X-Message-Number: 12386 From: "John de Rivaz" <> Subject: Re: Religious Authority and Cryonics Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:06:39 +0100 Dr Robinson, many thanks for this detailed reply, which I have appended in full and cross posted sci.cryonics and also sent to the cryonet mailing list. In comment to specifics, cryoncists are well aware that 100% reclamation or reanimation to the instant before demise is unlikely. Nothing is perfectly safe or exact. To give a strict definition of how much is enough is rather difficult, and certainly restoring basic reflexes only would be inadequate. But I think that modern medical and legal practise already gives some pointers in how partial (or even total) amnesia cases are treated. I don't think anyone can claim to know how exactly the brain works, and I certainly can't claim to understand even a small fraction of what is known by others. However I do understand that memory is considered to be partly maintained by structure (better than recording on a hard disk, in fact) and with a future nanotechnology capable of working at molecular scales this structure should be determinable and hence repaired or re-built. The following article provides the details: http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Sauna/3748/funerals.htm#_1_53 you may also find it at http://merkle.com/merkleDir/cryptoCryo.html -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, my singles club for people in Cornwall, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR Ivan Robinson <> wrote in message news:7r30ql$mt6$ > Dear John de Rivaz > > I live and work in the 20th and hopefully the 21st centuries but have no > desire to see further ages. I examine the dead according to the 20th > century definitions. These vary. the information the paramedic assesses to > establish life has ceased is different from the ITU specialists who may be > assessing the suitability for organ transplantation. I cannot work within > constraints and definitions that may be in place in the future. > > You proposed definition of "A person is "dead" when no *information* exists > with which to restore that person. Therefore to kill a person you will need > not only to stop his body form working, but ensure that the program and data > is erased from the brain" is interesting. I have visited the cryogenic > suspension links from your web-site and I am better (but not well) informed. > I still have grave reservations as to the preservation of cerebral function > and think the hard drive simile is unacceptably simplistic. The information > on the hard drive is maintained even when the power is off, the same cannot > be said for the brain. It is well recognised that post planned cardiac > bypass and post cardiac operations under hypothermia a there is a loss of > cerebral function. This is when bypass or hypothermia is induced under > optimal conditions (i.e. with the patient alive and medically as fit as > possible). A terminal medical condition +/- death (depending on definition) > can only increase the loss of retained information. You are therefore going > to have to include in your proposed definition of death how much data can be > erased as 100% restoration is unfeasible. Is it just restoration of lower > function (respiratory drive & reflex to pain stimuli) sufficient to prevent > a diagnosis of death or will memory of the scent the primary school teacher > wore be sufficient ? I can see interesting court room exchanges between > barristers in alleged murder cases. > > Ivan Robinson > > > > > John de Rivaz <> wrote in message > news: > > OK, lets look at the definition of "dead". > > > > Once it was when there is no heartbeat. If this was still in use, then > > people having heart transplants would need this definition at the instant > > their old hearts were moved. They'd have no heartbeat because they have no > > heart. Therefore they are "dead" and may legally be subject to all the > > various practises discussed here. > > > > At the present time the definition has something to do with brain > activity. > > However there is another definition that will most likely appear in law > > books within the next 50 to 100 years. > > > > A person is "dead" when no *information* exists with which to restore that > > person. Therefore to kill a person you will need not only to stop his body > > form working, but ensure that the program and data is erased from the > brain. > > > > It is rather like putting a sledge hammer through someone's PC - if you > miss > > the hard disk, all he needs do is to buy another PC, install the hard disk > > and switch on. The sledge hammer maniac could be forced by the courts to > pay > > the $500 or so a new PC base unit would cost. If on the other hand he > > smashed the hard disk in such a manner even the most expert restorer could > > not recover the data and programs, then he could be sued for replacement > > software and also the cost of re-gathering the data on the disk or for > > compensation for complete loss of the data. > > > > The act of autopsy on someone who has arranged for cryopreservation > performs > > that second process necessary to ensure death according to the proposed > > future definition. > > > > Once lawyers accept that information death and physical death are two > parts > > of the process of death, then all these comments about injuring dead > people > > will take on a whole new life. > > Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12386