37 replies to this topic

[Mind]

I wish I had taken better notes during Greg Fahy's presentation. 21st Century Medicine is still the world's leader (IMO) in cryopreservation science. If you were wondering why they haven't heralded much progress since their mostly successful reversible cryopreservation of a rabbit kidney (2005 I believe), it is because they lost their transplant surgeon and because the supplier of one of the critical "ingredients" they used in their procedures stopped selling the product (not sure of the reason). So they were frustratingly delayed in replicating and improving upon that experiment.

One of the bigger perceived problems from 21st Century's cryopreservation investigations is brain shrinkage. Both Fahy and Wowk said they are confident that there is "inferability" within shrunken cryopreserved brains, but they would feel better if they could limit shrinkage to 10% or less. They are working on different strategies to achieve this gaol and one of them is using a two-step process during vitrification (according to my poor notes). The gist of it is that they are perfusing with the constiuent parts of M22 in steps instead of all at once. If I am way off base here, hopefully Dr. Wowk could come in a clarify a few things.

It seems the biggest obvious practical problem in cryopreservation continues to be fracturing (yes, the problem of reversibility is a big theoretical future problem). During the cool-down to liquid nitrogen temps, thermal stress causes fracturing in the patients. Dr. Wowk wrote a very good article about this earlier in the year in Alcor's "Cryonics" magazine, to which he refers everyone to for the latest thinking on the subject. From a current medical knowledge perspective, the fracture are massive injuries from which it is unlikely a human body could recover from naturally (hence the need for nanomedicine). I am left wondering how big of a fracture a patient could recover from given the natural healing processes of the body.

The thing is, Dr. Wowk, Dr. Fahy, and their small team at 21st Century Medicine continue to work hard blazing ground in a niche field of medicine. Many thanks to LEF for providing so much funding for this research through the years.

Edited by Mind, 29 October 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Mind]

Here is a long article by John Smart which delves into the Brain Preservation Foundation and the cryonics vs. plastination debate which was featured at the Alcor40 conference to some extent. Chemical fixation does a great job of preserving the fine structure of the brain. The problem is that it appears (according to our current knowledge) that chemical fixation is not substantially reversible. Cryonic suspension on the other hand, while not being reversible today, is at least theoretically more feasible in the future. I guess, if we are going to do some "hand-waving" and invoke spectacular future nanotechnology, then I suppose plastination might be reversible, it is just hard to imagine right now.......

....but Smart does not seem too concerned with reversibility, claiming that the superior preservation by chemical means, indicates that scanning a brain and uploading into a different substrate will be easier with plastination (vs cryonic suspension). This is a good argument from a technical perspective but crosses a "philosophical rubicon" - the age old question of identity and whether or not a copy of you is really you (or if it even matters).

Edited by Mind, 30 October 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Unregistered]

With regards to the just spoken by you Mind, " This is a good argument from a technical perspective but crosses a "philosophical rubicon" - the age old question of identity and whether or not a copy of you is really you (or if it even matters). "; I think that is just a copy[You even said it in the speech, what you spoke]], not the same person, a different individual(who thinks like you/the person who the copy was made from). It depends if the person who desires this, making a copy of themselves(That is; "uploading" or whatever), thinks if it matters or not; speaking of "or if it even matters" in the quoted.

Thoughts on something else;...
I like "Cryonic Suspension" in contrast to the other. Also; I think the latter, "Plastination" might be reversible in the future, though it will be more difficult to do so. I will never choose any way that involves copying of my brain structure/mind....(, still others might).

Almost anything that happens in this world can be undone, and that is just what I think. So that is the super good news.

[Mind]

I don't regard a copy of me as being "me". Thus I would not favor uploading, but rather upgrading. I would rather gradually change my substrate so as not to lose continuity/identity.

When I said "if it even matters", I was referring to some people who have argued that an exact replica of you is still you, or some other variant deep philosophical "continuity of consciousness" ideas.

[mikeinnaples]

I don't regard a copy of me as being "me". Thus I would not favor uploading, but rather upgrading. I would rather gradually change my substrate so as not to lose continuity/identity.

When I said "if it even matters", I was referring to some people who have argued that an exact replica of you is still you, or some other variant deep philosophical "continuity of consciousness" ideas.

The problem I always had as a child with the transporters while watching Star Trek neatly summed up. I always felt horror when I saw Kirk stepping on the disintegration platform and being killed over and over throughout a season.

Nobody really understood why I felt that way.

Anyways like you, I too would prefer to gradually change my substrate. I do believe I would want to always remain biological in essence though, even if I had an army of nanobots inside of me instantly repairing damage as it occurs.

[Mind]

Another thing that was great to see at the Alcor40 conference was a good representation of people from other countries, mainly from Canada and Europe. Of course, most people were from California or Arizona, but there were plenty of people from other states and countries, more than I would have expected.

[Mind]

Anders Sandberg gave a presentation entitled "rational decision-making about future technology". One of the more interesting points he made is that if a person expects to live for a very long time, then they should focus a little more effort on existential risks (such as those highlighted by Lifeboat). The reason being that over long periods of time, the tiny present risk of existential events add up to become more significant in the long run.

Also, he mentioned a theory as to why the vast majority of the human population completely rejects cryonics, without reservation, and often with zero rationality (like Michael Shermer). It is because the concept of cryonics presents too many uncertainties. It is suggested that the human mind can only handle concepts with a small/limited number of uncertainties. Once you pass a certain number of "uncertanties", then your brain just rejects the concept altogether.

I had always thought there was a deep-rooted, evolved, poorly-understood, emotional rejection of cryonics. I think the uncertainty angle is a pretty good competing theory.

Edited by Mind, 04 November 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Marios Kyriazis]

I had always thought there was a deep-rooted, evolved, poorly-understood, emotional rejection of cryonics. I think the uncertainty angle is a pretty good competing theory.

This reminds me of the concept of Future Shock Levels:

http://hplusmagazine...e-shock-levels/

Most people can only cope with one shock level above their comfort zone