X-Message-Number: 10427 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:23:38 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #10419 - #10426 Hi everyone! First, to Paul Wakfer: I discover that we both have a dislike of Nanotechnology (the religion) as distinct from nanotechnology (the technology). And yes, many cryonicists have hardly put lots of effort into making cryonics move forward, either in terms of research (very important) or even recruitment (also important, if only as a means to provide funds for research). I am, however, less optimistic about the IMMEDIATE effects of suspended animation than you seem to be. But we are closer than I had thought on many things. Second, to Charles Platt: Sorry, but PERIASTRON (and research into how memory works generally, if you want to go to the original papers rather than a description of them) does NOT deal with speculation. A lot of things have happened in the "Decade of the Brain". Put simply, there's now lots more hard knowledge of how memory works than there was even 10 years ago. And that knowledge begins to tell us something about the effects of cryonic suspension, not just the kind you hope for but even the kind that happens today. Forget PERIASTRON. If you really wish to become informed on this, I can point you to some useful books. As for the present, I do not believe that anyone ignorant of current ideas of how memory works can really examine electron micrographs (or any other evidence) and come to a meaningful conclusion about ultimate revivability. (No one claims that there is no damage; the argument is about the significance of different kinds of damage). Moreover, since we are likely to have people frozen (or suspended) poorly into the indefinite future, study of how memory and identity work will tell us that one or the other such victim will clearly, someday, be revivable. It may also show that others are not; that is the way such things go. If the only evidence for revivability that you will accept consists only of the fact that others have been suspended and revived, then you are terribly limiting yourself. And I believe that anyone interested in cryonics, and aware that they may become one of the unlucky ones, will benefit by looking at the kind of knowledge that neuroscientists have developed over the last 15 years. Finally, I am glad that your strict version of "evidence for cryonics" has not caused you to abandon it even if you cannot get the best (reversible) suspension you hope for. By insisting on your strict version, you sounded as if you would not favor cryonic suspension unless it was known to be reversible. I am glad that is not what you meant. And yes, you've answered enough of my questions. Best and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10427