X-Message-Number: 16833
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:50:09 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16739 - #16747

On 29 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> CryoNet - Fri 29 Jun 2001
>     #16739: new book title [www.IGGY.net - KC Homes]
>     #16742: cryostat questions [Ettinger]
>     #16743: Sam Parnia's research on near death experience [hitt]
>     #16747: Reply to Epstein #16586 [Mike Perry]
> ---------------------------------------------------- 
> Message #16739 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:40:55 -0500
> From: "www.IGGY.net - KC Homes" <>
> How about "Immortality for Dummies" - this should be #1 on the NYT Best
> Seller list forever (pun intended :o) There always will be "dummies,"
> people will always think about immortality, thus the book is doomed for
> success for ions :o)

Well,the "For Dummies" series
publishers might be a good backer,
but I think the image of stupid
people being around forever will
turn off many who of course don't
see themselves as being stupid.

(The ultimate series book would
be the Special Edition Using the
Complete Idiot's Guide For Dummies

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16741 From: "Trygve Bauge" <>
> To Elizabeth,
> If a body is stored at minus 135 degrees celcius or colder, then virtually
> all biological activity is stopped. Thus no further decay for as long as it
> stays frozen at this temperature.
> Liquid nitrogen has a temperature of minus 196 degrees Celcius, and is
> actually 60 degrees colder than what that is needed.

Of course,others have said that
liquid helium temperatures(<2 K),if
possible,would be ideal.While dry
ice temperatures are above either
of these.

Have there been real projections
for 4000-year suspensions(on par
with ancient mummies) and just how
much decay would have occurred at
relevant temperatures,or is everyone
sure that in a couple centuries
everyone from James Bedford to
Luna Wilson will be up and about
and appearing in cryonics

> ------------------------------------- 
> Message #16742 From: 
> To answer a couple of questions about the new CI outsourced cryostat:
> << Are the new units a technical advance, or a make-do effort?>>
> Neither. The new unit is essentially the same as our previous units--an 
> interior shell of epoxy fiberglass and an outer shell of polyester 
> fiberglass, with perlite in the annular space at a moderate vacuum (around
> 10 microns of mercury). The out-source fabricator, doing this for the first 
> time, wasn't careful enough in some of the work, and we had to bring it up
> to snuff, but our cost was not affected.

I gather that the cylindrical shape is 
an innovation...sacrificing floorspace
efficiency for thermal efficiency?

> The patients who were moved into the new unit had been in temporary units
> of lower thermal efficiency. There was no risk to the patients or any 
> temperature change. We now do not have any patients in temporary units, but 
> we have the temporaries (plain styrofoam insulation) available if needed,
> and of course we can build just about any number of temporaries in a very
> short time if there should ever be a big spurt in patient numbers. 

So in effect,CI did not have a
long-term-storage capacity as
large as its frozen-patient
inventory until this unit was
completed?(And after one more
is added,this situation will

I don't know how likely a
"big spurt" is.But right now
with the temporaries empty
you're ready for the next few

> ----------------------------------------------------
> Message #16747 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:32:51 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
>  >> ...I hope to become more than human. Being human is a stage of my 
>  >> existence, that's all, rather like being a small child, which I still
>  >> remember with fondness, but do not want to repeat. In particular I do
>  >> not have the same body now as then.
> Louis Epstein responded:
>  >You do have the same body you had as a small child,which has matured.
> To me a reasonable case can be made otherwise. My present body is different 
> both in form and substance (the atoms in particular are different, at least 
> in the vast majority of cases). Isn't that enough to call it a *different* 
> body?

Not really.If a company sells
its former premises and moves
to new quarters,it is still the
same company.
>  >You have not replaced it,it has continued to develop.
> Semantics. It's different now, ergo the old one has been replaced. The 
> process of replacement might be gradual rather than sudden.

That makes a huge difference.
The natural processes of how
bodies maintain themselves are
uninterrupted,there is no new
body coming in place of an old.

>  >An "uploadee" would have left the body.Ceasing to be human.
> Not necessarily ceasing to be the same person in my view. Uploading to 
> something better than a human body, assuming this is possible, could be a 
> benefit. More generally, I find it hard to believe that being human is as 
> good as you can get. I noted that the human brain is finite and fragile. 
> Eventually something must augment it if you want immortality (as I conceive 
> it, which must avoid the Eternal Return that a finite memory space would 
> lead to).

Something to make the minimum
necessary accomodation to when
necessary.There's plenty of room
short of infinity.

> ---- ****

Most recent "cuts from the permanent
team" include people from Usenet pioneer
Jim Ellis(aged 45) to 101-year-old Gina
Cigna,who retired as an operatic soprano
before Ellis was born.

A number of Internet pioneers have died
young,while oldsters you'd think less
equipped for this century and those to
come keep on going.I hope the Net's not
bad for survival.(Well,I did once help
get the cops to a guy who'd announced
his suicide on IRC).

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16833