X-Message-Number: 2852
Date: 06 Jul 94 12:57:05 EDT
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS.SCI Poll Report


     The following table and comments (selected) were received from 18
replies to my revival probability poll (Cryonet Message #2795); some of them
by personal request from non-cryonet, non-sci.cryonics cryonicists.  Since
most respondents gave their estimations to the nearest 10%, the reporting of
the results in deciles somewhat distorts them.  Still, I believe that a
definite bimodal pattern is quite apparent which I will call a division of
respondents into "believers" and "non-believers".  It is interesting that
their were both "believers" who are not signed up and "non-believers" who are
signed up.  I myself fall into the last category, since my estimates were both
below 10%.
     The other pattern is that many who gave a very high estimate for   
Essential Recovery were much more "realistic" (my opinion) with respect to
Full Recovery.  This may simply be related to the valuation of what is
essential.  Some people may be satisfied with very little of themselves being
restored so long as they "feel" a continuity with their past.
     Since I did not get permission to do so, I have not related any of the 
results to specific names.

          Full                    Essential

        0%  - 10% = 4           0%  - 10% = 3
        11% - 20% = 2           11% - 20% = 1
        21% - 30% = 0           21% - 30% = 1
        31% - 40% = 1           31% - 40% = 0
        41% - 50% = 3           41% - 50% = 0
        51% - 60% = 1           51% - 60% = 1
        61% - 70% = 0           61% - 70% = 0
        71% - 80% = 1           71% - 80% = 2
        81% - 90% = 3           81% - 90% = 4
        91% -100% = 3           91% -100% = 6

Comments: (each number is a different person)

1) nice poll questions. :)
2) (I take it you're not a frequentist!)
3) I would comment that this is more a measure of your faith in the future     
   than any real scientific estimation.  We either believe it will work, or    
   believe it won't.
        Given that, I feel that the two questions you ask are the same: if
   technology progresses to the point where they can restore the "essentials,"
   this is probably 99% of what is required to restore "everything."
4) My overall estimate of success has tended to be 40% before the
   Alcor/CryoCare rift, but dropped to about 5-10% and is now slowly
   creeping upward. My trust in the ability of cryonics organizations
   to keep me frozen has always been my greatest source of skepticism.
        If I were frozen under the best current conditions and were kept
   frozen -- for thousands of years, if necessary, I think my chances
   would be pretty good. With unlimited time, I have a fabulous optimism
   about the capabilities of science.
5) In fact, I don't think that there is that much difference in revival
   probability between Alcor's current techniques and using an axe and
   a bucket of liquid nitrogen, you still need to deal with cracking
  damage.  To the extent that higher suspension costs create a hazard
  that the liquid nitrogen isn't topped off as needed, they might even
  reduce survival odds...
6) Both probably biased optimistically.
7) I anticipate that losses will be from factors arising on initial
   suspension.  Given no damage on suspension, I would expect perfect
8) My "optomistic" estimates are: 1-5%, 2-10%
9) I'd place these both at about 90% likely.  The 10% failure is my guess
   that (A) our present model of where memory is stored (synapse strength)
   is wrong, ANDed with (B) even so, freezing destroys or doesn't preserve
   whatever structures actually do hold memory.
     ...it might be that each patient is preserved in a different enough way
   that thousands of man-years of effort are involved in each separate
   brain reconstruction; I think this unlikely...

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2852