X-Message-Number: 8384
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:55:39 -0700
From: "Joseph J. Strout" <>
Subject: More probabilities

Marty writes in CAPS his response to some of my estimates (normal text)...

>> >the probability of a suspension timely enough to retain my memories
>>
>> This is more unknown, and varies widely.  You probably have a couple hours
>> at room temperature -- some would say more, some less.  Again, the cryo
>> orgs may have data for empirical probabilities, but let's estimate a 0.8
>> chance of getting a decent suspension.  Not great, but not too bad either.
>THIS IS THE FACTOR ON WHICH YOU ARE MOST OVERLY OPTIMISTIC.
>THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO, I BELIEVE (AND SOMEONE KNOWLEDGEABLE PLEASE
>CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG), IS THAT MEMORY IS IT LEAST PARTLY ELECTRICAL,
>SO WHEN ONE DIES, MEMORIES ARE LOST, MUCH AS COMPUTER INFORMATION IN RAM
>IS LOST WHEN THE POWER IS TURNED OFF.

I'm afraid you're mistaken here, memories are not electrical, except
perhaps for working memory (i.e., whatever's on your mind at the moment).
This is certain, because patients can be "flatlined" in a variety of ways
-- the most drastic being deep hypothermic surgery, in which the patient is
held at low temperatures and is essentially dead for several hours.  Such
patients can recover with no loss of memory or identity.

Long-term memory may be stored in the efficacy (strength) of synapses,
which probably has to do with protein phosphorylation and such.  But the
more likely form of long-term memory is the actual pattern of synapses.  So
the issue is, how quickly do these synapses degrade beyond recognition?
The answer is on the order of hours.

>> >the probabililty that I will remain frozen for the hundred(s) of years

>MOST OF THE ESTIMATES OF THE TIME IT WILL TAKE UNTIL WE CAN BE REVIVED
>IS BETWEEN 100 AND 250 YEARS...

Well, your mileage may vary, but I think uploading will be developed within
100 years or so -- and that's fairly generous.  If you're waiting for
sufficiently advanced nanotech to repair a biological body, then 100-250
years may be more reasonable (if it's possible at all), but I don't intend
to wait for that.

>> >the probability that there are funds in my patient care account to

>GIVEN COST OF LIVING INCREASES, THE LIKELY EXTREMELY HIGH COST OF
>REANIMATION, ETC, I BELIEVE THAT .3 IS CLOSER TO CORRECT.

Maybe.  You can increase these odds by (1) getting more life insurance, and
(2) getting a spouse, children, friends, etc. to sign up as well.  Most
people in suspension have friends or loved ones who are not yet suspended,
but signed up to follow them -- and those people ALSO have ones who care
about them.  If this continues for several generations, we'll have people
(who perhaps are children now) who are still active when revival technology
comes along.  They'll take it upon themselves to make sure that YOU in
particular get out.  They'll take out a loan if they have to, mortgage
their house, lobby for socialized health care that covers you, or whatever.
Then you'll do the same for your mother, or whatever.  This network of
people who care about other people should ensure that everyone gets out of
the tank as soon as possible, though it will be in a last-in, first-out
order.

>> >the probability that my cryonics organization or subsequent designee
>> >remains in business and willing and able to revive me TIMES
>>
>> You've overlooked the probability that if your cryo org goes under, others
>> will take on their patients (and patient care funds), just as insurance
>> companies do today.  But that might not necessarily work, and of course
>> there's a chance that ALL cryo orgs will fail.  How about a 0.5 probability
>> that this won't happen (you can see that I consider this the most serious
>> danger).
>TO BET ON A CRYONICS ORGANIZATION OR ITS DERIVATIVE LASTING 100-250
>YEARS IS NO .5.  LOOK HISTORICALLY.  HOW MANY INSTITUTIONS HAVE
>LASTED THAT LONG.

I think you missed my point.  It's not necessary that a cryo org must last
that long, as long as other cryo orgs can take over patients, just as life
insurance companies take over the policies of a company that goes under.
This has been discussed on cryonet before.  It's not certain, but it's a
safety net which you don't seem to be taking into account.

>> >the probability that the revival will be physically successful TIMES
>>
>SUCCESSFUL REVIVAL WILL LIKELY REQUIRE THE CREATION AND NEAR PERFECT
>UTIZILIATION OF A VARIETY OF NANOMACHINES.

So you think.  Mind uploading requires no nanotechnology at all, and IMHO
is a much more likely scenario for revival.  Or there may be a third
alternative we haven't thought of yet.  It's sheer hubris to cling to
strongly to predictions about the future.  But if we can envision at least
one or two ways it might work, then we have reason to believe that those or
something better might apply.

I agree with your assessment of the difficulty of repairing a biological
body.  But that's not the only way to save a life.

>> >the probability that I will awake without dire pain

>THE REVIVAL PROCEDURE COULD
>BE 99.9999% EFFECTIVE, YET IF ONLY A FEW CELLS ARE NOT RIGHT, WE
>COULD BE IN DIRE PAIN.  RIGHT NOW, A PERSON WITH A MIGRAINE HAS NEARLY
>EVERYTYING RUNNING RIGHT IN HIS OR HER BODY, YET THAT 1 PROBLEM CAN MAKE
>THEIR LIFE RATHER MISERABLE.  I BELIEVE THAT THE ODDS OF A PERSON BEING
>REANIMATED PAIN FREE IS VERY LOW.  TO ME, 0.1 WOULD BE OPTIMISTIC--THERE
>ARE JUST TOO MANY SOURCES OF PAIN IN THE BODY.

I think this is planning to build an airplane, and worrying about how to
color the feathers.  We're only now beginning to understand pain; it's a
very ancient function, deep within the brain, and difficult to study.  But
we're making progress, and surely we'll understand it well before we have
the technology to repair a frozen body or upload a human.  And at that
point, there will be no migraines.  No hangnails or common colds, either;
these are trivial problems compaired to curing conditions which are clearly
fatal today.

Regards,
-- Joe


,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|               http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~jstrout/  |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8384