X-Message-Number: 3107 From: Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 00:47:52 EDT Subject: SCI. CRYONICS comments 1. Now I learn that BioPreservation (Darwin/Harris) as well as BioTime (Segall/Strernberg/Waitz et al) is indeed spending considerable effort on the cryothermic phases of brain treatment/storage. That is cheerful news, and we wish them well. There seems to be a problem, however, with the proprietary aspects of these studies. Any available information on results of this work would be appreciated, and we are willing to pay a reasonable amount for the trouble of sending it. The Cryonics Institute sheep head work was published in its essentials about two years ago; the current Ukrainian work is being published in THE IMMORTALIST as we receive it (although only with some of the photos; complete photos available), and sometimes also posted in whole or in part on CryoNet. If the profit angle rules out any extensive or timely cooperation, then I suppose those not privy to particular procedures will just have to wait for the patents to be available. (It may also turn out that the non-proprietary work will be better or sooner.) 2. When Mae and I retire to Arizona (in about a year) our personal suspension plans will be based on the same considerations as always--maximizing our chances, as we perceive them, within our economic constraints. This may mean training local morticians in CI procedures, or it may mean something else, depending on developments. We do of course plan on storage at the CI facility in Clinton Township, Michigan. At present, for CI members at a distance, shipment to CI packed in ice is not the only option. The patient may be perfused by a mortician and then shipped in ice, or perfused and cooled to dry ice temperature by a (properly prepared) mortician and then shipped. The sophistication of the preparation/perfusion is also highly variable, depending on the means and motivation and capabilities of the patient and family, and evolving over time. We expect to make steady progress in all these matters. 3. On the general issue of determinism and its application (if any) to cryonics: Everybody keeps telling me what I already know, and what everybody with even the slightest and most informal scientific education knows--first, that the current conventional wisdom is that randomness at the fine levels is the last word; second, that even with full determinism the practical problem of information gathering and computation seems overwhelming for inference at any considerable distance in space or time; and third, that certain physical phenomena such as black holes impose their own kind of irreversibility; and finally, as a result of all this, that it is stupid to rely on determinism to rescue cryonics patients. Most of these comments are correct. The most indisputably correct one is that, for practical programs to save ourselves, we must focus on minimizing damage to the patient and maximizing the survivability of organizations (and also maximizing affordability, a consideration which often seems to receive short shrift). It is amazing that a few words about determinism seem to have affected some people's perceptions of me (and CI) more than our history of work and non-negligible achievement. But I do insist on a couple of points, one mainly theoretical and at least one of some practical value. (a) As no respondent except Thomas Donaldson (and maybe Yvan Bozzonetti) seems to have conceded, randomness is--to put it charitably--a poorly defined concept. [Thanks to Thomas, by the way for his book A GUIDE TO ANTI-AGING DRUGS--a fine service.] In light of the history of science and human thought, I think it is highly plausible, at least, to surmise that there is no such thing as objective randomness, and the universe will ultimately be found to be fully lawful. In fact, it probably runs under Gell-Mann 's Totalitarian Principle: WHATEVER IS NOT PROHIBITED IS COMPULSORY. (b) It amazes me how few even of the greatest and supposedly boldest scientists can get out of the rut--and I don't mean only the non-cryonicists. "Failure of imagination" is the fatal flaw so often--even the man who invented that phrase, Arthur Clarke, will probably die because of indifference to cryonics. Almost all scientists accept uncritically the face-value interpretations of quantum mechanics--just as almost all people, including scientists, accept uncritically the traditional views and values of their cultures. Just a couple of centuries ago MOST OF THE UNIVERSE was unknown to us--not just distant galaxies, but even major phenomena such as the invisible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, not to mention our own anatomy and physiology. We keep forgetting that "The universe is [probably] not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we CAN think." We keep coming up with answers (as well as questions) previously unthinkable. I therefore reject (on a THEORETICAL or philosophical basis) any proposition implying that present limits will confine us forever. It is not just possible but PROBABLE that new information and cunning strategies will eventually short-circuit the apparent limits of chaos and randomness. (c) For the umpteenth time, these theoretical considerations do not absolve us from the sober responsibilities of conservative planning, meaning we must in most cases ACT as though there is no help but our own and no stretching of currently accepted law. NEVERTHELESS we have grounds to reject despair, if our best efforts do not seem likely to be successful by present criteria. Those criteria may change. (d) Those who warn about the extreme difficulties with retro-inference at a distance could pay heed to Ralph Merkle's cryptographic analogies and similar considerations. Every person leaves his footprints on the sands of time in COUNTLESS ways. I have pointed out some of them, as have Dandridge Cole and many others. There are many kinds and routes of inference, not just tracking the motions of atoms. Some aspects of the anatomy and physiology of your brain may be capable of inference just by the words you have written and your gestures and facial expressions in a video. [This kind of thing brings us again to "philosophical" problems of identity and criteria of survival, but those problems exist in any case.] The appearance and behavior of your descendants or other relatives can imply a lot about you. And so on. 4. Thanks to Mike for his offer of prescription-type drugs without a prescription. We also in some cases use "chemicals" rather than "drugs." But I still think that, in some cases, some risk exists. Physicians could be accused of abusing their discretion. If the FDA can classify a substance as whatever it chooses, and make certain actions crimes retroactively, I wouldn't put too much trust in apparently tolerated practices. 5. Mike says that high-vacuum dewar storage is as reliable as Cryonics Institute's soft-vacuum perlite cryostats. That strikes me as disingenuous. He goes on to say that the SYSTEM (as a whole) used with the high-vacuum dewars is as reliable as ours, because of the careful handling, tight monitoring, and back-ups. That is like saying that, in the hands of a sufficiently steady and careful man, a straight razor is no more dangerous than a safety razor. More or less true, but not on target. As for Mike's questions (which we HAVE answered in the past): Our cryostats have all cost (very roughly) the same and the same as our original 1976 estimate--$5,000 per patient. Our new one promises to be somewhat cheaper, as well as more economical of nitrogen. Boiloff ranges from about 4 liters/patient/day for our two-patient cylindrical unit to 7 liters/patient/day for our 6-patient rectangular unit. Our new 12-patient rectangular unit will probably boil off around 5-6 liters/patient/day. Nitrogen presently costs us around $0.44/liter delivered. Roughly, our original 1976 estimate of nitrogen expense has held--around $1,000/patient/year--and will be declining. We think we can get one patient per ten square feet of floor space, in the longer run. We don't know the working life of our units, but know of no reason why it should be limited. 6. Perry Metzger says he has yet to see any [research reports] from us. Perhaps this is because he hasn't been reading THE IMMORTALIST. 7. Paul Wakfer says he has invented a storage improvement that will save at least 30% of nitrogen cost. That is interesting and commendable, but before spending money for a patent I suggest he think a bit. That 30% will happen pretty soon anyway just in economy of scale, or/and through the use of rigid, open-cell foam, which is surely in the cards. (Our own current improvements should help a good bit also, and these will be published.) 8. I am fascinated by some of the things Yvan Bozzonetti writes, but find them very hard to evaluate. This is probably partly because of his imperfect command of English (although it is much better than my French), and perhaps partly because he knows so much more than I do and is so brilliant that I just can't follow. (I mean this seriously, not sarcastically.) If he has the talent his comments suggest, he is a valuable resource and should be helped. Can anyone else cast light on this? Robert Ettinger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3107