X-Message-Number: 6273
From: 
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 12:38:21 -0400
Subject: SCI. CRYONICS CI's 19th & reconstruction

 The Cryonics Institute has suspended its nineteenth human whole-
body patient.

There is no such thing as a "routine" suspension. Every one has its
special circumstances, problems, and opportunities. CI's #19 was
especially hairy.

'Twas not a famous victory, exactly; the patient's condition was
poor. But it was a victory of sorts, to accomplish any kind of
suspension in these circumstances. Much of the credit goes to Joe
Kowalsky, a CI member who is an attorney in the Detroit area. 

Pursuant to a legal settlement, there are details we cannot
disclose, but the gist is that the next of kin did not want to
freeze the patient, whose paperwork was not up to snuff. The result
was delay, expense, and a barely-prevented cremation. 

We hope other members will take the lesson to heart. Our first duty
is to our existing patients and to our members who will be future
patients. When a member fails to do his part, as by leaving
paperwork less than ship-shape, and the next of kin will not
cooperate, then we have a tough choice--to abandon the patient or
to expose CI to financial and/or legal risk. Most cryonics
organizations, or/and individual members, on occasion have stuck
their necks out a bit for a prospective patient in trouble, and we
chose to do so in this case; but there are strict limits to this
kind of thing, and no one should count on it.  

It is a severe hazard to your health, after clinical death, to fail
to have your paperwork in good order. It is also hazardous to rely
too much on the future cooperation of relatives in your suspension;
even if you think you are a good judge of character, conditions
change and people change.

NOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS CERTAIN QUESTIONS that these events raise in
some people's minds concerning the chances of revival of patients
frozen under suboptimal conditions, and the ethics and public
relations of freezing such patients. To some extent the latter can
be separated from the former.

There are good reasons to consider freezing suboptimal patients,
even when we are not contractually obligated to do so. The first is
that we respect the individual's wishes, and some people choose to
be frozen under ANY conditions--including this patient, as
indicated by documents in our possession. 

"If you can find me, freeze me."  The first reason some of us make
this choice is that we just don't know how much damage is too much,
or how late is too late, and we believe the most "conservative"
stance is the one that best conserves the patient and his chances
of revival or reconstitution. Second, we don't want to tempt any
heirs to conserve the money instead of the patient, by giving them
discretion. 

Also, every suspension builds our experience, tends to strengthen
the organization, and improves morale.

As to the public relations aspect, admittedly there is risk.
Critics may say we are preying on the gullible when we accept
patients in poor condition--but then, most of them will say the
same thing about ANY suspension. Those willing to listen will
understand our rationale; the others will bray anyway.

NOW, THE SCIENTIFIC/PHILOSOPHIC BOTTOM LINE ON POSSIBLE
RECONSTITUTION:

Very few even in the cryonicist/immortalist ranks fully appreciate
the foolishness of attempting to foresee the limits of the possible
in revival or reconstruction. It boils down to two somewhat
distinct types of myopia. 

The first type of failure is just the refusal to pay serious
attention to the outlines of possible technical approaches--in
particular the nanotech avenues discussed by Ralph Merkle, Eric
Drexler and others. The skeptics essentially just reject as
"speculation" anything short of a demonstrated & documented
complete success. [Arguably, we have already provided evidence of
basic success; Dr. Yuri Pichugin's rabbit brain pieces, after
warming from liquid nitrogen temperature, showed both spontaneous
and evoked biolectric activity coordinated in networks of neurons.]
This is something like the position of many physicians who reject
as impermissible ANY treatment not already proven successful, even
if the patient has no other hope. 

And I repeat my reproof to those "scientists" who claim the
probability of successful revival is "small" or "negligible."
First, not one of them has ever submitted a calculation to justify
the alleged probability assessment, nor accepted an invitation to
debate. (The Cryonics Institute has a standing offer to pay an
honorarium of $5,000, plus first class travel and hotel
accomodations, to any first rank anti-cryonics cryobiologist who
will come to Detroit for a full day of public debate or "science
court" under mutually agreed conditions.) 

Second, what is "negligible" is whatever you are willing to
neglect; speak for yourselves and don't claim or imply a fraudulent
authority.

The second type of myopia is just an extreme intellectual
parochialism or temporal insularity--a refusal or inability to look
at the big picture and our place in history, or an inability to see
the forest for the trees. One example is disregard of the Precedent
Principle.

The Precedent Principle is just the observation that whatever HAS
existed CAN exist. (Obviously we are talking about physical systems
on a human scale, not universal entropy or any such.) A certain
physical system--yourself in youthful good health--once existed,
and there is no reason to believe that such a system can develop
only in the original and "natural" way. You (at your various stages
of existence) were generated in a "natural" way; it is PRESUMPTIVE
that you--at any desired stage or combination of stages--can be
regenerated or reconstituted by one or several of an enormous range
of potential future techniques. Our armamentarium eventually will
dwarf that of nature. (As one tiny example, the wheel is extremely
useful in engineering, yet apparently does not exist in living
beings.)   

Another example is the more-or-less-deliberate choice of tunnel
vision, of failing to be resourceful in thinking about an
enterprise with which you are unsympathetic. Consider the
"destruction" of important structures in the brain that may occur
with delayed or imperfect suspension. Almost all "destroyed" or
degraded structures may be replaceable by processes of inference
that do not depend very much on the brain in question. Most of the
structures in the brain are generic, not unique to the individual.
Even those that are unique--those relating e.g. to memory and
personality--have countless outside connections. We all leave
footprints on the sands of time; much of our actions, words, and
even thoughts can be inferred from written records, photographs and
videos, memories held by relatives and friends, memorabilia,
clothing with traces of scent, and much more. Some modern
conjectures about quantum physics even hypothesize that there are
intimate connections between particles and systems separated by
astronomical distances and geological periods. Anyone who
deprecates or dismisses the capabilities of future Sherlocks and
repairmen is guilty of a presumptuous intellectual arrogance. 

Somewhat related is the Ignorance Principle, which simply says that
(in all likelihood) our areas of ignorance are STILL vastly greater
than our areas of knowledge--and therefore despair is absurdly
premature. 

Consider how little we knew about ourselves and nature just a few
centuries back. We knew almost nothing about the sidereal universe
or earth's place in it, the nature of the stars or their distances
and number. Only the visible fraction of the electromagnetic
spectrum was known; radio and x-rays were unimagined. The
microscopic world was totally unknown. In human anatomy and
physiology, we didn't even know about the circulation of the blood
or the brain as seat of self and thought. Most of the laws of
nature were unknown.

Most of the laws of nature, and most of the omniverse and its
phenomena, are probably STILL unknown. We know virtually nothing
about space or time or spacetime. We know virtually nothing about
the correct criteria of identity or survival in various contexts.
We don't know how many physical dimensions there may be. We don't
know whether past, present and future are fixed or in some sense
mutable. We don't know whether the universe is deterministic
(although some of us find anything else a meaningless non-concept).
We don't know the physical basis of subjective experience, the most
important of all phenomena. We don't know whether the self circuit
(subjective circuit) is generic, with all that implies.

"PERHAPS THERE WALKS A SPIRIT"  Frank Tipler wrote a book, The
Physics of Immortality, purporting to prove that entities (our
descendants or successors) of the far future will be able to
resuscitate everyone who ever lived. I emphatically do not agree
that he has proven his thesis, but nevertheless we have a prominent
scientist whose argued estimates of future development far exceed
anything required by cryonics. 

I vaguely recall part of a poem I read long ago, something like
this:

A blind man stirred my pity;
What worse than not to see!
Yet, unseen does a Spirit walk, 
And does It pity me?

Incidentally, two blind men--both Ph.D. scientists!--are members of
cryonics organizations. (Gives new meaning to "The blind leading
the blind.") Ponder that for a while, and see where your thoughts
are led.

Many scientists give lip service to the proposition that future
technology will outstrip that of the present by orders of
magnitude, with qualitative and quantitative changes in life that
we cannot imagine. But how many ACT as though they believe that?
About enough to fit into one of our cryostats. 

ONE THING WE DO KNOW, in the context of cryostasis, is that it
should be easier to revive and rejuvenate people, or reconstitute
them, if we have more of their remains (and their records) and in
better condition.
 
We also know that we are more likely to reach a goal if we try than
if we don't. We hope more potential immortalists will soon agree to
try. And of course an "immortalist" begins with the simple premise
that it's hard to enjoy life when you're dead. 

Inquirers who provide a mailing address will be sent free printed
material about cryonics, with technical references, and about the
Cryonics Institute and the Immortalist Society.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6273