X-Message-Number: 4294
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: Re: CryoNet #4280 - #4287
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 23:59:07 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

Several questions and comments:

Yes, if leeches do the right thing on injury the suggestion of experimenting
on freezing them would be a very good one. The interesting fact about 
salamanders is that they have a much greater ability to repair their brains
after severe injury than any mammal. That is why I mentioned them specifically.
Any animal with a LOT of repair capability for its nervous system would tell
us something about the effects of freezing on human beings.

(In more detail, I'd say this: micrographs of tissue after freezing show a
lot of damage. At the same time, some animals have far more ability to 
repair themselves than we do. If they could repair themselves even partially
after freezing, that would tell us that if we could unblock our own repair
ability (in terms of nervous system repair, there seem to be some chemicals
we make which tend to block it, it's not the same as having no repair 
ability at all) the repair task might not be as great as it seems from 
looking at the damaged nervous tissue). It would be of interest to learn,
for instance, whether salamander nerve cells survive freezing and how well
they do so. Can they repair their own nerve connections?).

I'm not familiar enough with leeches to know whether or not they have any
such capability ... but perhaps they do. I'm happy to go into more detail,
with references too, if it looks like you can do this experiment.

As for improvements in memory:

I would be very happy to find good ways to improve my memory, but the 
connection between memory and intelligence is not direct at all. Intelligence
is a much harder notion, to start with... I'm not at all sure anyone has
yet come up with a good definition, for instance. As a matter of fact, I'd
also say that what we have learned about computers (I don't mean expensive
ones) raises lots of questions about the nature of intelligence, and as we
learn more about other animals we've sometimes found that they have 
specialized mental abilities greater than our own. Some birds store food
for themselves in the winter, and remember precisely the exact locations 
where they put it (they don't store it all in one place). These come to
thousands of locations. I'm not sure human beings can do that without 
the help of writing.

About technological panaceas:

I would agree that our situation is not the same as that of those who 
worked with rockets, such as von Braun. I doubt that many cryonicists 
believe that revival will NECESSARILY AND CERTAINLY happen. But that is not
the point. We want to be frozen because the alternative is far worse, not
because we think it will necessarily work. The fact that we all expect to
be frozen AT DEATH (death is a complex notion, much more complex than you
presently think) is crucial here. If you want to survive, it is foolish to
choose an alternative such as cremation or burial which will clearly 
prevent your survival over an alternative such as cryopreservation which 
MAY keep you alive.

And I say this, personally, as someone who has survived (so far) a brain
tumor which kills 80% of those who get it. Most people who aren't cryonicists
seem to evaluate cryonics as if it were some kind of trip to the Moon: fun,
but not necessary. When they do that they miss the point entirely. And
I will add that I got my brain tumor quite unexpectedly 15 years after I
first signed up for suspension, and got insurance to pay for it because 
when I signed up I was in perfect health.

And similarly, to understand this central point may help to understand 
such things as Brian Wowk's discussions of nanotechnology. There are 
reasons to believe that cryonics will actually work: not reasons in the
sense of hard and fast promises, but reasons in the sense of intelligent
speculation. And don't think that such speculations are out of the question:
when you invest in anything (and it's almost impossible not to invest!)
then you are making a speculation about the future. No one can prove to
you that the house you buy to live in will go up in value, or even that
the Treasury Bill you buy will pay off without being wiped out by 
inflation. All those things involve speculation on the future. And when
it comes to a choice between total destruction and possible survival,
a speculation on possible survival wins hands down.

Finally, just as others have said, it's possible to work to improve our
suspension methods, RIGHT NOW. And if anything that makes the speculation
much better: if you can do something to help bring about the events which
will lead to your survival (or, for comparison, your investment rising
in price) rather than simply watch the market bobbing up and down, then
you have a much better speculation than if you must depend completely
on matters outside your control. 

These are comments I would add to those of Brian Wowk.

			Long long life,

				Thomas Donaldson


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4294