X-Message-Number: 14037
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 02:56:52 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: comments re 2 recent postings

Hi everyone!

Some comments on various messages in Cryonet:

1. For John de Rivaz: I must point out that the work done by 21st Century
   Medicine strongly suggests that we can have adequate and reversible
   cryonic suspensions some time before nanotechnology of ANY kind reaches
   its full abilities. To understand this, you need to read more about
   what these researchers have been doing. There are now at least 2 papers
   in CRYOBIOLOGY (B Wowk et al, CRYOBIOLOGY 39(1999) 315-227 and 
   B Wowk, G Fahy et al, CRYOBIOLOGY 40(2000) 228-236). If you want to 
   find out more, you can buy the videotapes of the 1998 Seminars; I
   would suggest that you contact Brian Wowk at 

   These methods won't deal with those already frozen (of which I do not
   believe you are one :-)  ) or with those who for some reason in the
   future had to be frozen by methods others than the best (which is 
   likely to continue happening for an indefinite time). It is cases of
   this kind that will need much more work. Nanotechnology alone won't
   help; we'll need to understand more about how brains work, too...
   particularly how our different kinds of memory work. Moreover, since
   repair will need to work out the connections between many different
   neurons, it's unlikely that nanomethods ALONE would even allow 
   repair, though we might have a computer devised to get information
   from nanorobots, work out just what the connections were in the 
   badly damaged brain, and then give directions to other nanorobots
   to each repair their own small part of the brain. (Yes, the computer
   need not use current technology, but some more evolved kind). As
   for the FORM such nanotechnology may take, I myself believe it is
   much too early to commit ourselves. Biotech is one form; and there
   has been work with NONbiotech methods too, actual experimental
   work, not theoretical.

2. Because the recent comment about nerves growing up to replace others
   which had been lost was far too brief to form any independent 
   conclusions, I got hold of the original article, by SS Magavi, BR
   Leavitt, JD Macklis, "Induction of neurogenesis in the neocortex of
   adult mice", NATURE 405(2000) 951-955). This paper did NOT verify
   that all connections, especially of the dendrites of the newly grown
   nerves, matched the connections of the former neuron which it
   replaced. Basically it verified that the high order connections 
   went to the same location. This remains very interesting, but does
   not prove that such new neurons will also recover MEMORY ... which
   by the current best theories, consist of the fine connections of
   our neurons.

   I hope to discuss this paper in more depth, together with other 
   scientific work, in the next PERIASTRON. And yes, it remains 
   interesting, but does not show that our own problem ... retrieving
   not only our body and brain, but also a substantial proportion of
   our memories, will be solved by this means. Work of this kind MAY
   still show that the connections of our neurons can be recovered,
   all of them, but it's now much too scanty to draw that conclusion.
   (Yes, such a possibility IS fascinating).

			Best wishes and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14037