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