35 replies to this topic

[JJN]

There are many issues regarding the field of cryonics. People make choices about it based on many different reasons. Please understand that I respect them all.

One description of cryonics I read was:

"The cryopreservation of patients for possible future revival is known as cryonics. It is based upon the fact that cells, tissues, organs, and entire organisms maintained at very low (cryogenic) temperatures will not suffer any significant further damage for centuries; and the premises that advances in cryobiology make it possible today to preserve the brains of patients well enough to enable future scientists to restore individual identity; and that future advances in fields such as gerontology, genetic engineering, regenerative medicine, and nanotechnology may someday make it possible to restore cryopreserved patients to life, health, and youthful vigor."

I think this is well and good, but I think it is missing a very central theme.

I wrote about this in a previous post, and am sorry if you're tired of reading it.

"A central tenet of cryonics is to have people preserved, and in the future be brought back with a certain degree of fidelity to their orignal identity."

The semantics of that statement, as well as definitions of identity and fidelity, and so on, can be argued for sure. But I think in general, it is accurate. And I think it matters. I think all else in cryonics flows from it. It is in a matter of degrees that we are attempting to get to preserving our original identity.

Often it seems to be posed that "cryonics will work, or it won't work" Seems to be an on-off type of thing. At this time, I don't think that is a very realistic understanding of it. I also think that it would help to put a dose of realism into the field.

People should understand, when they makes choices about cryonics, that all of their choices will most likely impact the amount of personal identity that will be retained. Viewed in that light, they may make better choices for themselves. There are no numbers about it, but in general, a greater degree of ideal preservation will relate to a greater degree of retention of personal identity.

For me, I like having a central tenet, that I can judge and question how all of the activites in the field relate to it.

I imagine that to many here, what I've written is blatantly obvious, sorry to bore you.

Jeff

[Medical Time Travel]

I like your post. I'm not sure if I understood it. Do you want more evidence for cryonic suspension working? I do want more evidence. I would also like to see a lot more work and talk on the issue. I would like to see cryonic suspension having a higher profile.

[JJN]

I like your post. I'm not sure if I understood it. Do you want more evidence for cryonic suspension working? I do want more evidence. I would also like to see a lot more work and talk on the issue. I would like to see cryonic suspension having a higher profile.

At this time, it has not been demonstrated to work 100%, nor proven to have 0% chance of working. My point is that it is a matter of how much of "you" will be retained upon reanimation. I think that, simply put, evidence is increasing away from 0% and towards 100%. There is no simple number that can be put on it, no real direct evidence of any certain outcome. For me, personally, there is enough indirect evidence to take it seriously, even at this time.

As for a higher profile for cryonics, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the field to comment on what would be a good direction to take. I would say, though that, for example, taken from the quote of the description I read about cryonics: "the premises that advances in cryobiology make it possible today to preserve the brains of patients well enough to enable future scientists to restore individual identity", immediately raises red flags in my mind. Restoring individual identity is the core ideal of cryonics. They pass over it lightly, with what I believe to be misinformation. I think that publicly cryonics needs to take a more realistic view of what cryonics is about.

[enoonsti]

At this time, it has not been demonstrated to work 100%, nor proven to have 0% chance of working. My point is that it is a matter of how much of "you" will be retained upon reanimation. I think that, simply put, evidence is increasing away from 0% and towards 100%. There is no simple number that can be put on it, no real direct evidence of any certain outcome. For me, personally, there is enough indirect evidence to take it seriously, even at this time.

First off, thanks for thinking, because most people don't like to think once they hear the word "cryonics"


Now as for your statements.... correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be focusing on the "suspended animation" side of things. Right? If yes, then here is Thomas Donaldson's response (bolded parts courtesy of me):



------------

"We would all like "proof" that cryonics will work. There will never be proof that cryonics will work. Certainly, individual people will be revived. Some of them (we hope a very large percentage) will actually come back as the same people as those who "died." There will certainly be proof that we can successfully freeze human brains and definitively preserve personality, identity, the "soul", or what have you. But those things aren't cryonics, they're just particular technologies. They don't really embody the key idea. The really key idea in cryonics is the idea of freezing (or otherwise preserving) people when we don't know if we can ever revive them. Of course, we intend to figure out later whether we can do this. We intend to succeed in reviving them. But before we've actually done so, we certainly can't prove we will succeed. And funny thing, after we've done so, the proof will be irrelevant. If we know how to bring somebody back as a fully functioning human being after an hour of ischemia, why should we ever bother to go to the added expense and trouble of freezing them first? That would be bizarre and unnecessary."

------------



The entire article can be found here: http://www.alcor.org...Archeology.html



Suspended animation is a technology, and while I'm for it for many reasons, it is not the key idea. Cryonics is about embracing the unknown. We don't all go out the same way, so it's impossible to apply a blanket statement to everyone. We don't know if that guy lying on the floor for eight hours is ever coming back, but what do we do? Do we just chuck him in the nearby dumpster?




Cryonics will always be on the edge of the unknown. Today, it's suspending people with ischemia. A century from now, it's suspending people with rogue nanobots. Programmed by me

Edited by enoonsti, 16 January 2010 - 08:14 AM.

[JJN]

At this time, it has not been demonstrated to work 100%, nor proven to have 0% chance of working. My point is that it is a matter of how much of "you" will be retained upon reanimation. I think that, simply put, evidence is increasing away from 0% and towards 100%. There is no simple number that can be put on it, no real direct evidence of any certain outcome. For me, personally, there is enough indirect evidence to take it seriously, even at this time.

First off, thanks for thinking, because most people don't like to think once they hear the word "cryonics"

JJN: Thanks for your thanks. I have thought about cryonics a little over the years, but not in serious terms. I'm starting to take it seriously now.

Now as for you statements.... correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be focusing on the "suspended animation" side of things. Right? If yes, then here is Thomas Donaldson's response (bolded parts courtesy of me):

JJN: Some would think, that even now, cryonics is a form of suspended animation. Personally, I don't make any distinction. Well, as I think about it, perhaps demonstrable 100% reinstatement of identity after cryonic storage would really be suspended animation.

------------

"We would all like "proof" that cryonics will work. There will never be proof that cryonics will work. Certainly, individual people will be revived. Some of them (we hope a very large percentage) will actually come back as the same people as those who "died." There will certainly be proof that we can successfully freeze human brains and definitively preserve personality, identity, the "soul", or what have you. But those things aren't cryonics, they're just particular technologies. They don't really embody the key idea. The really key idea in cryonics is the idea of freezing (or otherwise preserving) people when we don't know if we can ever revive them. Of course, we intend to figure out later whether we can do this. We intend to succeed in reviving them. But before we've actually done so, we certainly can't prove we will succeed. And funny thing, after we've done so, the proof will be irrelevant. If we know how to bring somebody back as a fully functioning human being after an hour of ischemia, why should we ever bother to go to the added expense and trouble of freezing them first? That would be bizarre and unnecessary."

------------



The entire article can be found here: http://www.alcor.org...Archeology.html



Suspended animation is a technology, and while I'm for it for many reasons, it is not the key idea. Cryonics is about embracing the unknown. We don't all go out the same way, so it's impossible to apply a blanket statement to everyone. We don't know if that guy lying on the floor for eight hours is ever coming back, but what do we do? Do we just chuck him in the nearby dumpster?

JJN: I think that cryonics is headed in the direction of it being more 'known'. I think it would behoove people to understand more fully that the more ideal circumstances that they can be preserved under will determine the the amount of "they" that is retained. Correct, there is no blanket condition. Ah, as far as the poor soul on the floor... if I were that guy, and was thinking about my possible preservation at the last minutes of "life", knowing I would not be found for 8 hours, I would consider that less of me would be retained than if I had more favorable circumstances for dying under. It is a matter of a function, not an either/or situation. But I think this will also apply to any form of suspended animation as well. As far as what the limits should be... I really don't know.

Cryonics will always be on the edge of the unknown. Today, it's suspending people with ischemia. A century from now, it's suspending people with rogue nanobots. Programmed by me

Hehe, I hope you will be programming the nanobots that I was involved in producing...

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 16 January 2010 - 08:56 AM.

[enoonsti]

Let me just quickly state that I agree with your 0 to 100% mentality (But in a modified form that I'll present at my website, when it's developed). It encourages people to want to improve cryonics, as opposed to the binary adage of "It's better to be frozen than not." I mean, I personally don't feel comforted being frozen in a melting iceberg


But let me also address something you mentioned:



--------------

"Some would think, that even now, cryonics is a form of suspended animation."

--------------



Suspended animation = technology

Cryonics = Suspended animation + unknown



And just like in any equation, the variable ("unknown") can be the dominating factor.







Suspended animation plays a huge rule (obviously, haha), but we have to stress that it's not the only part of cryonics! Here's an example: Suppose technology progresses, and we suspend Mary Sue and bring her back, 100% perfectly fine. That's great, right? We just proved cryonics will work, right? Well, no. We didn't. Why? Because again, what about that guy who was on the floor for 8 hours? I mean, he doesn't care that Mary Sue was brought back 100%. That's a cheap parlor trick to him! A David Blaine on ice! He has to worry about the variable - 8 hours of ischemia - because cryonics is a medical endeavor. Not a transport around outer space.

Summary: Even if we create "perfect" 100% reversible suspended animation, there will still be critics who say, "So what? You're suspending dead people." But just like you said, you don't know what the limits are.... and nobody else knows either! It's a premature assessment, and maybe there will come a day when someone says, "8 hours of ischemia? Frailty from aging? Hah! Those are easy to take care of!" And even then, people probably won't come back 100% as at the time of cryopreservation: in fact, it's assured they won't! Cryonics is simply about being humble and admitting we don't know the precise results, instead of just dumping folks in the nearby dumpster (By the way, I use the dumpster phrase a lot in honor of a scene from the latest Bond flick, Quantum of Solace.)



....BUT, there is something else I'd like to mention....

(Quick disclaimer: Brian Wowk, David Stodolsky, and many others disagree with the following, so tread carefully)



Whenever you create a product, you have to be aware that consumers will form their own interpretations of it. For example, Youtube was originally set up as a rating/dating website: upload videos of yourself for others to judge you by. However, the users took control themselves, and started uploading their own random videos because it saved them bandwidth costs. Hence, Youtube is not only about "You" today, but all sorts of clips people upload.


ALL of us are irrational. When 21st Century Medicine vitrified that rabbit kidney in 2005, the world should have said, "Hooray! One step closer to true suspended animation!" Except we didn't, because many of us thrive on the "cheap parlor tricks." And since I think you're absolutely right that many people view cryonics as just a form of suspended animation, I have a feeling if we were able to take a Soccer Mom, suspend her for a few weeks, and bring her back fine and dandy, that would completely shock the world. Again, it's not for the right reasons (and again, there will still be critics saying "You're suspending dead people!" *facepalm*), but whatever has the potential to create a social tipping point is good in my eyes.


Because what separates cryonics from, say, merely supporting a "War on Aging" is that it is tangible. Your loved one is in a dewar, and you want her out of there! An abstract "War on Aging" that has to take 30 years (WITHOUT the mutual support of cryonics) is going to result in fickle people complaining - just like they did with the "War on Cancer" - since we will probably run into snags.





... AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST: LET'S KEEP SOMETHING IN MIND.....



150,000 people die every day. There is no pause button. We shouldn't wait for arbitrary milestones. We have to cut corners.






p.s. my nanobots will come with a nano-equivalent of rims that keep on spinning

[enoonsti]

One thing I forgot to stress: I think we pretty much agree. I'm simply (and perhaps goofily) quibbling over a few details. The problem with cryonics - which I consistently make myself - are the words we choose. It leads to mixed interpretations, and I very much wish I was a better writer

[JJN]

Some more thoughts on the subject...

Cryonics is a matter of belief, or conjecture, or speculation, on the future. In general, such terms will bring up looking for what the tenet, or tenets are. Again in general, people make choices in their lives based upon what they think are reasonable assumptions about given tenets. Exceptions abound, of course, but in general there are far more decisions made based upon reasonable assumptions. I really don't want to get into a debate about definitions of reasonable assumptions, and so on, at this time, please.

I think the views I have expressed do lean towards some reasonable assumptions. If someone is told that more ideal preservation will likely lead to more retention of personal identity, this automatically implies that less ideal preservation will likely lead to loss of personal identity. And I think that this is a reasonable assumption. And, again, I think it is one of the more basic tenets of cryonics.

Please understand that I view myself as an ally of cryonics. Some may see my thoughts as attempting to rain on the parade of the movement. That is not my intention. But my thoughts don't appear to be resonating with many here. Perhaps, my writing is not good enough to be clear to very many.

Thinking about cryonics in terms of potential retention and loss of personal identity may make some people uncomfortable. But I think those are views about reasonable assumptions of a basic tenet. I think this has always been true, and will continue to be true for a long time to come. For some reason, this has been unspoken in the terms I have used.

Whether or not cryonics can be, or even should be, more mainstream at this time, I am not qualified to say. But I venture that the thoughts I have expressed would be on the minds of some, perhaps many.

Jeff

PS I really am not trying to scare anyone away from cryonics. I am simply trying to make some structured decisions. I have drawn no conclusions about any degree of feasibility. That will come later. This really is just a place to start.

Edited by JJN, 17 January 2010 - 11:16 PM.

[JJN]

Some more thoughts on the subject...

There is some obsfucation, hyperbole, and flat-out misinformation regarding the basic pros and cons of cryonics. I am trying to cut through all of this, and make some structured decisions about the subject. I am wishing to discuss it framed on what I think is the most basic of premises, as I have outlined. It seems to me, that there are those who are blind adherents to it, those who are on the fence and flipping coins, and those who are not interested.

I really implore you to respond. I think it is very pertinent. I am beginning to think that this particular forum is not the proper venue for the issue as I have outlined it, for whatever reason. I CAN take a hint...

Jeff

[enoonsti]

Some more thoughts on the subject...

There is some obsfucation, hyperbole, and flat-out misinformation regarding the basic pros and cons of cryonics. I am trying to cut through all of this, and make some structured decisions about the subject. I am wishing to discuss it framed on what I think is the most basic of premises, as I have outlined. It seems to me, that there are those who are blind adherents to it, those who are on the fence and flipping coins, and those who are not interested.

I really implore you to respond. I think it is very pertinent. I am beginning to think that this particular forum is not the proper venue for the issue as I have outlined it, for whatever reason. I CAN take a hint...

Jeff

I apologize for my absence. I have been with family, and so forth. My aunt's dog, in particular, is quite the consumer of time.


Anyways, I will respond more fully very soon! But let me just quickly say: again, I think we pretty much agree, haha. Really. We do. My sense of humor (or some would say "humor") is probably the culprit behind this misunderstanding


I actually find cryonics to be a very depressing topic. So I try to have some fun with it

[Quasar]

I must say that I've never been a fan of cryonics. Sorry to say but it seems to me just not feasible. After such a prolonged freezing (or whatever) of of the body, I very much doubt a person can be brought back to life, particularly in view of what a delicate organ the brain is. Therefore I've never rea;ly taken an interest in this method of preserving life.

[enoonsti]

...



*crickets*



Quasar. If you're going to rest on vague assertions and not even bother with more detailed research, then I'm rather surprised that you took the time to type that reply. What exactly were you hoping to achieve?






Well anyways, JJN, here is my reply:



----------------
"Cryonics is a matter of belief, or conjecture, or speculation, on the future."
----------------

Everyone makes predictions about the future. Not just so-called "futurists." Not just cryonicists. Everyone. When you decide to give up on someone and burn/bury her, you make a prediction that that person will never, ever be recoverable. The nice thing about cryonics is that it is more conservative, and does not make such a brash prediction.

I know that wasn't what you wanted to discuss, but I'm just pointing that out for other readers. This is why I go off-topic at times



----------------
"If someone is told that more ideal preservation will likely lead to more retention of personal identity, this automatically implies that less ideal preservation will likely lead to loss of personal identity. And I think that this is a reasonable assumption. And, again, I think it is one of the more basic tenets of cryonics."
----------------

I absolutely agree with everything you said, and I implied that earlier when I mentioned I support your 0 to 100% mentality. But please read this Depressed Metabolism article on the media's interpretation of cryonics. Even though we both keep saying "suspended animation" it is simply conveying the wrong concept. There's just much more to cryonics, and this needs to be stressed alongside the effort to improve vitrification techniques, etc. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere.


The media keeps looking at cryonics in blanket statement terms, as if it will be the same for everyone.


We have to stress that it is an individual by individual basis (I'll go into detail below)




----------------
"Please understand that I view myself as an ally of cryonics."
----------------

Absolutely! In fact, I view you as a better ally of cryonics because you want to try to improve it... as opposed to, say, some folks who just sign up and forget about it. Or those who crack a cryonics joke, burp, and move on with their day. Nevertheless, we still have to do it correctly.




---------------
"Whether or not cryonics can be, or even should be, more mainstream at this time....no conclusions about any degree of feasibility... " etc
---------------

To be fair, anyone who is considering feasibility (in terms of the cryopreservation itself... not counting each individual's varying situation.... *cough*) has to ask himself: "Has someone else thought of this?" Cryonics has been around for four decades, and though Cold Filter sometimes goes off the deep end (haha), these people are adults and not children. In fact, people from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Cambridge, and more have put their names to the statement: "There is a credible possibility that cryonics performed under the best conditions achievable today can preserve sufficient neurological information to permit eventual restoration of a person to full health." In contrast, a guy on the street corner with a serious case of "obsfucation, hyperbole, and flat-out misinformation" does not have a Scientists' Open Letter.


It's great that you (probably will) have the time to think about the "feasibility" of cryonics for yourself. However, there are people who are dying in nursing homes today. And as Aschwin noted above: "Expecting people to destroy their brains because suspended animation is not feasible yet is neither prudent nor caring." i.e. anyone who is flipping coins needs to pick up the pace





Now let me just explain why I linked to "Neural Archaeology" in my first post. When I was introduced to cryonics, I was more accustomed to some of the other justifications I usually see linked to. So when I read Donaldson's essay a while ago, I thought to myself: "This sounds like a load of crap." I mean, words like "no proof" and "unknown" quickly leap out to me like religious dogma. And that's because I kept viewing it from your perspective: this focusing of proper suspended animation as the central tenet. But now I realize that this is probably one of the best essays on cryonics.

There is a common misconception among my fellow college nerds that they "hopefully won't need cryonics"... as if everything in The Singularity is Near is just going to happen all fine and dandy. Though IEEE Spectrum's coverage of "The Singularity" back in June 2008 was rather amateur (Anissimov had an excellent response), it did contain a very wonderful ending quote by critic Richard Jones regarding MNT: "We shouldn't abandon all of the more radical goals of nanotechnology, because they may instead be achieved ultimately by routes quite different from (and longer than) those foreseen by the proponents of molecular nanotechnology. Perhaps we should thank Drexler for alerting us to the general possibilities of nanotechnology, while recognizing that the trajectories of new technologies rarely run smoothly along the paths foreseen by their pioneers."


But I digress slightly. What I'm trying to get at is that here is this group of people who should be drooling all over cryonics, and yet they're not. They look at death as an independent entity that will just magically be overcome someday! In 2045! Donaldson's essay instead provided a better definition of death as it pertains to each individual. And that is the central tenet you need to focus on. So please, re-read it. It may be written in 1987 and some things may be slightly out of date. But it's entirely relevant in your quest for central tenets.







Yet if you're going to continue to focus on suspended animation, then let me justify the use of cryonics today from another angle. I'll utilize a terrible example (I'm running low on "thinking juice." Sorry).




1. Al Gore cares about global warming, and he wants others to care about our future too.

2. Al Gore is behind Current.com

3. Max and Jason's "Still Up" is on Current.com. And Jason likes cryonics.

4. Maybe Al Gore should watch his own show, because...

5. CRYONICS WILL MAKE PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THE FUTURE. UGHGHHGHGGHHGHG



(No, I'm not interested in having a debate over global warming, haha. Again, it was a lame example)



Over at Lesswrong.com, commenters sometimes treat cryonics like a flare-up of herpes; quickly hide it and move on. They deal in the abstract, and completely forget about cryonics in the real world. Their wiki doesn't even mention anything about the social impact. And as I've stressed before regarding the "War on Aging," cryonics is tangible. Your loved one is in a dewar. So if we all supported this, what on earth do you think would happen in society? I mean, it's not like cryonics exists in its own separate world.

This line of thinking isn't new, of course. Robert Ettinger said in the Prospect of Immortality: "It has been fashionable for some time to say that 'complex problems do not have simple solutions'; this is a favorite excuse of lack-wit politicians. Nevertheless, the simple use of soap and water cuts a very wide swath across the complex problem of disease prevention, and the simple routine of formal courtesy does wonders in ameliorating complex problems of human relations. Likewise, I believe the freezer program will prove virtually a panacea, particularly in international relations - not because in itself it solves all problems, but because it provides time for the solution of problems."

As I'll detail at my website, I think it would prove particularly relevant during the 21st century. More recently, Bart Kosko wrote a piece on it last year for Edge, with the beginning line: "Society will change when the poor and middle class have easy access to cryonic suspension of their cognitive remains — even if the future technology involved ultimately fails." Apparently, everybody must have skimmed over it


...

[enoonsti]

I strongly encourage that you check out my website when it is finished. I'm taking a very different route of introducing various concepts to readers (and then I link to the authors who go into greater detail). It focuses on videos, illustrations, music, etc as opposed to huge blocks of text (although I do explain with significant amounts, as well).

My goal is to keep a Reddit user's interest for the whole thing.

That includes appealing to their general sense of humor (and learning, too).


...


And I'll have to thank Larry Johnson for providing all those videos at his Youtube account...

[JJN]

I strongly encourage that you check out my website when it is finished. I'm taking a very different route of introducing various concepts to readers (and then I link to the authors who go into greater detail). It focuses on videos, illustrations, music, etc as opposed to huge blocks of text (although I do explain with significant amounts, as well).

My goal is to keep a Reddit user's interest for the whole thing.

That includes appealing to their general sense of humor (and learning, too).


...


And I'll have to thank Larry Johnson for providing all those videos at his Youtube account...

Thank you very much for your replies! I am starting out right now as "a guy on the street corner". I will find time soon to look at the references you provided. I very much look forward to your website. Seems it will be a very rational collection of ideas on the subject. The sites that exist of the providers of services present the subject in the light that is favorable to them. An independent site is a very good thing. Forums are great for discussions, mostly, but don't give very structured information.

For me personally, I might have many healthy years left, and can wait for research, and so on, to improve things before I make a decision about cryonics. But then again, I may develop a fatal disease tomorrow, and have to make a decision quickly. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. And yes, people in the final stages of life are faced with a more immediate choice.

Thank you again, for your input

Jeff

[JJN]

I actually find cryonics to be a very depressing topic. So I try to have some fun with it

When I think of the positive promises of cryonics, I feel good. When I think of the uncertainies, and ways it could go 'wrong' I feel a little sad. We build our dreams upon hope, but sometimes life can hand us despair. Ah, boundless hope, and unrelenting despair, the limits of the human condition.

Forgive me, at times I wax philosophical...

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 20 January 2010 - 12:18 AM.

[enoonsti]

-


And thank you for your input! We really are both in the same boat: there is still plenty I have to learn, and undoubtedly, I've probably said some rather naive things. But since I've been somewhat quiet on cryonics for a long time - reading papers and so forth - I really needed a change of pace. Hence, this discussion.

Also, thank you for your interest in my site (I'm thinking late February when it launches). It's not going to change the world, but I still hope at least some people check it out. I'll provide more details eventually

I actually find cryonics to be a very depressing topic. So I try to have some fun with it

When I think of the positive promises of cryonics, I feel good. When I think of the uncertainies, and ways it could go 'wrong' I feel a little sad. We build our dreams upon hope, but sometimes life can hand us despair. Ah, boundless hope, and unrelenting despair, the limits of the human condition.

Forgive me, at times I wax philosophical...

Jeff

My grandpa died last year, and I felt guilty because I didn't talk to him about cryonics. 99% of me says it wouldn't have made a difference, but it's the 1% that gets to me at times :(

[JJN]

I did read the open letter from the scientists. They mention that the most ideal conditions for preservation will possibly lead to retention of complete identity. I believe it. But again, filtered through my tenet, what are the implications of less ideal preservation? I think that what is at stake is the amount of retention of personal identity. I would love to see another open letter from scientists stating it in such terms, but I don't think that will be forthcoming...

It is, I think, within the realm of possibility that future technology will be be sufficient to overcome a widely varying degree of preservations made today, and in the past. I personally think it is within the realm of possibility that all of the people preserved to this point, using various means of preservation, can be brought back with a 'whole', brain, reconstructed based on various things (perhaps DNA, basic morphology, and so on). But I think what will happen is that they will have varying degrees of semblance to their previous self.

I have a lot of thinking and study ahead on the subject. There is, I think, a lot of direct and indirect evidence about the various options of preservation, and the possible ramifications. Will be a lot to wade through, and I am going to try to do it in the most structured way that I can. And I think it can be done in a more structured way than is currently being presented. I think it is fairly obvious that neuro only preservation at Alcor is the best 'bet'. But failing that, what would I do? Perhaps I could only 'die' locally, and have my remains shipped to Arizona. I need to have more basic info before I decide. Perhaps I should really really push CI to have the same option. I know it has been discussed there, but, perhaps for the best reasons for CI, they have decided against it.

What would I tell myself, my friends, my loved ones, the people in nursing homes? All I can say, at this time, is to make the choice with 'eyes open'. And I know I am not qualified at this time to discuss all of the options and ramifications completely, in the most accurate terms.

I did read Donaldson's essay, and yes, coming to peace with the unknown is certainly a tenet of cryonics.

I had posted my thoughts on this forum in hopes of getting a 'reality check' on my ideas. I certainly do not mean to try to 'lay down the law' to those who are interested in cryonics.

I thank you again enoonsti, for your feedback. I thank all others who have read here, for your time.

Jeff

[JediMasterLucia]

I actually find cryonics to be a very depressing topic. So I try to have some fun with it

When I think of the positive promises of cryonics, I feel good. When I think of the uncertainies, and ways it could go 'wrong' I feel a little sad. We build our dreams upon hope, but sometimes life can hand us despair. Ah, boundless hope, and unrelenting despair, the limits of the human condition.

Forgive me, at times I wax philosophical...

Jeff

It is only human to think about life, death or if cryonics will work or not

[enoonsti]

The varying practices among organizations is something that has certainly been debated, and I understand that that was an aim of your analysis (I guess I just got a little carried away with the "central tenet" and my thoughts regarding the media's misinterpretation of cryonics). I'm not qualified - at all - to comment on specifics, but this is something I will bring up later. For now, just to add to the open questions, here's a very unrealistic thought experiment to anyone reading:

Suppose tomorrow that all 6.5 billion people "snapped out of it." Though I already consider 150,000 dead per day to be a global emergency, this would undoubtedly be a more chaotic situation. In "Digg effect" like fashion, Alcor and CI would quickly become overrun during a single lunch break. Leaving aside the likelihood of military action, rationing, etc, I think a significant way to avoid flat-out meltdown would have to be for compromises in suspension procedures via varying locations. Example: Tibetans have no infrastructure - mountains can be a pain sometimes - yet suppose some altruistic individuals flew in with the option of chemical fixation (optional technical analysis here), allowing the brains to be more portable, etc. Would you, dear reader, endorse this?


By the way, I chose the Tibetans because of the way they dispose of people via a "sky burial": they slowly chop up the body, throw the pieces on the ground, and let the vultures have a feast. I have a feeling they won't be changing their philosophies anytime soon

[JJN]

The varying practices among organizations is something that has certainly been debated, and I understand that that was an aim of your analysis (I guess I just got a little carried away with the "central tenet" and my thoughts regarding the media's misinterpretation of cryonics). I'm not qualified - at all - to comment on specifics, but this is something I will bring up later. For now, just to add to the open questions, here's a very unrealistic thought experiment to anyone reading:

Suppose tomorrow that all 6.5 billion people "snapped out of it." Though I already consider 150,000 dead per day to be a global emergency, this would undoubtedly be a more chaotic situation. In "Digg effect" like fashion, Alcor and CI would quickly become overrun during a single lunch break. Leaving aside the likelihood of military action, rationing, etc, I think a significant way to avoid flat-out meltdown would have to be for compromises in suspension procedures via varying locations. Example: Tibetans have no infrastructure - mountains can be a pain sometimes - yet suppose some altruistic individuals flew in with the option of chemical fixation (optional technical analysis here), allowing the brains to be more portable, etc. Would you, dear reader, endorse this?

I had actually been thinking about this exact scenario a few hours ago, for some reason. What if it happened? I just don't think it will, in any practical means. I don't think it likely to happen soon. The cryonics movement is still very much a 'futurist' affair. As such, it is moving along in fits and starts, as such things do. There was a thread about 'The decade of improgression'. I think that a lot of progress WAS made, and this will continue to be so. I think a more universal application of cryonics is a little ways away yet.

I do understand about the ultimate sacredness of human life (I am not a typically spiritual, or religious person , btw). I think it is not taken seriously enough, by far, very far, in my view. But I don't think cryonics is a totally universal application for preserving human life, at this time. I can't speak to the application of other preservation means, such as chemical fixation. But I think, as you probably understand my views by now, that the various means of preservation are likely to lead to some 'shadow' of peoples' previous self, in varying degrees.

In short, would I endorse it? I would definitely endorse 'keeping it on the table'.

[bgwowk]

I did read the open letter from the scientists. They mention that the most ideal conditions for preservation will possibly lead to retention of complete identity. I believe it. But again, filtered through my tenet, what are the implications of less ideal preservation? I think that what is at stake is the amount of retention of personal identity. I would love to see another open letter from scientists stating it in such terms, but I don't think that will be forthcoming...

Indeed, but how many people are equipped to understand medical questions in such terms? We live in a world where life and death are viewed in binary terms.

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

You are believed to be either alive or dead, and the transition between the two happens in an instant. Restoring the heartbeat of even a person whose identity has been badly compromised by neurological injury is still seen as saving their life. Even conditions like progressive senile dementia that demonstrably physically destroy the brain, and memory and cognition along with it, are not seen as the gradual transition into non-existence that they are. People have legal, emotional, and religious investments in the binary view of personal existence.

By the naive criterion of restoration of vital signs, everybody cryopreserved can theoretically be "revived." So certainly the real question of cryonics, and the repair technologies it postulates, is one of degree of identity retention. However, like so many ideas of cryonics, this is not an idea that is easily communicated. You are to be commended for ascertaining it.

To be clear, degree of identity preservation and recovery is not an idea that is deliberately hidden in cryonics. You will find it written about. It's just not front-and-center because so few people can understand it. The Scientists Open Letter in particular was crafted for general public consumption in the midst of cryonics legislative activity in 2004. Its basic purpose was to show that at least some scientists regard cryonics seriously. A more complete discussion of cryonics would require an essay, if not more.

[JJN]

Thank you Dr. Wowk, for your reply.

I didn't know what the intent of the 'open letter' was before. That helps to understand it a little better.

Yes, for many reasons people choose to have a binary view of life and death. I think that many people, when they are young, simply look forward to having as full a life as is possible, and at the 'end', having been satisfied that this has been so, and perhaps being tired of all the rigamarole, will let their life be 'turned off', and perhaps believing in an afterlife of some sort. This has always been the way of things. It would be a complete paradigm shift to exchange this view for one which is otherwise, especially at this time.

There has been floated the thoughts in cryonics, that to not engage in it is to commmit some sort of suicide. Suicide is the intentional taking of ones' life, where a natural death is is one where life is simply taken from us. Yes, we may engage in some very unhealthy ways that we intentionally choose, that is fairly certain to bring about a closer end, but that really is not considered suicide in any current definition. Some may think that it is unethical to not engage in cryonics. I think it is utter foolishness to try to press these views on others, but I think it is something that should be respected in those who choose to have these views when they make their personal choices about cryonics.

I am grateful for those who have had the forward looking view of cryonics, and get the movement started, and are continuing to engage in it. For me, I think I will at least pay for some initial membership, or pay dues, to one of the provider organisations. It would help, in some small way, to keep the field moving forward. I had heard that there are some who 'sign up', but when the end comes they choose not to be preserved. I really don't know, at this time, if I was terminal and had to make the choice of being preserved, or not, what I would do. I really don't know either, if I will make healthy lifestyle changes so that I could 'be around' longer so that the field would be more mature when I pass on.

I know I am drifting off topic, but maybe some would be interested in some thoughts:

The brain has been described as perhaps the most complex 'thing' in the known universe. Cryonics is dealing with a subject of immense proportions. There certainly are no 'easy answers' at this time about ultimate viability. It seems to me, without considering all the other points about ethics, religion, social inertia, and so on, that the limits of opinion range from it being totally pie in the sky foolishness, to it being a sure ticket to immortality.

There are those, though, who do try to take as reasoned a view as is possible, and I hope I am one who is doing that. But we are not all experts in science. For me, I am a casual observer, flying overhead at 50,000 feet, and really just trying to grasp the gist of things.

I'll keep looking for the essays and articles that speak to what I want to know. It seems though, that the range of them vary from philosophical treatments, broad and indistinct applications of statistical means of using future technology, to science that gets technical very quickly on a single distinct topic. I guess what I will look for is 'bullet points' that I can use to drill down into to try to understand the field better.

I think I have beaten the original thesis of the theme of these postings pretty much far enough. I'm not sure how much more I can add to this topic. I will gladly discuss anything people would like to bring up, perhaps they disagree with the whole thesis, perhaps would like to discuss semantics, or have other tenets they wish to bring up.

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 22 January 2010 - 07:58 PM.

[enoonsti]

I nominate JJN for best new user of the month.


Seriously, I'm going to give you props in another thread in a second.

[JJN]

I did read the open letter from the scientists. They mention that the most ideal conditions for preservation will possibly lead to retention of complete identity. I believe it. But again, filtered through my tenet, what are the implications of less ideal preservation? I think that what is at stake is the amount of retention of personal identity. I would love to see another open letter from scientists stating it in such terms, but I don't think that will be forthcoming...

Indeed, but how many people are equipped to understand medical questions in such terms? We live in a world where life and death are viewed in binary terms.

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

You are believed to be either alive or dead, and the transition between the two happens in an instant. Restoring the heartbeat of even a person whose identity has been badly compromised by neurological injury is still seen as saving their life. Even conditions like progressive senile dementia that demonstrably physically destroy the brain, and memory and cognition along with it, are not seen as the gradual transition into non-existence that they are. People have legal, emotional, and religious investments in the binary view of personal existence.

By the naive criterion of restoration of vital signs, everybody cryopreserved can theoretically be "revived." So certainly the real question of cryonics, and the repair technologies it postulates, is one of degree of identity retention. However, like so many ideas of cryonics, this is not an idea that is easily communicated. You are to be commended for ascertaining it.

To be clear, degree of identity preservation and recovery is not an idea that is deliberately hidden in cryonics. You will find it written about. It's just not front-and-center because so few people can understand it. The Scientists Open Letter in particular was crafted for general public consumption in the midst of cryonics legislative activity in 2004. Its basic purpose was to show that at least some scientists regard cryonics seriously. A more complete discussion of cryonics would require an essay, if not more.

Ah, I guess I do have some thoughts to add to this thread...

I have been poking through more of the threads on this forum, and you do talk very openly, and sensibly I think, about information theoretic death, and degrees of it being a central player in cryonics. I hope it is ok with you, Dr. Wowk, that I have pointed to them here, for those who may be interested.

http://www.imminst.o...o...ost&p=73714

http://www.imminst.o...o...ost&p=74644

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=240658

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=306622

I'll try to heed your advice:

http://www.imminst.o...o...ost&p=74687

For me, just getting started in my interest in cryonics, I'll try to understand information theoretic death. There is quite a lot of information about it, and I guess I'll try to put together some sort of outline first, then flesh it in.

For me personally, right now I'm living a life of dissipation and excesses. It is decidedly not healthy. I'm 48 now, and it seems that I see most definite death in the not too distant future, and this is making me not care so much for life as it is now. If I were to live squeaky clean now, I know end of life may get pushed from perhaps the next few years, to maybe 80, or somethng. Sensibly, this should motivate me to 'clean up my act'. I'm just not being sensible. I always seem to see death looming, rather than life happening. Maybe in the back of my mind, I'm thinking of cryonics if I need it soon as a 'quick fix' for my excesses.

If I had some idea, that if I did 'clean up my act', and lived longer so that cryonics had more of a chance to mature, that it would be more likely to 'succeed', I may not see death looming so large. It may make it easier for me to see 'life happening'.

Jeff

[JJN]

Hello, just me again...

I do want to thank all of you for the opportunity to air my thoughts as I am developing them. It helps me, and I am sure many others, to have a place to get the thoughts out of one's mind, so that we can inspect them better. This forum is really one of the very few places to do it. As most people here probably experience, their close circle of friends and family probably simply don't want to discuss it.

As for having a central tenet, perhaps as I've stated it, as some sort of public statement, I'm not sure of. I think that the cryonics service providers, and the movement in general, is probably astute in playing to the strengths and positives of cryonics in general. Lay out your strengths, and if negatives and unknowns are brought out, deal with them in as positive a light as possible.

To make statements that are talking directly about possible losses of personal identity with less ideal preservation means may be unwise. It is a bit of a sticky point with me, though, how people are being counseled about cryonics, and the possible sudden discontinuities that may happen. I would guess that, even without reading them, the contracts that are used would make no solid claims about ultimate retention of identity. And, in general, it is well known to be some sort of futurist endeavor, with the inherent uncertainies being understood. I guess I can probably live with things as they are.

It is some sort of dilemma, I think, that to muse about the possible loss of identity may scare some away from cryonics who may otherwise be interested, and would give opponents more ammunition to, well, oppose cryonics. But then again, more fully well knowing about the possible discontinuities may help people make better choices for more ideal preservation, and, knowing more fully what is at stake, may make them more serious about improving all aspects of cryonics. I really don't know how to answer this. It may be too soon, at this time, to pose this in a more public light.

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 28 January 2010 - 04:55 AM.

[JJN]

Hi again,

I think this is turning into "Jeff's blog" about cryonics. Sorry for that.

I guess that the final take-away thought from all this is how much of 'you' being retained would you be able to live with upon your reanimation. I would counsel you to think of it in such terms. There are no hard and fast numbers about it. Individual cases vary widely. I absolutely don't think of it in any metaphysical terms, but you may. I am leaning towards my personal 'swag' as being high enough that I am seriously interested in cryonics. I truly don't think, that if I had to be preserved tomorrow, that I would ever come back 100%. There would be discontinuities, even with the best preservations available. The brain, again, is a very complex organ.

There are some very actionable items to work on in the near term. Resources in the field are limited, and it may be difficult to prioritize them. I wish that someone knowledgeable would start a new topic on it. Ok, ok, if no one else does, I probably will...

Jeff

[Shannon Vyff]

Some cryonicists don't care about whether or not they come back, like me-at least not care, as it being the only reason they'd "do" (sign up for) cryonics. I'd hope that people in the future can learn from my body, just as we can learn from mummies at the very least. Also, my support of cryonics while I'm alive, even if it never works and I never get to have awareness again in the future--will at least help support the development of better preservation for organs, to save lives now. Cryonics is an interesting experiment, there is evidence that it might work, there are things that would cause it to not work--some good comes out of cryonics research now, and if I'm aware again and think "I am" then great, if not-I hope some new insight into the evolution of viruses or something will come out of my body being donated to science.

Edited by ShannonVyff, 28 January 2010 - 12:27 PM.

[JJN]

Some cryonicists don't care about whether or not they come back, like me-at least not care, as it being the only reason they'd "do" (sign up for) cryonics. I'd hope that people in the future can learn from my body, just as we can learn from mummies at the very least. Also, my support of cryonics while I'm alive, even if it never works and I never get to have awareness again in the future--will at least help support the development of better preservation for organs, to save lives now. Cryonics is an interesting experiment, there is evidence that it might work, there are things that would cause it to not work--some good comes out of cryonics research now, and if I'm aware again and think "I am" then great, if not-I hope some new insight into the evolution of viruses or something will come out of my body being donated to science.

Thanks for your input, it helps to broaden my thoughts about the cryonics movement. The movement is varied in scope. I guess I am talking about cryonics in specific terms, but my tenet would definitely not apply to the movement in general. I have read some of your other posts, and you do seem to have very altruistic attitudes, and give generously of your time to worthwhile causes. Good to know you're in the world. As for me, I think I'm egalitarian, and maybe I'll graduate to being more altruistic one day.

[JJN]

I have been reading more on the subject of the viability of cryonics. I'll admit, I still consider myself 95% ignorant about most of it. I did read some more on Alcor's site that does indeed publicly state some of the unknowns about the whole process. http://www.alcor.org/problems.html does talk about it pretty directly, and I'm heartened by their openness. I guess lately I have been having some ethical qualms about how people are counseled about their chances of coming back '100%'. Seems like some are under the impression that it will either 'work 100%', or 'not work'. Who knows, perhaps they are right. But the possibility exists that there may be some 'grey area' involved upon reanimation. Anyways, Alcor seems to be open, prudent and astute in how they are presenting this somewhat touchy subject.

[JJN]

I have been reading more on the subject of the viability of cryonics. I'll admit, I still consider myself 95% ignorant about most of it. I did read some more on Alcor's site that does indeed publicly state some of the unknowns about the whole process. http://www.alcor.org/problems.html does talk about it pretty directly, and I'm heartened by their openness. I guess lately I have been having some ethical qualms about how people are counseled about their chances of coming back '100%'. Seems like some are under the impression that it will either 'work 100%', or 'not work'. Who knows, perhaps they are right. But the possibility exists that there may be some 'grey area' involved upon reanimation. Anyways, Alcor seems to be open, prudent and astute in how they are presenting this somewhat touchy subject.

Oops, I seem to have gone to long to edit the post... I have to really say, after thinking about it, that I'm really more like 99.9999999% ignorant about the viability of cryonics...