X-Message-Number: 4642
From: 
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 12:20:51 -0400
Subject: misc.

1. (a) First, a slight correction to Mike Darwin's thoughtful posting #4634.
We did not estimate 25% glycerine in the sheep brains by measuring it at that
amount in venous effluent, but by noting the loss of glycerine in the
effluent. Whatever didn't come out must have stayed in. 

(b) Of course it is true that we are barely beginning to learn the details of
what happens in the various procedures tried, at all of the various macro and
micro/nano sites. We have considerable hopes that Dr. Pichugin and colleagues
in the Ukraine will make substantial progress over the next few years, along
with others including people at BPI,  Alcor, and BioTime, among others. (I
hear privately--although I think it is fairly widely known--that BioTime has
recently pushed the envelope appreciably.) 

(c) Mike and Alcor used to use the term "state of the art" in describing
their procedures. This really meant just their current capabilities, no more
and no less, on the assumption (or on the evidence) that no other
organization offered better. I always pointed out that a genuine "state of
the art" suspension would demand using those procedures reported in the
literature yielding the best results FOR EVERY KIND OF TISSUE, including
every kind of brain tissue.
This in turn would demand many teams of surgeons working together to dissect
the patient and perfuse each tissue separately--an impossible goal.

Over thirty years ago I suggested that, if necessary, the brain might be
teased apart to allow easier access to different parts and tissues, if this
would be necessary for optimum access and treatment. I hope it won't come to
that.

(d) The CI approach to perfusion has always been conservative in the sense
that dependability of storage comes first. If we can't keep a patient stored,
then how he was perfused won't matter at all. One could turn this around and
say that, if he isn't perfused in a potentially reversible way, then whether
he is stored won't matter. But there is no symmetry in the clarity or
predictability; if a particular method of perfusion is too expensive for most
people, then that ends it (for those people).

Thus we regard cost as crucial, in the absence of demonstrated reversible
suspended animation. For some it would be crucial even then. Furthermore, if
part of the cost of "state of the art" perfusion stems from unnecessary or
immaterial aspects, then that money being diverted from other uses--perhaps
including further research!--increases the overall long term risk. Some
aspects of Alcor/BPI procedures have always seemed to us to be very
questionable on a cost/benefit basis. Hopefully, such questions will
gradually find consensus answers, as our cooperation has improved and our
research increased.

(2) I think Ralph Merkle has the better of the debate with Thomas Donaldson.
Thomas speaks of "syllogisms" where that word does not apply. More generally,
one has to understand the basic nature of probability estimates. Thomas seems
to suggest that specifics are all-important, whereas this is only partly true
and only at certain stages of the investigation. Some of our strongest
scientific beliefs are based on relatively vague or imprecise observations.

As an easily understandable example, consider the odds  on die casting.
Everyone agrees that the probability of a prenamed face coming up is 1/6. We
do NOT know this precise number from experience, because we would be equally
confident in saying the probability was 1/12 for a 12-sided die, for which
there may be little or no experience. In fact, our confidence stems from our
total experience with random shoves on symmetrical objects (along with the
lack of any other applicable criterion). If someone conducted a massive
empirical test and found the probability of obtaining a 1 in a toss of a
twelve-sided die was 10% instead of 8-1/3%,we would ignore him, no matter how
impressive his write-up. In general, and with few exceptions, THE SWEEP OF
HISTORY IS MORE POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAN ANY PARTICULAR SPECIFIC DATUM.

(a) The sweep of history tells us that cryptanalysis can do amazing things,
and that persistent and subtle detectives of all kinds can accomplish feats
of inference that might have seemed impossible--and that future feats will
almost certainly eclipse those of the past. Any evidence of improved
cryptanalytic capability IS INDEED relevant to our concerns. 

(b) Despite chaos phenomena and despite the assumptions of interpretation of
quantum theory, effectively unlimited inference of history is not yet ruled
out. 

(c)  To the degree that the present and past may indeed turn out to be
fundamentally and irrevocably blurred, IT DOESN'T MATTER. A difference that
makes no difference is no difference. If there is no way whatsoever, in
principle, to determine what you were or are, then all conditions inside the
dark zone are shoulder-shrugs.

Obviously, as everyone acknowledges, emphatically including Dr. Merkle, none
of this detracts from the importance of specific research on the details of
suspension procedures. There may indeed be a danger that a few people may
become complacent on the basis of anticipated magic of nanotech, but surely
they are not many and not very influential. ON BALANCE, I THINK THERE IS MUCH
MORE DANGER OF HOPELESSNESS THAN OF COMPLACENCY. If this were not the case,
the cryonics business would be booming!

3. Someone said that no organization will accept real estate for suspension
funding. Cryonics Institute might, under some circumstances. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4642