X-Message-Number: 10399 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 11:16:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Various On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, CryoNet wrote: > From: The Hitman <> > Subject: Cryonet response: > Generally, what I'm trying to say is don't insult people for not asking > for information they wouldn't understand anyway. Brett, as I have already communicated to you in personal email, no insult was intended. I suggested that one reason for seeming lack of interest might be that some people felt unqualified to interpret electron micrographs. You have agreed that this reason applies in your case. So--where's the insult? I also suggested that the fault might be my own; my posts may be so dull, people may skip reading them. _________________________ > From: > Subject: Re: CryoNet #10390 > > So far, precisely one person has taken me up on my offer. >> > Gimme. Will be happy to do so. But you need to send me your physical address. ________________________ > From: Ralph Merkle <> > Subject: Metaphor considered harmful > It might therefore be useful to describe freezing injury with statements that > are literally true, or are intended to be literally true. Okay. But bear in mind I did not ally myself with the Rowe metaphorical "hamburger" description; I think I made it clear that my real point was simply there _can be substantial damage_ depending on circumstances of death and the protocol used for cryoprotection. Whether the result looks more like hamburger or beef stew, the main issue (to me) is that damage exists, and, depending on its extent, may be easy, difficult, or even impractical to repair. (This is how I interpret the Rowe quote, though I've been told that I may be being too generous to Rowe.) I doubt that even you, Ralph, can tell us how much it's going to cost to design software to control nanobots to fix major damage as opposed to minor damage. The two tasks could turn out to be very different. Thus minimizing damage seems the #1 priority to me in general, a) because it will be the ultimate answer to critics such as Rowe, and b) because we don't want to increase the risk of patients needing major repair work that could result in them waiting in their tanks for longer than necessary. Surely these views are not especially controversial? > Further, we must remain focused on the critical issues: while there is excellent > reason to believe that existing suspension methods (even with high concentrations > of cryoprotectant) cause "damage," we do not have good reasons to believe that this > "damage" results in loss of fundamental information relevant to long term memory > and personality. This may indeed be true. But retrieving that information may be vastly more expensive if the information has been substantially disrupted. It may be comparable, for instance, to the difference between cracking 64-bit and 128-bit encryption. The necessary time may increase as an exponential function. How can we be sure that this isn't true? > My experience with cryobiologists critical of cryonics is that they are uniformly > ignorant of basic issues and often display behavior which can only be described > as grossly unscientific. What "basic issues" are you talking about here? If you are referring to information content and retrieval, surely this is outside the realm of expertise of cryobiologists. I suggest to you that it is quite common for scientists in one field to react defensively and antagonistically when they feel that their field is being "invaded" by scientists from another field. The reaction of atomic physicists when electrochemists postulated cold fusion is a classic example. Regardless of the validity of cold fusion, the physicists showed an immediate desire to discredit the experiments by any means possible, and electrochemists were effectively blocked from publishing papers in almost all academic journals. Thus, while I agree that the reaction of the Society for Cryobiology is contrary to the ideal _spirit_ of science, I suggest it is quite typical of the scientific community as a whole. Also I note that presentations from staff at 21st Century Medicine at this year's Society for Cryobiology conference were well received, presumably because they described verifiable research of a type that the Society members could understand. In other words, they didn't talk about information-theoretic death, or nanomachines that can't be built yet. Personally Ralph I respect your work immensely, but I can certainly see how it would rub cryobiologists the wrong way, especially since, in effect, you have told them that they don't know what they're talking about. ________________________ > Message #10394 > Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 16:20:50 -0400 > From: Jan Coetzee <> > Subject: Re: CryoNet #10390 > References: <> > Electron micrograms are artifacts that may reflect the technicians experience > preparing tissue for the instrument. Until different very competent persons > have repeated the preparation of frozen brain tissue one would not know > whether the damage is due to freezing or the preparation of the tissue for the > microscope. Two control series of micrographs were done in the experiment that I referred to. One showed brain tissue that was simply fixed without treatment. The other showed tissue that was perfused and then fixed without being frozen. This provides some assurance that artifacts were not introduced in the electron micrographs, but of course in an ideal world the work would be repeated by another lab. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10399