• 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

#61 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:54 AM

But you have yet to tell us where you stand MWL....


Just a cryo-skeptic

#62 DJS

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

Posted 09 July 2003 - 01:36 AM

I don't think anyone here at Immortality Institute would tell you to not be a skeptic. A healthy amount of skepticism is good because it keeps everyone in line.

With that said, you have to admit that your chances of surviving after being frozen are better than if you were buried in a traditional manner.

So why not get yourself frozen and play the odds as best you can? A kind of immortalist Pascal's wager? The only logical reason not to get yourself frozen is if you believe it violates religious orthodoxy. And I'm pretty sure you are not a traditional Christian, now are you??

My whole point is that there is no reason not to get cryogenically frozen, even if resuscitation is not guaranteed.

Welcome to ImmInst
Kissinger :)

#63 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 02:19 AM

I don't think anyone here at Immortality Institute would tell you to not be a skeptic.  A healthy amount of skepticism is good because it keeps everyone in line.

With that said, you have to admit that your chances of surviving after being frozen are better than if you were buried in a traditional manner.

So why not get yourself frozen and play the odds as best you can?  A kind of immortalist Pascal's wager?  The only logical reason not to get yourself frozen is if you believe it violates religious orthodoxy.  And I'm pretty sure you are not a traditional Christian, now are you??

My whole point is that there is no reason not to get cryogenically frozen, even if resuscitation is not guaranteed.

Welcome to ImmInst
Kissinger ;)


Henry

Personally I believe that once you are dead you simply forget that you were ever born in the first place. Which may beg the question "why was one ever generated into existance in the first place at any given time and place in the universe?"
This is more of a question that should be answered in the philosophy forum and not this one.

MWL

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 02:28 AM.


#64 ocsrazor

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

Posted 09 July 2003 - 02:36 AM

MWL,

Whole brain studies are currently underway, as I mentioned before slices are a convienient experimental technique and the decision was probably made at that time to start with a smaller volume of tissue. Did you read my previous post? I already highlighted the fact that 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.

You need to go get a basic physics or chemistry textbook - look up the Arrhenius equation. As Kissinger correctly pointed out, entropy is not a problem at the temperatures we are talking about. As temperature goes down, reaction rates and diffusion are reduced exponentially. The storage time of biological tissues stored at liquid nitrogen temperatures is on the order of hundreds of millions of years.

If you want to call this a debate I suggest you look back through this thread and count the number of absolutely false statements you have made. You should compare your arguments to those of a religious fundie, your tactics are identical to those used by creationists, i.e. ignore the facts and try to find tiny flaws in evolutionary theory, and then claim this invalidates the whole structure.

Peter

#65 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 03:21 AM

Calm and cool under pressure, Peter delivers the fatal blow...

who's your daddy?? lol


lol You need much more than your daddy

At the time of Peter's conception his daddy ejaculated 300,000,000 sperm, and if he wound back the hands of time and another one of those 300,000,000 sperm had sneaked in instead, where would Peter be then?
The ace I am hitting home here, is there is an exponential number of means of not being born then being born.

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 03:23 AM.


#66 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 03:40 AM

MWL,


If you want to call this a debate I suggest you look back through this thread and count the number of absolutely false statements you have made.  You should compare your arguments to those of a religious fundie, your tactics are identical to those used by creationists, i.e. ignore the facts and try to find tiny flaws in evolutionary theory, and then claim this invalidates the whole structure.

Peter


Peter

Your beliefs are identical the religious fundies, because you believe in the physical resurrection of the body after death.
A feature these snake oil salemen are selling to creationst cretins. They believe and intact body has a better chance of Rapture to the after life.

Seventh Day Adventists Are Practising Life Extensionists

Cryonics As Religion

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 04:11 AM.


#67 ocsrazor

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

Posted 09 July 2003 - 04:16 AM

MWL

I have no beliefs, I have only what I know to be true from objective observation of the world. I do not believe in resurrection. I have objectively assessed that cryopreservation technology has advanced extremely rapidly over the past decade and is likely to continue to do so in the near future, there are no theoretical problems with the idea that biological tissue can be taken down to cryogenic temperatures and revived, therefore I find all arguments that cryogenic suspension is impossible to be frivolous. The technology is so close to maturity that arguments that it will never work are ridiculous. Those who can be revived from cryopreservation will have only died in the legal sense, no more or no less so than those who experience clinical "death" on the operating table - this is not resurrection, they didn't go anywhere.

I really don't care what the 7th day Adventists believe, it is pointless to this discussion.

You have once again sidestepped the fact that you have not made a single correct point in this entire chain of posts. If you want to have a philosophical or religious argument about cryonics, please feel free to start another thread.

Peter

#68 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 06:10 AM

Peter

MWL

.  The technology is so close to maturity that arguments that it will never work are ridiculous. Those who can be revived from cryopreservation will have only died in the legal sense, no more or no less so than those who experience clinical "death" on the operating table - this is not resurrection, they didn't go anywhere.


Peter


Sorry, I have heard that all before 20 years ago and continue to hear it ad-nausium, and I am still waiting. It was one of the many big predictions of the turn of the new millennium like the Rosey the Robot character from the Jetsons. It is 2003 and I am still waiting At best it is extreme fringe science. At worst the most morbid expression of pseudoscience.
Posted Image
IMO science and technology is making far better strides in building a functioning Rosey the Robot for every home, than pursuing this morbid pseudoscience that is riddled with its detractors
Predictions from the past that haven't come true ... yet

MWL

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 07:40 AM.


#69 Bruce Klein

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

Posted 09 July 2003 - 10:19 AM

MWL,

I don't believe I've had the chance to welcome you to ImmInst. Welcome.

While we don't yet have flying cars, we do have numerous technological advances that were never even dreamed of 50 years ago. A fully mapped human genome is one good example.

Rosey is a bad example. She is a manifestation of industrial revolution error fascination and not the best benchmark for progress. One can easily overlook the forest of progress by looking at one or two popular failures. And yet, you are right, we are getting very close.

Posted Image
Honda ASIMO

By the way, cryonics is not a religion or pseudoscience. Peter it spot on with his suggestions. I've even had the pleasure of visiting his lab at GA Tech.

#70 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:44 PM

OK BJklein

It is time now to really skick your neck out.

When do you predict the first "frozen patient of Alcor" or somewhere else will be revived?

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 12:45 PM.


#71 ocsrazor

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

Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:45 PM

MWL,

You also apparently do not understand technological development curves very well. Predicition of technologic maturity is always a hard game, but it becomes more accurate as you understand all the fundamental information necessary to complete it. Twenty years ago I would not have made the prediction that the cryogenics would be possible soon, because the fundamental variables were not understood, but they are now. If you did any research, you'll notice that the detractors of cryogenics have recently switched to emotional and philosophical arguments, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that it is technically infeasible. Because of the utility of the technology for organ banking and tissue storage there is also now a great deal of funding available for its development as well. With projects underway at many of the major medical research universities, I think calling it pseudoscience is a mischaracterization.

Actually, there is still a great deal about general human cognition or how to get embodied artificial intelligence for something like Rosey that is still not understood. There is significant progress occurring, but this technology is further back on its developmental curve than cryonics, because knowledge of all of the fundamental parameters necessary to complete the job are still not known.

BTW, I am actually a neutral observer on cryonics. This is not my area of research, although I happen to know a lot about the technology. When I was in industry, my job was analysis of biotechnology to make predictions about technical feasibility and commercial viability of projects. The near-term potential for organ and tissue banking, mid-term potential for temporary stabilization of patients for transport after extreme trauma (think battlefield injury), and the long term potential for suspension make this technology both achievable and commercially viable.

Peter

#72 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 July 2003 - 11:02 PM

MWL,

You also apparently do not understand technological development curves very well. Predicition of technologic maturity is always a hard game, but it becomes more accurate as you understand all the fundamental information necessary to complete it.  Twenty years ago I would not have made the prediction that the cryogenics would be possible soon, because the fundamental variables were not understood, but they are now.  If you did any research, you'll notice that the detractors of cryogenics have recently switched to emotional and philosophical arguments, because it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that it is technically infeasible.  Because of the utility of the technology for organ banking and tissue storage there is also now a great deal of funding available for its development as well.  With projects underway at many of the major medical research universities, I think calling it pseudoscience is a mischaracterization.

Actually, there is still a great deal about general human cognition or how to get embodied artificial intelligence for something like Rosey that is still not understood. There is significant progress occurring, but this technology is further back on its developmental curve than cryonics, because knowledge of all of the fundamental parameters necessary to complete the job are still not known.

BTW, I am actually a neutral observer on cryonics.  This is not my area of research, although I happen to know a lot about the technology.  When I was in industry, my job was analysis of biotechnology to make predictions about technical feasibility and commercial viability of projects. The near-term potential for organ and tissue banking, mid-term potential for temporary stabilization of patients for transport after extreme trauma (think battlefield injury), and the long term potential for suspension make this technology both achievable and commercially viable.

Peter


Peter

Being a neutral observer then don't count your chickens until they reaminate an entire frozen rat that was kept in liquid nitrogen, then we wll really feel they have really gotten somewhere. That will be the break through lol. But they haven't even achieved that with a fruit fly.
At least the rat did not have a preexisting disease that killed it. That is another big hurdle they face.

MWL

Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 11:03 PM.


#73 kevin

  • Member, Guardian
  • 2,779 posts
  • 822

Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:43 PM

That cryopreservation is moving forward is evidenced by the following article which shows that freezing ova, a heretofore procedure that rendered them non-viable, is now capable of unthawing and fertilizing frozen ova using a new technique. Granted this is not a body.. but it is a step..

http://www.eurekaler...ct/medicine.php

#74 ocsrazor

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

Posted 10 July 2003 - 11:23 PM

MWL,

The conservative position for development of any technology is to assume it can be done, and then try and disprove it. People who have claimed that something is not technically achieveable have been proven wrong in a vast majority of cases, and those that have not been proven wrong the jury is still out on. In this case there is absolutely no scientific reason why cryogenic storage of a mammal should not be possible, it doesn't violate any physical laws and the direction of technologic development is very clear. Just because something hasn't been done very rarely means it can't be done, it just becomes a matter of economics and time.

No one to my knowledge (i.e. they haven't published it) has attempted to freeze and revive an adult fruit fly (although fruit fly embryos are routinely frozen and revived) Flies have very different material properties than a mammal, and that would carry the research in a different direction were someone to follow it. There are a number of animals which can survive a hard freeze though, these include species of caterpillars and frogs.

Peter

Edited by ocsrazor, 10 July 2003 - 11:26 PM.


#75 Utnapishtim

  • Guest
  • 219 posts
  • 1

Posted 11 July 2003 - 12:42 AM

MWL
I don't have the technical expertise of Peter on this subject but it seems to me that if you wished to prove cryonics to be futile, then you would need to demonstrate that the cryonics processes produce massive critical information loss on a scale that places it beyond any conceivable form of information recovery. You haven't done this.

Ralph Merckle has written two excellent articles on the technical feasibility of cryonics revival

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

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

#76 myworldline

  • Guest
  • 38 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 July 2003 - 11:30 AM

MWL
I don't have the technical expertise of Peter on this subject but it seems to me that if you wished to prove cryonics to be futile, then you would need to demonstrate that the cryonics processes produce massive critical information loss on a scale that places it beyond any conceivable form of information recovery. You haven't done this.

Ralph Merckle has written two excellent articles on the technical feasibility of cryonics revival

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

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


Here is some decent cryo-research, but you may have to cross desciplines to genetic research, and forget about the pie in the sky stuff from Alcor
Frost Resistance Tomato
Nice to be able to grow bananas in Alaska. That would be a real possibility!!

IMO there were be an infinitely greater chance of a colony canibals in the distant future thawing all those cadavers out and eating them in a main course meal, then the possibility of them being reanimated.

Edited by myworldline, 11 July 2003 - 01:45 PM.


#77 Lazarus Long

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

Posted 12 July 2003 - 09:36 AM

Gina Miller, who also happens to be a member posted this article on a separate site, which is relevant to this discussion. I suggest review for it is illustrious of the bio-ethical debate and well informed.

http://www.nanoindus...cryoethics.html

#78 Athanasios

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

Posted 15 January 2008 - 06:42 PM

I would also direct people to Brian Wowk's article here:
http://www.alcor.org...ltimetravel.htm

SUMMARY: Clinical medicine is now able to "turn off" people for more than an hour with no heartbeat or brain activity for certain surgical procedures. Scientists are on the verge of being able to preserve individual organs indefinitely by using a new technology called vitrification. Brain electrical activity has been detected in animals rewarmed after seven years of frozen storage. Could human life be preserved in an arrested state for years or decades instead of hours? The prospects are still distant, but some people are already betting that current preservation technology may be good enough to be reversible in the future. Whether they are correct is a legitimate scientific question.


This is my favorite go to article when someone asks about feasibility.

#79 soren

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 January 2008 - 08:15 AM

Hi all, hi Bruce, just quickly nipping into this discussion as I've been re thinking the feasibility of Cryonics lately in light of new work in further preserving the cells at the point of death.
Up to this point, all those who've perished under the mighty cell-death cascade will indeed require massively powerful technologies to facilitate reanimation. The vitrification technique seems very feasible, and will only improve over time, but the protocols of death will have still blasted the cells of the patient half way to hell.
I cannot quite picture where the treatment of unfrozen cryo patients would start from, several hundred billions of cells will be ruptured, and possibly lost. Its late, so lets just skip that part for now.
Stem cell re population of damaged areas will be probably the first stage in reanimation, but while the body warms, it will also degenerate, so it is a question of time, how long would repair viruses/live stem cell populations or indeed new organs need to act upon the still dead subject? and at this point its an idea to imagine just how much of the patient will be viable, and how much will be a case for regrowth. (I note that Neuros seem to be more popular than full body suspensions, yet which will be easier, reverse engineering on old bodies, in line with Aubrey's SENS proposals, or artificially regrown bodies? I would have imagined reverse engineering an old body would be less tricky, but I can only guess.
Bodies grown in labs will have to come complete with fully functional immune systems - (Competitive in the Darwinian sense) yet not so competitive that they attack the head onto which they've been sown...
I have confidence that the brain can be safeguarded, with its natural powers of repair, and this new CO treatment in the offing, preserving the brain is not at all unrealistic, and this leaves the rest of the body.
The key to this would seem to be the Mytochondria, I am guessing that virally reinstating working Mytochondria, as the tissue is raised back to chemically active temperatures would be the trigger to reanimation. Repair of cell membranes anyone???
All in all, repair of billions of thawed cells with burst membranes and damaged internal structures would be an immense effort, I am still hanging back on Nano tech reaching this level for perhaps 50 or 60 years.
So, if it wasnt for the simple discovery, that CO can block the signaling pathways which trigger certain forms of apoptosis, I would be stuck in the skeptics tank... Blocking the death cascade pathways means that, conceivably, within 10 years we could have a viable treatment for cryonics patients, safeguarding the structure of the cells before action to preserve the body in freezing happens. And this means resuscitation may not be all that difficult.
Of course Cryonics will become common practice.
It will be certainly finessed within the century, but how soon from now depends on how progress is made in limiting the damage done by the process of death.
Heres a link to the CO thing I was talking about http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1892354

#80 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 17 January 2008 - 05:46 PM

Thanks for your interest, but there are some misunderstandings here.

...but the protocols of death will have still blasted the cells of the patient half way to hell.

What is a "protocol of death"? A heart stops. Cells are not significantly different seconds after a heart stops than seconds before a heart stops. In an ideal case, you quickly restart blood circulation and oxygenation artificially, and proceed with the cryopreservation.

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

In such a scenario, the occurrence of legal death is biologically irrelevant.

In less ideal scenarios, there is a cascade of deleterious processes that happen during ischemia (absent blood flow)

http://www.alcor.org...l/ischemic.html

but the colorful characterization, "blasted the cells half way to hell" requires many hours at warm temperature to reach.

http://www.ijcep.com/707005A.html

In absence of cooling, it's about a dozen hours before proteolytic enzymes begin autolysis in earnest.

From an objective standpoint, the whole cultural concept of death as a biological event is ambiguous. Almost all conditions called "death" are a bunch of specific pathologies amenable to intervention in principle. The customary practice of abandoning and destroying patients at arbitrary points in this process is ethically questionable.

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

I cannot quite picture where the treatment of unfrozen cryo patients would start from, several hundred billions of cells will be ruptured, and possibly lost.


http://www.e-drexler...l#section03of06

http://www.alcor.org...suscitation.htm

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

and more links at

http://www.alcor.org...html#scientific

Stem cell re population of damaged areas will be probably the first stage in reanimation, but while the body warms, it will also degenerate, so it is a question of time, how long would repair viruses/live stem cell populations or indeed new organs need to act upon the still dead subject? and at this point its an idea to imagine just how much of the patient will be viable, and how much will be a case for regrowth. (I note that Neuros seem to be more popular than full body suspensions, yet which will be easier, reverse engineering on old bodies, in line with Aubrey's SENS proposals, or artificially regrown bodies? I would have imagined reverse engineering an old body would be less tricky, but I can only guess.
Bodies grown in labs will have to come complete with fully functional immune systems - (Competitive in the Darwinian sense) yet not so competitive that they attack the head onto which they've been sown...
I have confidence that the brain can be safeguarded, with its natural powers of repair, and this new CO treatment in the offing, preserving the brain is not at all unrealistic, and this leaves the rest of the body.
The key to this would seem to be the Mytochondria, I am guessing that virally reinstating working Mytochondria, as the tissue is raised back to chemically active temperatures would be the trigger to reanimation. Repair of cell membranes anyone???
All in all, repair of billions of thawed cells with burst membranes and damaged internal structures would be an immense effort, I am still hanging back on Nano tech reaching this level for perhaps 50 or 60 years.

I believe 100 to 200 years is more likely. It is a complex problem, and you do grasp the essentials of it. The challenge is establishing conditions where repairs can proceed, but injured tissue remains stable enough to be repaired. There are a variety of possible approaches. The most direct and bold approach is to perform initial repair and stabilization at cryogenic temperatures. We know that a successful "rebooting" strategy exists for recovering tissue from cryogenic temperatures because cryobiology already does that for tissues and organs by rewarming them and unloading them with cryoprotectant. You'd just have to get injured tissue repaired into the proper healthy state at cryogenic temperature before rewarming.

A similar argument can be made for recovering tissue from states of deep hypothermia, assuming that you could safely warm cryopresreved tissue to near 0 degC before beginning repairs. Temporary chemical fixation and/or molecules that inhibit various aspects of metabolism would be of utility during repairs at these warmer temperatures. Such repair at hypothermic temperatures is more feasible for vitrified non-fractured tissue. Frozen and/or fractured tissue would probably require some stabilization and repairs to be done in the solid state first.

Bodies grown in labs will have to come complete with fully functional immune systems - (Competitive in the Darwinian sense) yet not so competitive that they attack the head onto which they've been sown...

No, no not "sewn", as in surgically sewing heads on bodies! There will never be anything so crude in medicine (unless someone carries on the controversial work of surgeon Robert White!). What will really be done is actually what your typo says: "Sown", as is sowing a seed. Bodies will regenerate around repaired brains in an in-vitro artificial life support environment. Think artificial womb. This will be a natural and ultimate extension of future technologies for healing victims of severe trauma.

So, if it wasnt for the simple discovery, that CO can block the signaling pathways which trigger certain forms of apoptosis, I would be stuck in the skeptics tank... Blocking the death cascade pathways means that, conceivably, within 10 years we could have a viable treatment for cryonics patients, safeguarding the structure of the cells before action to preserve the body in freezing happens. And this means resuscitation may not be all that difficult.
Of course Cryonics will become common practice.
It will be certainly finessed within the century, but how soon from now depends on how progress is made in limiting the damage done by the process of death.
Heres a link to the CO thing I was talking about http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1892354

The easiest way to safeguard the brain before cryopreservation is by not exposing the brain to ischemia before cryopreservation. In other words, don't discount the role of good cardiopulmony support in cryonics. Still, ischemia protective agents are a valuable adjuvant, and many are already used by Alcor and SA. CO is interesting, but I don't think it's any kind of a magic bullet. Do you know of any reference in the resuscitation literature?

#81 Shannon Vyff

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

Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:03 PM

Thanks for all the great links and responses provided by fellow cryonicists.

I also like the simplicity of Ralph Merkle's site:

http://www.merkle.com/cryo/

#82 soren

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:14 PM

And yet more good news!
In Imperial College London, a Rat's heart was stripped of cells containing complex molecules, leaving only the connective tissue, (essentially leaving behind a chasis of a heart) then seeded with cells carried in a nutrient rich fluid into the structure, growing blood vessels and new muscle, then restarted with small electric shocks to begin beating again.
It took 4 days for the cells to spread throughout the organ and restore function, but it was done!
Sadly, its function was only 2 percent of a healthy adult rats heart, not sure the reason for this, but no doubt this is where fine tuning can be attempted, and the knowledge gained from that will be invaluable to our life extension studies.
It would seem that this is the best method for tissue engineering, about regrowing new organs (and indeed, bodies) from scratch.

#83 soren

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:34 PM

Thanks a lot for the help here Dr Wowk!
I appreciate your taking the time, it was also a great read!
I am going to have a chat with a few people at the Tissue Engineering department of Imperial College, just to get my head straightened out on these matters, then I should be safely up to speed.
I have to dash right now, but will post links to the resuscitation papers Ive read soon as I return.
With gratitude
Soren

#84 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 18 January 2008 - 06:54 AM

The best proof that whole bodies, or any part thereof, can be generated from a single cell is that we are here to read this. Everything else is just specific tricks to bend this process to our needs. Setup the correct environment, and "get out of the way," to paraphrase the inventor of the recent heart work.

#85 soren

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:34 PM

Just like to add, the line between the work of cryonicists and current work on resuscitation, such as the research taking place in Philadelphia and Japan would seem to be getting thinner, and thus will be on, more or less, the same track before long.
I would also now say that cryo preserved patients could also become the focal point of not too distant resuscitation research.
Legal issues will have to be addressed, but given the investment of some major hospitals for better resuscitation methods, work could begin in earnest on bringing back people from varying degrees of `the brink'.
People with inoperable illness may indeed opt for cryo preservation as work in this direction gathers pace.
It is pretty much inevitable.

#86 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 07 February 2008 - 07:12 PM

I think death/dying is a process (that may actually take several days or more to fully complete) and not a single event per se. I believe there is a window of opportunity that occurs during the dying process where it is reasonable to perform cryonic suspension on an individual, and i'm just guessing here, but I would think that somewhere in the neighborhood of 48-72 hrs is probably the upper limit of that window. And I would also think anything beyond that is really pushing the envelope. of course the temperature the body is exposed to during that period would play a role, as well as the situation surrounding the cause of death (specifically damage to the brain) and autopsy, if any. I think cryonics will eventually work from a physical stand-point, for sure. The real question is how much, if any, of the personality will survive the freezing (and the dying) process? It's definitely going to be one heck of an interesting ride, that's for sure!

#87 Shannon Vyff

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

Posted 14 February 2008 - 07:34 PM

A new article up about Cryonics at UK's Guardian: http://www.guardian....ed=networkfront

#88 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 15 February 2008 - 11:26 AM

I don't think anyone here at Immortality Institute would tell you to not be a skeptic. A healthy amount of skepticism is good because it keeps everyone in line.

With that said, you have to admit that your chances of surviving after being frozen are better than if you were buried in a traditional manner.

So why not get yourself frozen and play the odds as best you can? A kind of immortalist Pascal's wager? The only logical reason not to get yourself frozen is if you believe it violates religious orthodoxy. And I'm pretty sure you are not a traditional Christian, now are you??

My whole point is that there is no reason not to get cryogenically frozen, even if resuscitation is not guaranteed.

Welcome to ImmInst
Kissinger ;)


That's a good point, it's the only hope right now at normal "death"

Let's say that one gets frozen, are there any potential drawbacks? Here's a few questions;

1. would it be possible to awaken to a state that is worse than remaining dead?

2. At the point in the future where we have the capability to rebuild a body for the frozen brain and repair the freezing damage - will our present memories be useful? Will we wake up effectively psychotic (into a world we cannot understand)

3. there's no reason to believe this yet - but as we know so little about consciousness - is it possible that there could be negative consequences on some sort of spiritual level?

-----

Once we can show that it's possible to revive animals safely I think that support for cryonics will blossom - then we'll begin experimenting with humans who are dying and try to revive them.

Personally I'd like to see cryonics work - with enough funding it seems likely that the technological hurdles can be overcome.

Edited by abolitionist, 15 February 2008 - 11:27 AM.


#89 Unregistered

  • Guest
  • 406 posts
  • 7

Posted 18 February 2008 - 01:03 PM

I voted Maybe. I detracted from being absolute saying "Yes, cryonics will work." only because it hasn't happened yet. ;)

#90 bgwowk

  • Guest
  • 1,715 posts
  • 125

Posted 18 February 2008 - 09:23 PM

1. would it be possible to awaken to a state that is worse than remaining dead?

Anything is possible, but we make decisions based on what is likely. In normal life, we don't decline life-saving medical care unless there is a good reason to believe that the outcome will be bad. This is very unlikely with highly advanced medical technology of the kind required to make cryonics work. A bad medical outcome in a cryonics scenario presupposes that either the agents doing the revival will be deeply ignorant about basic human needs, or sadists. Neither seems likely to me.

Interestingly the prognosis becomes more uncertain as cryopreservation technology becomes more advanced, which then allows revival to be done with technology that is less advanced. Some cryonicists specify that they only want revival by "mature nanotechnology". I personally think that such stipulations are unnecessary because when a patient is in a stable condition that can be maintained indefinitely, there is plenty of time for discretion and validation of revival technology.

2. At the point in the future where we have the capability to rebuild a body for the frozen brain and repair the freezing damage - will our present memories be useful? Will we wake up effectively psychotic (into a world we cannot understand)

See above.

3. there's no reason to believe this yet - but as we know so little about consciousness - is it possible that there could be negative consequences on some sort of spiritual level?

In a biological revival scenario, none of what is currently unknown about consciousness has any impact on the feasibility of cryonics. The pages of a torn up book can be put back together without knowing everything about the language that the book is written in.

Edited by bgwowk, 18 February 2008 - 09:34 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users