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