X-Message-Number: 26755 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 08:34:43 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: Alcor papers & thanks to B Wowk Hi everyone! First of all, I got hold of copies of the talk and the Annals NY paper from Alcor's website. Clearly Greg Fahy played no direct role in the brain vitrification experiment described. I did not know of the 21st Century Medicine site "cryopreservation_advances" and will not just look at it this time but repeatedly. As for the merits of the paper as a paper, a procedure which causes no mechanical damage to the vitrified brain, in my mind, constitutes a valuable step towards reversible suspension, even if the paper didn't actually revive or even discuss revival of those vitrified brains. PERIASTRON actually discusses what we know about how our memories work; my personal opinion of this vitrification work is that it prevents the major mechanical damage which might damage memory: breaking connections between our neurons. The work that needs doing here consists of providing both a (or more than one) vitrification solution which allows actual revival. In that sense Greg's planned work with brain slices, if not already done, still needs doing. Given that our memories primarily express themselves in the connections of our brain, vitrification looks as if it can preserve not only our bodies but our memories and desires too. Freezing, even with cryo- protectant, might not do so, and dealing with broken connections is more than just a problem in nanotechnology. Yes, there are hints in various experiments that we might still recover memories, but hints are hardly things we want to depend our lives upon. After chasing up the various web services I hope to write an article (NOT a Science Report) on the status of vitrification and current work on in for the next PERIASTRON. And I wish to formally thank Brian Wowk for telling me of these papers --- even if his criticisms of them are entirely accurate. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26755