X-Message-Number: 8857
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:47:08 -0800
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: #8845 (Whether brain information is being saved)
References: <>

> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:53:05 -0500
> From: Robin Helweg-Larsen <>
> Subject: replies
>
> In the far future, the remains of the painting are found by satellite in
> the bottom of the long-abandoned well.   Xrays
> and their future cousins find unseen patterns and colors.  Analysis of
> the
> surrounding mud provides, atom by atom, an
> understanding of the total atoms involved in the frame, canvas and
> painting.  Chaos theory is used to model the events
> and disturbances which took the molecules to their resting places, and
> provides theoretical models of what the object
> might have been before the physical and chemical changes occurred.  The
> remains have not yet been touched.
>
> Eventually the object is reconstructed theoretically.  Then it is
> reconstructed in practice.  Pieces of thread are
> fleshed out and rejoined. The artwork is identical to the original;
> depending on the esthetics of the time, the materials
> may be identical, enhanced, or artistically deteriorated....
>
> The person putting the painting in the well would have had no way of
> even guessing at technologies like satellites,
> xrays, chaos theory computer programs.  But guess what?  The rate of
> technological change is increasing.  I'm sorry, but
> you can't guess what will be available in 200 years; and they won't be
> able to guess what'll come along in another 200
> years; and *they* won't be able... etc.  So far we're talking a couple
> of hundred years into the future.  Care to imagine
> 10,000?  100,000?  It is literally inconceivable.

Robin, I have no problem imagining all that sort of technology and much more. I
was sold on cryonics even before I heard about Drexlerian nanotechnology which

actually caused little change in my thoughts about cryonics. However, a brain is
enormously more complex than a painting. Furthermore, I believe that there is a
point at which information is irretrievably lost no matter what level of

technology we can bring to bear (however, I accept that this philosophical point

may itself be debatable). Therefore, I see only two paths to assuring oneself 
that
preservation methods are not causing the essential brain information to be
irretrievably lost. The first would be to put money into neuroscience research
until it is at a level where we can be *very confident* that this essential
information is being saved by then current cryonics methods (I accept that some

cryonicists believe that to be the case now, while I do not). The second is to 
put
money into improving human cryopreservation methods until either we have full

reversibility of preservation (and proof that the methods when applied to viable
patients do allow the return of the essential brain information), or the
improvement in cryopreservation methods and the concurrent improvement in
neuroscience knowledge allows one to have the confidence level described in the

first method above. The further advantage of carrying the second method as close
as possible to reversibility is that it would also solve many other problems of
cryonics such as the length of storage time and organizational instability that
you are so concerned about.


My view of the research effort to perfect suspended animation is that is will be

ongoing *until* it is successful. This will be true in the sense that if it 
cannot
be accomplished with "current" technology, then it will carry on using the more

and more advanced technology that will evolve even as it (the pursuit of 
perfected
suspended animation) is being carried on. At some point in the future (maybe it
will even require "full-blown nanotech", but I doubt it), the world's current

technology level will be such that perfected suspended animation will be 
possible
(and then we will all be "saved" :-). If along the way, we reach the point at
which, then current neuroscience can confidently assure us that, then current

preservation methods are almost certainly saving the brain's essential 
information

that will be great and we can breathe a little easier. Even then, however, I 
will

not be satisfied that my open ended lifespan is assured and I don't think anyone
else should be either.

> That is why I think it is more important to be in the care of an
> organization that will prevent the well from being
> destroyed for as long as possible, than to be in the care of an
> organization that waxes your painting before throwing it
> in the well.


My only problem with this is that we don't know that the difference in 
suspension
methods between different providers are not also the difference between brain

information which is saved (even if very damaged) and that which is 
irretrievably

lost. Until we have more information in this respect (from either neuroscience 
or

better cryopreservation methods), I will always go with the least damaging 
service
provider and I think that everyone knows who I, at least, think that is.

While I agree that "preventing the well from being destroyed for as long as

possible" is also essential, this is a completely independent point which I find

difficult to compare, or trade off against the potential loss of essential brain

information. Perhaps this is because I have been more involved with the internal
workings of the organizations and have more confidence in the dedication of the

operators and the long-term members involved with all the organizations. 
Frankly,

I believe that we have reached a size and number of committed people that, as 
long

as civilization does not collapse, current and future patients will be kept safe

for as long as necessary. With respect to your concern about future generations,
cryonics is growing and new younger people are being attracted all the time. I

don't see any reason why this should not continue and grow. For each generation,
the younger members are proteges and friends of the older ones and will want to
protect them and see that they are brought back. In this way there will be a

continuous link with the oldest patients. Clearly, if you really want to be 
really
safe it is important that you to get *involved* and become *family* with (or at
least valued by) other, preferably younger, cryonicists.

And lastly, just because many cryonicists have expressed differences (yes, and

even annoyance and exasperation) with many others, does not mean that those same
individuals are not revered and esteemed because of their enormous involvement

with and dedication to cryonics. I believe that there are many individual pairs 
of

cryonicists who, though they appear to be always at each others *throats*, would
never-the-less, I am certain, "go to the wall" to keep each other safely
preserved.

-- Paul --

 Voice/Fax:909-481-9620 Page:800-805-2870

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8857