X-Message-Number: 9537
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:04:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: The real issue in "Cryo-Repair" 

I think it is inappropriate to discuss the probability of 
"cryo-repair" as if it is an on/off, possible/impossible 
proposition. 
 
In reality there will be a spectrum of cryonics cases, 
ranging from minimal injury to near-total destruction caused 
by autolysis and/or unprotected freezing and/or massive 
trauma. 
 
I assume John Pietrzak agrees there is a high probability 
that nanotech will be able to repair a brain in which only 
one neuron has been damaged. 
 
I assume Bob Ettinger agrees that if structure is totally 
lost, all cells are destroyed, and chemicals are degraded, 
nanotechnology alone may be incapable of restoring function. 
 
Therefore, the probability discussion has been focusing on 
the wrong issue. The question is, WHAT DEGREE of damage will 
be reparable? 
 
Currently I believe there is no way to answer this question. 
 
However, while we cannot assign an ABSOLUTE probability of 
resuscitation at any point along the damage scale, surely we 
can improve our chances RELATIVELY, by moving ourselves to a 
more favorable position on the scale. 
 
In other words, we don't need to know what our chances are, 
in order to improve them. Therefore, reducing damage should 
be the primary focus of interest, and discussion of precise 
probability is not relevant. 
 
--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9537