118 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

I've heard from people I highly respect for their medical background, science knowledge, and their research of cryonics--I've heard them say they are not yet signed up with an organization, because they think memories could not be preserved. They concede that in a perfect preservation, it could be possible--but getting a perfect preservation is too difficult. To me, it is sad that they choose not to even try--I hope that they do someday--because if cryonics works, and I am aware again--there will be a lot that I will miss, some more poignantly than others...

[xlifex]

I've heard from people I highly respect for their medical background, science knowledge, and their research of cryonics--I've heard them say they are not yet signed up with an organization, because they think memories could not be preserved.

I wonder who these people are. The only "medical" person who recently has made public claims to this nature is Melody Maxim. I do not consider her an expert on either the biochemistry of memory or the ultrastructural preservation that contemporary vitrification methods can achieve.

They concede that in a perfect preservation, it could be possible--but getting a perfect preservation is too difficult.

Can you refer us to any specific statements such people have made because I fear they are using their medical credentials to pretend to know more than any reasonable person can know about this.

Edited by xlifex, 26 March 2008 - 07:37 AM.

[bgwowk]

I've heard from people I highly respect for their medical background, science knowledge, and their research of cryonics--I've heard them say they are not yet signed up with an organization, because they think memories could not be preserved. They concede that in a perfect preservation, it could be possible--but getting a perfect preservation is too difficult.

The individual you are referring to is narrowly specialized in the field of clinical perfusion, which is most relevant to the initial stabilization phase of cryonics. If clinical specialists who despair at the problems of achieving good stabilization in cryonics also understood how injurious the cryopreservation process itself is, even with perfect stabilization, they would probably dismiss cryonics completely. For cryopreservation with current technology to ever be reversible, there is no escaping the need for repair technologies so advanced as to be far beyond the knowledge of typical medical professionals. To get the whole picture, one must segue from being a clinical specialist, to a cryobiologist, to a nanomedicine theoretician. There has long been a problem in cryonics with people at one of the spectrum not knowing the situation at the other end.

Yes, stabilization should ideally be done to the same standards as established clinical medical procedures. That's because stabilization is the one phase of cryonics in which viability by present medical criteria can still be maintained under ideal conditions, and that's worth effort to preserve. However the technology used in subsequent steps is still very far from demonstrably reversible, and unfortunately no amount of professional clinical expertise can change that for now. The basic technology needs to advance.

[gjbloom]

Although it seems likely that technology will advance to the point where a suspended patient can be revived, or, far more likely, re-instantiated in either a biological or software emulation, the big uncertainty is the motivation of the putative re-animators.

Technology sufficient for re-animation is also sufficient for the much-predicted singularity, in which intelligence evolves as a function of intelligence, and expands at an exponential pace. With the reigning intelligence of that time having evolved to a level as distant as that between, say, humans and mice, will these future intelligence(s) have any reason to go to the trouble of re-animating us?

If we were now able to re-animate mice, and it turned out that ancient pharaohs had suspended their favorite mice, would we bother? Maybe once, to prove it could be done. Then only if it were a trivial exercise, and only on a whim. Perhaps as an exercise for students. Would we bother to re-animate all the pharoh's suspended mice? I doubt it - you seen one reanimated mouse, you seen 'em all.

And for those who are re-animated, what rights will they have in a world where they are as comparatively dumb as mice in our world? Playthings? Treasured collectibles? If the re-animated are granted the ability to uplift themselves to a comparable level of intelligence, won't they lose their value as 'original specimens', making such generosity unlikely?

Mind you, I still think getting frozen is a better idea than ending up as worm poison or air pollution. But I think there are greater concerns about our future re-animation than those posed by the technical difficulties.

[JackCole]

As for the "what rights will we have" and the "loss of memories" -- these two scare me the most.

I've been torn since researching Cryonics now if this is something I should seriously consider. I am afraid of dying. Deathly afraid. Yet, what will happen to my brain when they bring me back? Will I just be a brain connected to a computer? Will I feel pain? What will I see? How will I perceive?

Also, if you loose memories - imagine it as being a hell - you come back with no memories, conscious, yet you're just connected to a computer.

What if there is an after life and you can't pass as long as you're stuck in this 'suspended animation' ---

I almost feel like crying when I think about this.

[forever freedom]

Although it seems likely that technology will advance to the point where a suspended patient can be revived, or, far more likely, re-instantiated in either a biological or software emulation, the big uncertainty is the motivation of the putative re-animators.

Technology sufficient for re-animation is also sufficient for the much-predicted singularity, in which intelligence evolves as a function of intelligence, and expands at an exponential pace. With the reigning intelligence of that time having evolved to a level as distant as that between, say, humans and mice, will these future intelligence(s) have any reason to go to the trouble of re-animating us?

I think so. Do not forget that the future "super intelligent entities" will have evolved from humans, meaning that they were born human and became machines. So no reason why someone that's revived can't become a super intelligent future entity too.

[Shannon Vyff]

Yeah, well MM is involved with debates over SA, currently. I hope she continues in the field of cryonics, and chooses an organization to support as a member.

I won't know otherwise if I don't have the same awareness, if I'm animated. I've always contended that if I do not like how things are, I have the same option to end my life (or possibly uploaded existence) that I have now. I doubt that I'd ever choose that option though, I'm too interested in wether or not humans will someday have colonization of other planets, and what they evolve into. I'd probably feel, if things were bad--that they'd still be getting better--if I at all have the same optimistic, rationalizing personality that I have now .

[JackCole]

The argument on who will bring you back (their motivation)- who will spend the money? That's the question I'd ask. If I had the money, I'd leave some sort of "trust fund" to ensure that I have the needed amount to bring me back. Even if it's nonexistent, it's symbolic, and they'd be more likely to preserve your body first. (if they only do one) For some reason I see your first 'glimpses' are very primitive,as far as technology goes. "last in, first out?" It's just your head and there's a doctor at your side with a computer and electrodes attached all over your brain. Eternity lasted 27 minutes. It's progress, right? *NOT ON MY BRAIN*

So I'd focus on: money. ((Taking it so far as, if you believe this with a passion your biggest drive is becoming wealthy.)) Not bad motivation.

We're more likely on the pioneer stage as far as the initial freezing goes, the more money = better equipment = more likely for you to survive


Ensuring your Eternity?

[forever freedom]

As for the "what rights will we have" and the "loss of memories" -- these two scare me the most.

I've been torn since researching Cryonics now if this is something I should seriously consider. I am afraid of dying. Deathly afraid. Yet, what will happen to my brain when they bring me back? Will I just be a brain connected to a computer? Will I feel pain? What will I see? How will I perceive?

Also, if you loose memories - imagine it as being a hell - you come back with no memories, conscious, yet you're just connected to a computer.

What if there is an after life and you can't pass as long as you're stuck in this 'suspended animation' ---

I almost feel like crying when I think about this.

I think that anything is better than dying.

If there is an afterlife, even better, it means that my awareness will go on forever.

If i lose my memories, then yea that would be a problem but still there would be more left of me than if i just died and went to my grave and went to the worms' stomachs.

[bgwowk]

Although it seems likely that technology will advance to the point where a suspended patient can be revived, or, far more likely, re-instantiated in either a biological or software emulation, the big uncertainty is the motivation of the putative re-animators.

Technology sufficient for re-animation is also sufficient for the much-predicted singularity, in which intelligence evolves as a function of intelligence, and expands at an exponential pace. With the reigning intelligence of that time having evolved to a level as distant as that between, say, humans and mice, will these future intelligence(s) have any reason to go to the trouble of re-animating us?

If we were now able to re-animate mice, and it turned out that ancient pharaohs had suspended their favorite mice, would we bother? Maybe once, to prove it could be done. Then only if it were a trivial exercise, and only on a whim. Perhaps as an exercise for students. Would we bother to re-animate all the pharoh's suspended mice? I doubt it - you seen one reanimated mouse, you seen 'em all.

And for those who are re-animated, what rights will they have in a world where they are as comparatively dumb as mice in our world? Playthings? Treasured collectibles? If the re-animated are granted the ability to uplift themselves to a comparable level of intelligence, won't they lose their value as 'original specimens', making such generosity unlikely?

These questions stem from a common but mistaken premise. The mistaken premise is that cryonics patients are like mummies just left lying around somewhere to be discovered by a distant future. The nature of cryopreservation is that it requires continuous maintenance. Some people see that as a weakness, but in a way it is a strength. The continuous maintenance requirement means that for there to be patients still around around that can be revived, there must still be entities around that value the well-being of the patients, even in a distant future.

You are correct that the hyper-advanced nature of the technology required for revival makes the social details of such a future inscrutable. This, for me, is the real meaning of the so-called Singularity. It's not that there will necessarily be a sudden transition to a different social order, or even a transition within this century. But if technology continues to advance to the limits of known physical law, what lies beyond is almost invisible. One of the few things we can say is that if cryonics patients remain cryopreserved through all the tumult, there must have been continuity of the motives of cryonics.

The success of cryonics depends upon generational continuity of the motives of cryonics, even when "generations" move beyond biology. The motives reside in a community of people or "entities" with personal commitments to the rescue of friends and loved-ones. These motives are like chain links that connect generations. If that chain is broken by socioeconomic upheaval, which is always a big risk over long periods of time, the result would be loss of the means to maintain patients. The result would not be patients thrust into a future with no one motivated to revive them. They just wouldn't be there anymore.

[gjbloom]

You are correct that the hyper-advanced nature of the technology required for revival makes the social details of such a future inscrutable. This, for me, is the real meaning of the so-called Singularity. It's not that there will necessarily be a sudden transition to a different social order, or even a transition within this century. But if technology continues to advance to the limits of known physical law, what lies beyond is almost invisible. One of the few things we can say is that if cryonics patients remain cryopreserved through all the tumult, there must have been continuity of the motives of cryonics.

The success of cryonics depends upon generational continuity of the motives of cryonics, even when "generations" move beyond biology. The motives reside in a community of people or "entities" with personal commitments to the rescue of friends and loved-ones. These motives are like chain links that connect generations. If that chain is broken by socioeconomic upheaval, which is always a big risk over long periods of time, the result would be loss of the means to maintain patients. The result would not be patients thrust into a future with no one motivated to revive them. They just wouldn't be there anymore.

The technology to automate the maintenance of suspension is much more attainable than reanimation. So as the distractions of the singularity become more pronounced, those in charge of maintaining patient's suspension would likely supplant their duties with automation, allowing them to join in the ongoing transformation without abrogating their duty to their patients. Thus it is not unlikely that suspended patients might remain intact into a world where their reanimation is of ever-decreasing significance.

Perhaps what we need is some sort of Luddite sect, like the Quakers, who forswear any personal technological transformation until all of their patients have been restored. Hmmm... Any B-grade Sci Fi authors out there want to write a new religion?

[bgwowk]

The technology to automate the maintenance of suspension is much more attainable than reanimation. So as the distractions of the singularity become more pronounced, those in charge of maintaining patient's suspension would likely supplant their duties with automation, allowing them to join in the ongoing transformation without abrogating their duty to their patients. Thus it is not unlikely that suspended patients might remain intact into a world where their reanimation is of ever-decreasing significance.

It's actually very unlikely, but I'm not going to argue about it. Whether the problem is neglect of maintenance, or neglect of revival, the outcome is the same.

Perhaps what we need is some sort of Luddite sect, like the Quakers, who forswear any personal technological transformation until all of their patients have been restored.

I am not so cynical about the future of love, personal loyalty, morality, or even medical ethics to believe that they cannot survive without a new luddite religion to sustain them.

Hmmm... Any B-grade Sci Fi authors out there want to write a new religion?

Already been done.

[Shannon Vyff]

"I am not so cynical about the future of love, personal loyalty, morality, or even medical ethics to believe that they cannot survive without a new luddite religion to sustain them."

I love having Dr. Wowk here to contribute his cryonics expertise and salient common sense .

[A941]

Found this in the www
http://www.chinadail...tent_368631.htm

http://gannsdeen.wor...ering-lady-dai/

The Lady of Dai is a well preserved mummy from China, a mysterious red liquid was used to preserv her body, there are few sites in german about it but i have not been able to find informations about the liquid in english!

Maybe this could be used today?!

[forever freedom]

Found this in the www
http://www.chinadail...tent_368631.htm

http://gannsdeen.wor...ering-lady-dai/

The Lady of Dai is a well preserved mummy from China, a mysterious red liquid was used to preserv her body, there are few sites in german about it but i have not been able to find informations about the liquid in english!

Maybe this could be used today?!

I very much doubt it...

[A941]

Cryonics...

sounds a little like H.P. Lovecrafts "That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die!"

[neonnexus]

Yes, I believe that eventually Cryonics will work. I cannot say when, but there will be a time when science and technology has so advanced that revival and reversal of ageing and disease will be possible. I also believe that even in cases where the preserved body has suffered some brain damage, a good portion of that individual’s personality and memory will be recovered and then subsequent technologies can further increase the individual’s faculties to a full recovery.

[JackCole]

I just want to say Thanks to everyone here for a great community. I made that post about cryonics, my thread, before I read everything. The outline for the book is amazing. The backbone of the story is cryonics. I would be more than happy to email you the outline, or the first chapter, and see what you think.


I just have a few comments to make about cryonics before I continue.

First, cryonics has made me realize my own mortality. Maybe, not so much cryonics, but the ImmInst. It has be a real eye opener. The anxiety I have been experiencing while driving in the car to watching it rain has been rough.

I quit smoking. I just stopped. It's been 16 days since I smoked and never plan on doing it again. I'm focusing on my life-span, and my over all health. Taking healthy steps to a healthy life.

Second, I feel sorry for this 'jonano' person. I did a little googling on him. He's just as afraid of death as I am, IMO. It's sad to see somebody get so absorbed, then again, some people are addicted to group think and notoriety on the Internet feeds a human ego that is always starving.

Third, you can not talk about cryonics to 'normies.' wink.gif It seems that many of people have set up this bubbly notion of an afterlife (even though not attending church or reading any religious material) The average person assumes he's going to heaven, and there's an afterlife. When I mention cryonics the door doesn't open far. They have no comment and wish to change the subject. It's a touchy subject.

Cryonics (Imminst) is making me reach inside my self for answers. If anything, the health aspects of not quitting (everything I am doing lately focuses on LIFE-SPAN.. stop smoking will increase life span 15 years, eating fruits and exercising will increase life span 2:1 ratio, etc, etc.)

Will Cryonics work?

I'm afraid to say yes. I'm afraid to say no.

I do not wish to continue living with this anxiety over my head of dying for much longer. I need to accept something.

My wife is very proud of what cryonics has done to me and is becoming a running gag in our household. "Watching Jay Leno decreases your lifespan give me the remote."


The thought of being 're-animated' scares me. Humans are not perfect. Technology is not perfect. The idea of being a 'brain computer' scares me more than the idea of death. Yet, if it's the only way? Thoughts like these have been racing my mind and have been perfect for the story.


The story, in brief, is about Donna Chapman. Who dies at the age of 27 from a terminal disease. While the story progresses, we are brought into the future. A.I. is very much active yet they want more legal rights. Our social structure is still very much the same. I am trying to be accurate as I can with the medical aspect, but sometimes I get lazy and just look for an important sounding word and use it as the premise. (Such as, a part of the brain (neocortex), or the type of research that is done.)

The AI are labeled "Perceptively aware" as we can not call them 'alive' for the fear of equal rights, or upseting the still 'religious stronghold' The idea of 'uploading' your identity to a computer is very real.

This is very brief and I hope you aren't gagging. Donna is brought back. The whole idea of the book is what you feel as an AI/re-animated. How you perceive. How our 'animal desires' carry with us. From a 'brain computer' wanting to vote in the next election, to the abuse of AI. All while 're-animating' Donna.


Cryonics, and everything we talk about at ImmInst is very much alive and active. This is a great place.



Thanks everyone for keeping this place "alive"

Edited by JackCole, 12 April 2008 - 11:29 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

I quit smoking. I just stopped. It's been 16 days since I smoked and never plan on doing it again. I'm focusing on my life-span, and my over all health. Taking healthy steps to a healthy life.

That is fantastic!

You've extended your life significantly by that alone.

Edited by elrond, 16 June 2008 - 12:29 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

I do not wish to continue living with this anxiety over my head of dying for much longer.

Just try and relax as well as you can . Death sucks. There are a lot of us working hard to over come it. There are no guarantees but progress is certainly being made. Cryonics is certainly far safer than the alternative, but if you are looking for absolute safety, that does not exist.

Don't worry, be happy
(only do worry just enough to get yourself motivated to do something about it)

[shifter]

I voted 'Maybe'. I do believe cryonics or suspended animation can work, but I think technology will come up with better ways if prolonging life or curing disease.

Imagine uploading your brain into a computer, to have it downloaded into a new body. An old man riddled with arthritis and disease waking up the next day in a youthful and fit, genetically flawless body. Of course this raises ethical issues of its own (eg 'soul') but for many people interested in immortality it may not bother them.

Lets just say the cell freezing damage problem was solved with cryonics, there is still no gurantee you will wake from your sleep. I for one would be quite uncomfortable having my life and body in the hands of strangers for what could be hundreds of years. (If the facilities are even maintained that long).

And for some people, its not so much the destination that matters, but the journey. I like the idea of cryonics too and would use it myself if the only option but think technology may create more popular alternatives.

[mpe]

Question,

Has any mamal ever been reanimated?? ever???

[forever freedom]

Question,

Has any mamal ever been reanimated?? ever???

No, with today's technology that's impossible. But don't try to get anywhere with this conclusion. We have hopes on the future's technology only; today's technology is hopeless in this area, it can't even properly preserve us without causing heavy damage which might be irreversal.

Edited by sam988, 22 January 2009 - 02:50 AM.

[AgeVivo]

Whole brain studies are currently underway, (...) the current direction of research in cryobiology is understanding how to control crystalization in larger volumes of tissue - temperature and solute control are critical areas of research. I am very aware of the current understanding of phase transitions in large volumes of matter, especially in biological tissues.

uninformed question:

see how many we are; is there a simple model to help develop the techniques at home?
eg put a piece of meat (size?) in the lastest technique (?;cost?) then in the freezer (even if it is not -196 degrees, it is just for the experiment), then unthawn it and do a test (?) to see if it is ok? Perhaps starting with a red fish?

Edited by AgeVivo, 22 January 2009 - 10:37 PM.

[T.J]

Think about this...if we lost our state of consiousness it will be lost even after a 100% successfully cryopreservation!!

[bgwowk]

Question,

Has any mamal ever been reanimated?? ever???

No mammal has ever been revived from cryopreservation at cryogenic temperatures, and I would not expect to see that for a long time. However such a development is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish the viability of cryonics. It's not sufficient because there are ways of defining "reanimation" that are not consistent with what would be considered an acceptable outcome for cryonics. It's not necessary because the minimum requirement for cryonics to succeed is that sufficient information be preserved to permit restoration with future technology, like a data recovery service might repair a damaged hard drive.

I know this sounds like cryonics is exempting itself from empirical validation, but it's not quite that bad. One can make a case for the fidelity of preserved information based on what is now known about cryopreservation under ideal conditions, and still allow use of cryonics under poor conditions based on the argument that sufficiency of preserved information can't be disproven. What is not acceptable (to me) is covering one's eyes and not looking at what happens during cryopreservation or how to improve it.

Edited by bgwowk, 11 March 2009 - 08:50 PM.

[T.J]

Think about this...if we lost our state of consiousness it will be lost even after a 100% successfully cryopreservation!!

if someone else thinks like me that this msg should be reported (=deleted) please do so. same for my msg. thx

Hi AgeVivo, why do you think my message should be deleted??

Nanotechnology can never get your lost neurons back!!
You brain have to be vitrified before you lost to much of your consiousness if you should have a fair chance...


Best wishes,
tompa

[Luna]

Think about this...if we lost our state of consiousness it will be lost even after a 100% successfully cryopreservation!!
(...)
Nanotechnology can never get your lost neurons back!!
Your brain have to be vitrified before you lost to much of your consiousness if you should have a fair chance...

Sorry tompa i had not understood what you meant by "if we lost our state of cousiousness". I thought you meant sthg irrelevant to cryopreservation like "if our cousiousness isn't ours but is driven by robots".

Yes it would be desirable that cryopreservation preserves "cousiousness", even if we don't know how to define 'consiousness' in terms of biology. Say that we know how to cryopreserve a mouse and bring it back to life (or even a worm or a fly, which we can already). How do you test whether cousiousness is preserve, with such non-talking animals?

I know my cat was very attached to me, do mice get attached?

If they recognize you after revival, you'll know
But doing this to a pet you love so much just as experiment sounds impossible @@..

[chrwe]

People in deep hypothermia during operations lose consciousness totally for a substantial time and they are revived after (97% chance of it working) and are themselves again

granted, the brain doesnt stop like in cryonics, but it is as close as you get at the moment

oh, and these people do not report NDEs generally, I only know of one case (and that may well be a case of the anaestetics not working)