actually contends that if you were to freeze and taw all would be nice. The assumption is that future technology will be able to repair damage incurred in the process.
3) Your assumption is only partially correct: To determine wether cryonics might work, "it" has merely to show that the basic tenets are solid. But as you point out (implicitly)- we know precious little about where and how personality is constituted and stored.- and thus we know little about how to preserve it.

#21 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 09 February 2003 - 05:29 AM

Hi Gang,

Just a quick clarification on the current knowledge of memory and physical structure. Current research directions suggest that the connections between neurites (axons or dendrites) and the dendritic spines, small nodes on dendrites that mediate connections between processes of neurons, are probably the ultimate source of long term memory.

That said, there are probably four or more physical processes for memory in the brain, which differ primarily in the time scale you are talking about. Current research suggests that the hippocampus is only involved in shortest time scales, i.e. running memory loops and transfer of memories into long term storage whereas longer term memories are most likely stored only in the cortex.

For cryonics to work the preservation of microstructure of the connections mentioned above is critical. One of the reasons to hurry the cryonics process as much as possible is that even a few minutes without a blood supply will cause some dendritic connections to retract, the same effect you get in severe strokes, and this will permanently alter structure.

Best,
Ocsrazor

#22 Ladon

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Portland, Orgeon

Posted 09 February 2003 - 07:33 PM

From Caliban,

Ahh! Are we talking PERSONALITY now, or MEMORY?


Personality being the construct of memory and also being the essence of what I am. So I am actually talking about both.

There is a rather substantial body of research (called Neuroscience) that leads us to assume that the neural structure, viability and location of neurons and their dendrites is very closely linked to what appears to be memory (hippocampus) and personality. Lamentably, Alzheimers disease is a prime example.


Please cite resources. In addition, I will continue assuming that what you stated in correct. Does cryonics preserve the dendritic connections and the neurons themselves? Don't forget to take into account cryo-protectants. Cryo-protectants get into the cells and push out the water. If it pushes out the water what else does it push out? What is its effect on DNA?

2) No cryonicist actually contends that if you were to freeze and taw all would be nice. The assumption is that future technology will be able to repair damage incurred in the process.


Fine and dandy, but that would work if cryonics can demonstrate that all the necessary parts that make up memory and personality are indeed intact through the cryonic process. I agree there is reason to believe that the way neurons interact with each other is a contingent of memory but it certainly isn't the only one.

But as you point out (implicitly)- we know precious little about where and how personality is constituted and stored.- and thus we know little about how to preserve it.


Excellent, can we conclude that more research needs to be done before any conclusion can be made about cryonics validity?

From Ocrazor,

Current research directions suggest that the connections between neurites (axons or dendrites) and the dendritic spines, small nodes on dendrites that mediate connections between processes of neurons, are probably the ultimate source of long term memory.


Please cite resources. Also, it is important to note that the word probably was in there.

For cryonics to work the preservation of microstructure of the connections mentioned above is critical. One of the reasons to hurry the cryonics process as much as possible is that even a few minutes without a blood supply will cause some dendritic connections to retract, the same effect you get in severe strokes, and this will permanently alter structure.


Indeed it does, also it must demonstrate that it will actually preserve what it set out to preserve.

**********

Do not take my skepticism as a jest from a sophist. I am interested in the validity of cryonics. In addition, I am life extensionist myself.

Northwest Extropian Group Web Page

Northwest Extropian Yahoo Group

#23 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 09 February 2003 - 09:18 PM

Hi Ladon,

That was a big "probably" as the whole field is just recently beginning to draw some solid conclusions on the structural roots of memory and learning. I for one, as a working neuroscientist, will not give you a solid answer on any of this stuff right now, because there is still so much we don't know. My feeling is we are approaching a pretty good understanding of these processes though. The best recent review of these subjects is:

Curr Mol Med 2002 Nov;2(7):605-11
LTP, memory and structural plasticity.
Muller D, Nikonenko I, Jourdain P, Alberi S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....0&dopt=Abstract

Click on the Related Articles link on that page to get similar papers. You will probably have to go to a university with a good medical library to find most of this stuff as a lot of it is unavailable via the web right now. (Which by the way is incredibly frustrating for someone like me who is attempting to go paper-free right now)

Just as I wrote that I remembered I had a link to another full text article on the subject but limited to the hippocampus:
http://cercor.oupjou...t/10/10/952.pdf

BTW, we had a long discussion on this in the weekly chat a couple of weeks ago
http://www.imminst.o...t=ST&f=63&t=779

Just to let you know, I am also somewhat of skeptic. I have a policy with Alcor that is in arrears right now, that I am trying to decide whether to renew. I am skeptical both about the technology and the human aspects. I know the people on the cutting edge of developing the tech at 21st Century Medicine and they are just beginning to explore post vitrification brain slices with electron microscopy. http://www.21cm.com/

So my personal opinion is that it is all a crap shoot, we just don't know enough yet about the biology or the ability of future tech to interpret damage to make a solid guess. But... it's the only game in town. So its just a matter of whether you are willing to take the risk of losing money on the policy. Its not that bad for me, considering I pay $9 a month for the life insurance and ~$300 a year for the contract.

Best,
Ocsrazor

#24 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 February 2003 - 05:51 PM

Ladon:Personality being the construct of memory and also being the essence of what I am. So I am actually talking about both.

I see. Just keep in mind not to confuse the two as they might actually be rather different capacities.

caliban:There is a rather substantial body of research (called Neuroscience) that leads us to assume that the neural structure, viability and location of neurons and their dendrites is very closely linked to what appears to be memory (hippocampus) and personality. Lamentably, Alzheimers disease is a prime example.

Ladon:Please cite resources.

This request strikes me as a bit odd, but since I am in the library right now, here you go:
Selected books:
  • Katz, Susan (ed) ; Neuroscience - Exploring the Brain ; 2nd edition ; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2001 ; pp. 752-772 (recommended)
  • Haines, Duane E. (ed) ; Fundamental Neuroscience ; 2nd edition ; Churchill Livingstone 2002 ; pp. 499-501
  • Webster, Douglas B. ; Neuroscience of Communication ; 2nd edition ; Thompson Learning 1999 ; pp.332-337
  • Purves, Daniel/ Augustine, George J/ Fitzpatrick, David/ Katz, Lawrence C./ Lamantia, Anthony-Samuel, Mc.Namara, James, O., Williams, S.Mark (eds) ; Neuroscience ; 2nd edition ; Sinauer Associates; 2000 ; pp. 672-675
Selected papers:
  • Steward O, Worley P. ; "Local synthesis of proteins at synaptic sites on dendrites: role in synaptic plasticity and memory consolidation?" Neurobiol Learn Mem 2002 Nov;78(3):508-27
  • Leuner B, Falduto J, Shors TJ. ; "Associative memory formation increases the observation of dendritic spines in the hippocampus." J Neurosci 2003 Jan 15;23(2):659-65
  • Trachtenberg JT, Chen BE, Knott GW, Feng G, Sanes JR, Welker E, Svoboda K.; "Long-term in vivo imaging of experience-dependent synaptic plasticity in adult cortex." Nature 2002 Dec 19-26;420(6917):788-94
    that brought on an commentary by
  • Ottersen OP, Helm PJ. in the same issue pg. 751-2
hope this helps.

Ladon:I agree there is reason to believe that the way neurons interact with each other is a contingent of memory but it certainly isn't the only one.

I sense an agenda. Would you not care to present your theory? Do you think that memory is linked to the cytosol? Or to the EM field of the brain? Or quantum computing? Interdimensional bridges? Do elaboate! ;))

Ladon:Excellent, can we conclude that more research needs to be done before any conclusion can be made about cryonics validity?

Define validity.
We can certainly agree that cryonics more research needs to be done on all aspects of neuroscience and cryonics possible usefulness. If you want to be sceptical/ critical we can agree that the likelihood that cryonics patients today will ever be revived the way they hope to be is very small.
We cannot however agree if you suggest that signing a cryonics contract today serves no purpose for anyone. Since this is potentially of-topic I will address this elsewhere.

Ladon: Do not take my skepticism as a jest from a sophist.

Your scepticism and sophia is highly appreciated. But thanks for the clarification as no one enjoys fencing with mirrors and strawmen.

#25 MichaelAnissimov

  • Guest
  • 905 posts
  • 1
  • Location:San Francisco, CA

Posted 18 February 2003 - 08:23 PM

Hey Ladon and Caliban, in this post I comment on all the stuff in your recent conversation, in chronological order.

Caliban writes:

back then, many "transhuman" people (the word had yet to be invented) were *convinced* that within 20 years Cryonics would be a HUGE industry and that the first patients would be tawed in the year 2000. Some made even bolder predictions.


Out of curiosity, who made these predictions, and why were they "*convinced*"? (I'm not doubting your claims - they're probably correct - I'm just interested in who the culprits are.)

Why has in not happened that way? I have many answers but none.


Maybe because their arguments were naively based on subtle social patterns which are inherently difficult to predict? Predicting acceptance of cyronics is different than say, predicting the arrival of nanotechnology or the Singularity because it relies on society's comfort levels rather than unstoppable market forces or exponentially accelerating computation. I share your realization of the near-term unacceptability of cryonics, though.

Ladon wrote:

Can it be assumed that structure of neurons are maintained means that personality is intact?

Yep; even if they aren't totally maintained, maybe. Depends on how good superintelligences will be at extrapolating the original state your neurons were in. Even if neurons burst during the freezing process, as long as they burst in relatively straightforward ways, posthumans may be able to recover your original brainstate in ways that human scientists could have never imagined, in the same way that human scientists can do things today which chimps never would have imagined.

Are they assuming this or is there some evidence and research out there that hasnt been given forth that they can resonably assume this position?


Where the heck else would your personality be stored? In your skin cells? :D

Caliban writes:

Ahh! Are we talking PERSONALITY now, or MEMORY?


Why are you implying such a wide distinction? The words "personality" and "memory" each signify a heck of a lot of underlying neurological complexity - but I would argue that "memory" is a subset of "personality", because memories help make up one's personality. Anyway, both of these words are extremely imprecise and their usefulness starts to break down when we discuss stuff like identity preservation and cryonics.

we know precious little about where and how personality is constituted and stored.- and thus we know little about how to preserve it.


We can be sure of one thing; it's stored in the brain. As Ocsrazor points out, long term memory (and therefore, huge portions of personality) may be stored in dendritic spines - quite delicate structures. However memory is truly instantiated, the main goal remains the same - use/develop the most nondestructive preservation process available. Even if we don't know exactly where memory is, the lighter we touch the brain with the freezing process, the less likely we are to be damaging it.

Ladon writes:

Cryo-protectants get into the cells and push out the water. If it pushes out the water what else does it push out? What is its effect on DNA?


It wouldn't have much of an effect on the DNA unless the cryoprotectants were radioactive...

Excellent, can we conclude that more research needs to be done before any conclusion can be made about cryonics validity?


The more research is done, the higher our confidence rises. To create 99.99% confidence, the thawing would need to be done in practice. If you have technology that can repair a thoroughly damaged brain, then no one would ever need to be frozen in the first place, so the whole issue would be moot.

#26 Casanova

  • Guest
  • 93 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 June 2003 - 01:18 AM

The time required seems unimportant, however, most resuscitated patients will care more about the conditions of life, including the presence of their friends and family, than they will care about the date on the calendar . With abundant resources, the physical conditions of life could be very good indeed. The presence of companions is another matter.


I can see the future headline now, "First Revived Oldie Commits Suicide"

Waking up in a freakishly odd future, with skills, and knowledge, that are obsolete; with no friends, or relatives, to keep you company and connected to your past, and to your identity.
I am reminded of the blind patients whose vision was restored. Some of them commited suicide, or died from grief. What they expected, and what they got, didn't match.

The last 25 years, for me, has been a kind of "waking up" into a future horror, so I doubt if I would not commit suicide one week into revival, a hundred years from now.

Be careful what you wish for, the future might manifest it.

Sarcasm, aside;..... we just don't know .... but I go by what humans have done in the past, their track record you might say... not very promising.

Edited by Casanova, 09 June 2003 - 01:21 AM.


#27 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 09 June 2003 - 11:45 AM

Ralph Merckle has some very good articles online arguing for the feasibility of reviving cryonicists in the future

http://www.merkle.co...o/techFeas.html

http://www.merkle.co...cryptoCryo.html

#28 Discarnate

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 0
  • Location:At a keyboard of course!

Posted 11 June 2003 - 12:11 AM

Casanova - A guy named Warren Ellis brought that to an absolutely wonderful, quite horrific, and very interesting futuristic comic book called 'Transmetropolitan.' The series is done, but the old copies are out there. I don't remember the issue numbers, but there's a VERY big section of the stories focussed on just such unfrozen humans, and the difficulties they have in dealing in such a society...

For anyone who doesn't mind being spotted reading a comic book - I highly reccommend 'em...

-Discarnate

#29 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 18 June 2003 - 05:09 PM

More thoughts from a non expert. What about completely dehydrating the body (or possibly just the brain) before the freezing process. Wouldn't this elliminate much of the cell damaged associated with freezing?

Edited by Kissinger, 18 June 2003 - 05:10 PM.


#30 Discarnate

  • Guest
  • 160 posts
  • 0
  • Location:At a keyboard of course!

Posted 18 June 2003 - 09:13 PM

Yeah, but since the biochemistry that needs must be still ongoing would be disrupted, and that there's no certain way to get rid of all H20 from the system simultaneously, it's at least as much of a problem as ice crystals.

What the general consensus seems currently to be is a process called 'vitrification', where the body's fluids are turned into a glass-like substance which doesn't expand or contract, nor form pointy bits, when subjected to cryogenic temperatures. It is acknowledged that this utterly prevents any simple wake-ups, as the fluids will need to be un-vitrified somehow without baking the rest of the body.

IIRC, those in favor of vitrification state that nanotechnology should be able to do the job up a treat. However, as noted elsewhere on this board, this is not my primary realm of interest - and I may well have facts wrong...

-Discarnate




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users