X-Message-Number: 3078
From: 
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 94 23:39:44 EDT
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS Darwin, Harris

I'm afraid most of these postings are not worth the investment of time, but
I'll make one more effort to clarify a few questions of my views and Cryonics
Institute policy.

Everything we do is intended to maximize our chances of survival/revival by
allocating our limited resources in the most effective way. No doubt everyone
else will say the same about their own efforts.

We are never complacent nor unwilling to look at evidence and listen to
advice. However, this doesn't mean we can, in practice,  look at everything
and listen to everything; attention is one of our limited resources. We have
undoubtedly made mistakes of omission as  well as commission.

Our practices reflect our resources and capabilities. 

In storage, we think our methods are the best available, both as to
reliability and economy. If it turns out that storage at a somewhat higher
temperature than that of liquid nitrogen is better, with appropriate
preparation, and if we can afford it, then we will adopt that, or offer it as
an option.

In perfusion, the picture is mixed. 

The Ukrainian research, on CI-like procedures applied to sheep heads, should
tell us a good deal about the results, as compared to those of others and as
compared to healthy brains. It may also give us some clues as to
improvements. In any case, the search for improvements will continue at the
best pace we can afford. We will adopt any improvements available to us, from
any source, as soon as we are convinced the improvement is genuine,
affordable, and cost effective. If this eventually means that our present low
price structure is unrealistic, then we will probably offer different options
at different prices. 

(For that matter, more expensive options are already available. CI members
may, if they wish, choose perfusion by another organization and use CI for
storage only. I don't think such options so far have been proven to be worth
the price, but that is a matter of opinion.)

Some aspects of our perfusion procedure are probably not the theoretical
best.  Dr. Harris thinks perfusion through the heart vessels, for some people
with atypical anatomy, gets to parts of the brain that would otherwise be
missed. We currently do not have thoracic surgeons available, and in any case
the law in Michigan says that only a licensed funeral director may cut or
inject a dead person (with obvious exceptions for medical schools, autopsy,
etc.).  Our current plan--as soon as we can get to it--is to train funeral
directors to do this type of surgery. Meanwhile, we use the neck, which in
most cases does a pretty fair job. Again, the sheep research will tell us
more. (Incidentally, some European scientists may have access to human
cadavers; depending on the time element, this could be important.)

On the question of the many medications used by some organizations, there are
questions not only of cost and effectiveness but also of legality. On a
strict reading of the law, many medications and devices--perhaps most--cannot
be legally used for our purposes. Whether these technicalities will ever be
enforced or used against us is open to question, but if they are used the
results could be serious. As always, one is forced to make a sober
cost/benefit estimate, where the cost is not measured only in dollars. At CI
we use only chemicals that are clearly legal. If it could be clearly shown
that the patient's chances thereby suffer significantly, we might have to
reconsider.

In some cases we have indeed made a conscious decision not to choose the
"best."  We think it is nonsense, for example, to buy expensive water for
injection, instead of using a good grade of distilled water to make
solutions. It is simply not in the cards that this particular item is
important compared to other variables.

I do personally think that many of the refinements sometimes advocated are
just window dressing, in the sense that they affect only the most marginal of
considerations. The MAJOR damage occurs at cryogenic temperatures.
Medications that might mitigate the effects of warm ischemic time are
fine--if legal and affordable--but they will almost certainly not affect the
patient's chances in any significant way. In fact, it is very possible that
some version of nanotech (or equivalent) will be both necessary and
sufficient to recover patients frozen by the most or least sophisticated
methods. 

Both Mike Darwin's group and Paul Segall's/Hal Sternberg's group seem to be
spending a great deal of time, money, and effort to improve the chilled
survival time of hamsters and primates (in Segall's/Sternberg's case) and
dogs (in Darwin's case). Nothing wrong with that, since it has applciations
in conventional medicine. But the relevance to cryonics seems extremely
marginal; again, the major damage is not in the hypothermic phase.

Now I must reiterate--even though some will not believe me or will not pay
attention and will choose to focus on other parts of what I say--that this
does NOT mean we are complacent  or indifferent to improvements. We are
willing and anxious for improvements, and actively working for them. But we
cannot seize upon every alleged marginal improvement regardless of cost; we
have to  maintain perspective. 

I can't resist another word about "state of the art" suspension that some
people claim or have claimed to have. In fact, nobody has it. As Anatole
Dolinoff has said, "state of the art" perfusion would mean many teams of
surgeons using a specialized perfusion prodecure for each different tissue of
the brain. Those who say "state of the art" mean they think their methods are
the best available in cryonics. Maybe they are right, maybe not; we will know
more in the coming year. Meanwhile, there is evidence that CI procedures
produce no visible cracking, and if this holds up at finer levels, with no
offsetting injury, that will be interesting and ironic.

(Parenthetically, I'm glad to hear that Greg's kidneys have done as well as
Mike reports. If this result holds up, and has been produced by relatively
few man-years of effort in a poorly funded lab, and if few or no other labs
have seriously addressed the problem, as Mike says, then I am less skeptical
that a  few years and a few million dollars might yield reversible brain
cryopreservation. I would also dare to hope that we might somehow--if the
patent and profit questions can be answered--arrange a partnership between
American and European scientists for the quickest and cheapest results....I
might also remind that Greg himself has not dismissed the possibility that
the simple CI procedures, which he says have not been tried before, might
represent something of value.)  

Now Dr. Harris' remarks on fundamental physics. This is not really very
important in the cryonics context, but I can't resist defending my statements
at least a bit. (I also thank Dr. Harris and the others for their kind
acknowledgement of my contributions.)

Chaos: Yes, in PRACTICE  sensitivity to initial/boundary conditions makes it
extremely difficult to infer the past or future very far in time or space.
Nevertheless, in principle the inferences can be made, in a world of
classical physics. Let's not be terrified by large numbers. When Babbage
built his computer, he probably would have shrugged off as fantasy the
possibility of modern computer memories and speeds. With ENOUGH time, wealth,
and motivation we might be able to defy the apparent odds.

I must also emphasize what should not even need mentioning--that I am not
considering or advocating relying on future technology to gather the
scattered atoms of decayed people and reconstitute them. I was merely
pointing out the ultimate possibilities.

As to quantum theory, of course it rules out Laplacian determinism--IF it is
accepted as usually interpreted and proves to represent ultimate reality. But
not everyone accepts the usual interpretation. I doubt that current quantum
theory is the last word because of the meaninglessness of objective
"randomness."

Dr. Harris says, in effect, randomness means (or could mean) that events
happen for no reason at all. In my view, this is not an intelligible
statement; it is indeed gibberish. 

If events occur without causes or without effects, then the universe itself
doesn't know what it is doing, so to speak. I reject this idea--not just
because it is uncomfortable, but because I think it much more likely that
there are undiscovered connections, laws producing the apparent randomness,
just as, in classical physics, laws produce the apparent randomness of
molecular motion in gases.

It is possible, of course, that where there are macro-miracles there could
also be micro-miracles. We don't know whether the universe as a whole had a
"cause," so in a sense perhaps it is "random." If it is possible to have a
causeless universe, perhaps it is also possible to have a causeless energy
level jump in an atom. But the universe might be infinite in time and space,
which would at least mitigate the question of "cause"--whereas atoms are
jumping around all the time, and in WELL ORDERED ways on the statistical
level. Forgive me if I don't believe in ordered randomness.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3078