X-Message-Number: 13983
From: "john grigg" <>
Subject: the odds of success
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:55:26 PDT

Hello everyone,

I thought this exchange from the extro list would be of interest to the 
folks here.  Robert Bradbury makes a statement about cryoprotectant that 
blew me away! lol

best regards,


Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:42:58 -0900
From: "John  M Grigg" <>
Subject: Re: Cryonics sources (odds of success)
Re: Cryonics sources [was: Nature defines transhumanist]

Greg wrote:
>3. Freezing with good cryoprotectants can preserve at least some of the
informational content of a dead or dying brain. Information preservation > 
will get better as cryopreservation techniques improve.(end)

Robert wrote:
I'm coming more and more to believe that the cryoprotectant issue is a noop.

WHAT!!!!! (Falls out of chair!!)  I have read so many articles and posts by 
prominant cryonicists explaining the dire need for improved cryoprotectants! 
  So the odd people I read about in the paper who put grandma in the 
basement meat freezer soon after her death have the right idea after all! ;)

he  continues:
Fundamentally it comes down to the computer power you have to put the pieces 
back together and whether the pieces *largely* have the information content 
of the brain before freezing. Freeze a piece of meat (w/o 
cryoprotectants)and you still get back a piece of meat when you thaw it out.

I see your point.  But I think many cryonicists just want to make the job as 
easy on future nanodoctors as they possibly can.  I personally don't to 
spend too much time in suspension.  I don't want the world to have changed 
to drastically while I was frozen(Eliezer laughs as he reads preceding 

Greg wrote:
5. Not cryopreserving your brain will result in a near-complete loss of its 
information content in a relatively short period of time.(end)

I had the same reaction Robert did on the "near-complete" statement!

Robert wrote:
"near-complete"?? Unless you are a Tiplerian, the loss is so close to 
complete that it *is* complete. However, there may be leftovers unrelated to 
your brain(e.g. Sasha's memoirs) that allow the reconstitution of a relative 
approximation of individuals. Now, there are going to be a lot of people 
with raised eyebrows if a combination of genetic backtracking, historic 
pattern matching and simulation integration with known outcomes allows you 
to by and large recreate an individual without any frozen wet-matter at all!

I have problems with the reconstruction of people from records.  You could 
end up with a person who is close but really not truely that person and 
instead simply very confused about their real identity.  I think Sasha still 
exists as a personality and intellect but has moved on to another form of 
existance.  Death will claim at least some of us in the end and we will find 
out eventually...

Robert wrote:
How much of the "Greg" personality could I get knowing the time and place of 
years of the crystallization of your firmware? IMO, you can throw away the 
rest of the arguments and simply stick with #5.

he continues:
Even a 0.000001 % chance of survival is better than the 10^-??? chance 
allowed by dependence on "faith" or "belief". The cost is minimal relative 
to the potential benefit.

And this is THE argument that cryonicists use to try to persuade people to 
make the choice for cryonics!  The cost is very minimal compared to the 
potential benefit.  Now, I just have to put my money where my mouth is...

Robert wrote:
Assuming being revived from cryonic suspension, means a nanotech era where 
diseases are solved and the accident rate allows you to live 2000-5000 years 
in a nanosanta world (when a year then is *more* valuable than a year now 
because you don't have to work to survive), what would the success chances 
have to be to justify the $100K? (If required, assume you are suspended for 
50 years, which seems about right.)

Wow, where do I sign up??? ;)  We're gonna party like it's 2099!! :)

best wishes,

John Grigg
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13983