X-Message-Number: 6945
From: Terry Lambert <>
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: A Suggestion
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:17:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Brian Wowk wrote:
] >] The next logical step *for cryonicists* is to look at
] >] what this agent does to brains (at slow cooling rates).
] >
] >I have to disagree.
]
] A perfectly beating heart when you are thawed will
] not help you if your brain was injured beyond even nanotech
] repair by the heart-preserving agent. The only way to know
] what the agent does to brains (or ANY organ) is to do the
] experiment.
I agree that this is a necessary step. I just don't agree that
it is "the next logical step".
To use an analogy, it's equivalent to approaching nanotechnology
from a macroscopic mechanical engineering perspective instead of
from a genetic engineering/molecular biology perspective. Clearly,
there is demonstrable success (ie: "life") with one approach, and
not the other, but which is receiving more attention?
The idea that one has to fully understand a process in order
to make use of it is erroneous. Consider the problem of computer
programming. I willingly admit that someone who understands the
operation and theory of the underlying technology will, all other
things being equal, be a better programmer. But consider, we are
not necessarily interested in "best", more we are interested in
"good enough".
Now we can apply this analogy to most research in cryonics, which
is (apparently) accomplished via empiricism -- Thomas Edison's
"try it, and if it works, keep going" approach, rather than
Nikola Tesla'a "understand it well enough to predict accurately,
then use the predictions to engineer".
Cryonics seems (to me) to be in a very literal dilemma (di.lemma);
on one hand, it wants to preserve gross anatomical structure as
well as possible, and funds research in that direction. On the
other, it wants the suspension to be as reversible as possible --
yet there is little research in that direction. Prometheus is an
exception in this regard, and it's controversy is seemingly well
related to its uniqueness in this regard. We can probably blame
past negelect on (1) the need to give the cryonicists *now* the
best chance of survival later -- sublimation of group goals to
those of the individual, and (2) the ready availability of a
convenient Deux Ex Machina to worry about "later" -- the latest
of which happens to be nanotechnology, that much more attractive
because of its apparent short term proximity.
The Visser method, being a cryobiological approach (very much
like approaching nanotechnology from the other side of the
molecular barrier) intends to incrementally increase what can
be preserved. In this way, it is a second route to the more
leglected goal of cryonics -- the group goal.
] >The key word here is, I believe "reversible", not "brain". If
] >"brain" is important, it's as a constraint on the reversal:
] >there is no reliable brain transplant technology today, so one
] >wonder how you can demonstrate reversal without demonstrating
] >full reversible biostasis.
]
] This has been discussed at length, and methods for
] verifying successful brain preservation without perfect body
] preservation are part of the preliminary Prometheus Project
] scientific plans which can be read on the PP Web pages.
I have read (preliminarily) the Promtheus literature, and I have
to say brain preservation clearly implies brain preservation
as the goal, not a way-station on the road to reversible biostasis.
Can you verify it on an individual who intends to remain
suspended until he can be revived rather than only until a
verification can take place? This is an obviously rhetorical
question.
Brain-only suspension is inherently unsatisfying to the current
non-cryonicist; reversibility, or confidence in impending
reversibility is an obvious marketing bullet item, if nothing
else.
] >Concentrating on brain suspension seems (to me) to be a
] >continuation of previous goal misdirection.
]
] After you are frozen, the one thing, and ultimately
] ONLY thing that will determine whether you are revivable
] (as "you") is the condition of your brain. Improvements
] on preserving other organs will have absolutely no
] impact on your prospects for revival until the horrendous
] brain damage now done to cryonics patients is rectified.
The obvious scaling order, at least for the Visser process, has
larger mammalian hearts being suspended and revived, since
smaller hearts have already been successfully suspended and
revived. Your cooling rate limitations (though perhaps not
as strictly imposed) are of paramount importance here, since
whole-body flash-freezing is highly unlikely. I understand
your point in that regard, now, though I don't fully agree
with the severity of your rate restrictions.
Then the focus can change to longer term animal reimplantation
studies, necessary to insure that something other than simply
short term viability is truly preserved. Again, there aren't
any rat-sized bypass machines, and surcigal procedures for
reimplantation and/or vascular shunting are easier performed
on larger anatomical structures. The easiest (and cheapest)
scaling mechanism is "use bigger animals instead of rats".
Serindipitously, humans are bigger than rats, so this works
out well for human application.
Only after that is accomplished will it be worthwhile to go
on to other organ studies (kidneys, for which the animal can
be dialysed pending reimplantation, would be a good next
choice). Brains ar on the bottom of the list because they
can't be reliably transplanted.
I think further cryonics-related Visser method research should
be about how to scale up the demonstrated reversible suspension
of rat hearts, not about how to better enable cryonicists to
preserve brains (only), the better to wait for a Deux Ex Machina
to revive the individuals whose brains were preserved.
Clearly, the goal of Prometheus is to achieve better cryonics;
there is an inherent slant of assuming a technology, specifically
vitirification, to achieve that goal, and the experimental
protocol outlined confirms the slant. Because of the emphasis
on the brain, there is an implied willingness to pursue a
technology where a single CPA is not usable for recoverable
biostasis -- only for cryonics.
But is better cryonics the goal, or simply one means to an end?
And are there potentially better means which can leap-frog the
current state-of-the-art? The Visser results tend to suggest
the answer to the second question is "probably; we should do
the research an find out for sure".
] >This seems to ignore the likelihood that it is possible to
] >achieve reversible biostasis without nanotechnological aid;
]
] Not at all. The question is: If reversible biostasis
] without nanotechnology is possible, which organ do you
] want it to be achieved on FIRST?
Define "reversible", and we'll discuss it. Prometheus is not
"reversible" in my definition, even after stage III has been
achieved. I must still wait for technology to catch up to get
my revival. There is a distasteful element of faith left in
the process. I sincerely question true reversability even
given a fully functional nanotechnology, since the source state
to which you work back may not have been the only possible
source state, and whoever wakes up may not in fact be "me".
The world may be enriched by having this other person, so very
close to "me", but if it's not "me", let that person pay for
their own creation instead of "me" paying for it.
[ ... cooling rates, again ... ]
I have already agreed to your thesis, though not to the
specific rate requirements, in another posting. I think that
issue has been satisfactorily resolved. Repetition is an
unfortunate side effect of propagation delay for this medium.
] >There might also be perfusion studies without any
] >freezing at all to gauge short and long term toxicity in the
] >absence of freezing damage (assuming the CPA isn't a well known
] >compound or combination of non self-reactive well known compounds).
] >I don't see that in anyone's agenda yet.
]
] Absolutely, positively, right.
According to a recent posting from the researcher (today, to this
group), apparently primary toxicity isn't an issue. I would still
like to see a study based on its ability to act as an oxygen
transport at hypothermic ranges, where there is still an oxygen
requirement, but this latest report is quite encouraging. Knowing
that secondary toxicity (self-toxicity from non-removed metabolic
wastes and/or oxygen deprivation, etc.) is not a problem would
remove the last potential complaint.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6945