But you have yet to tell us where you stand MWL....
Just a cryo-skeptic
Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:54 AM
But you have yet to tell us where you stand MWL....
Posted 09 July 2003 - 01:36 AM
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
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 02:28 AM.
Posted 09 July 2003 - 02:36 AM
Posted 09 July 2003 - 03:21 AM
Calm and cool under pressure, Peter delivers the fatal blow...
who's your daddy?? lol
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 03:23 AM.
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
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 04:11 AM.
Posted 09 July 2003 - 04:16 AM
Posted 09 July 2003 - 06:10 AM
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
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 07:40 AM.
Posted 09 July 2003 - 10:19 AM
Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:44 PM
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 12:45 PM.
Posted 09 July 2003 - 12:45 PM
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
Edited by myworldline, 09 July 2003 - 11:03 PM.
Posted 10 July 2003 - 07:43 PM
Posted 10 July 2003 - 11:23 PM
Edited by ocsrazor, 10 July 2003 - 11:26 PM.
Posted 11 July 2003 - 12:42 AM
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
Edited by myworldline, 11 July 2003 - 01:45 PM.
Posted 12 July 2003 - 09:36 AM
Posted 15 January 2008 - 06:42 PM
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.
Posted 17 January 2008 - 08:15 AM
Posted 17 January 2008 - 05:46 PM
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....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.
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.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.
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.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...
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?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
Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:03 PM
Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:14 PM
Posted 17 January 2008 - 07:34 PM
Posted 18 January 2008 - 06:54 AM
Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:34 PM
Posted 07 February 2008 - 07:12 PM
Posted 14 February 2008 - 07:34 PM
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
Edited by abolitionist, 15 February 2008 - 11:27 AM.
Posted 18 February 2008 - 01:03 PM
Posted 18 February 2008 - 09:23 PM
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.1. would it be possible to awaken to a state that is worse than remaining dead?
See above.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)
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.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?
Edited by bgwowk, 18 February 2008 - 09:34 PM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users