X-Message-Number: 16418
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 00:29:54 +0000 ()
From: Louis Epstein <>
Subject: Replies to CryoNet #16407,#16411

On 3 Jun 2001, CryoNet wrote:

> Message #16407 Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:09:07 -0700
> From: Olaf Henny <>
> Subject: Questions to Mike Perry and Louis Epstein: 
> First to Louis:
> A former client of mine who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer s
> was quoted to me by a mutual friend: "For all intents and
> purposes my life is over"  -   Two years later he was dead.
> Would you, Louis consider ending your life, while you are still
> in control of your faculties, in order to be cryo-preserved with
> a slim chance to live thousands of years with sound mind and
> body instead of watching your mind fading out with ever
> dimming awarenes? 

I would prefer to keep functioning
as best I could for as long as possible
to increase the chance that a way of
restoring me to full function could be found.
A gamble,but so's everything.

> This question is of course rhetorical, since
> by the present state of research, it appears likely, that Alzheimer's
> will at least be controllable, before the chances of revival
> after cryonic suspension become significant.

I have noted some claims that there could be a vaccine
in a few years.That would absolutely transform aging,
I think.

> I cannot consider a solely cerebral existence in a computer or
> artificial body as equivalent to the life I have now.  Yes I have
> heard of direct stimulation of the pleasure centres of the brain
> etc., but I have yet find any ersatz product, which equals the
> original, be it whipped topping, saccharin/cyclamate, fake fur or
> fake leather.

I have occasionally said...
"Stupidity is perhaps the only thing where an
imitation is invariably better than the genuine

(You speak of sex above...would you rather have
sex partner who was stupid,or one who could play 
at it,but wasn't really?)

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message #16411 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:57:11 -0700
> From: Mike Perry <>
> Subject: Re: CryoNet #s 16400, 16402
> >
> >I don't think even the most ardent cryonicist would
> >see time in suspension as offering attractive quality
> >of life,compared to what could be spent with breath and
> >a pulse.
> Oh yeah? Suppose someone has a brain tumor. In a short time, by all 
> appearances, it will squeeze his gray matter out his eye sockets, or 
> otherwise transform it to goo. All he wants is to be suspended *now*, while 
> still in his right mind. He wants this for himself, but doesn't seek to 
> impose on others' freedom (beyond denying them the freedom to frustrate the 
> choice he has made, which is hardly unreasonable). Are you going to tell me 
> you'd use *force* if necessary to hinder this person from getting his wish? 

There has to be a better way
of containing the tumor...
limiting its growth,killing its
cells,or what have you.Has much
been done with low-temperature
needles,as has been done in other
tumor operations?

(Freeze the tumor,let the person

> Thomas Donaldson was one such case. The courts did, in effect, deny him his 
> wish to a premortem suspension, with the implication that force, at 
> whatever level necessary, would be used to prevent him carrying out his 
> wish even though he sought no imposition, in any normal sense, on anyone 
> else's freedom. As it turns out, there was an escape hatch in that Thomas 
> could have chosen to stop intake of food and fluids and die by dehydration.

I happen to think that this should also be prohibited.
If the deliberate purpose of an action or inaction is
to die,the action or inaction can not be rationally
> Several Alcor patients have done that, but it is an ordeal, even with
> pain killers. One such person took over 10 days to die and looked like a 
> concentration camp victim.

People who deliberately seek death deserve only frustration.

> Another brain cancer case I know of, whose immune system had been
> weakened by immunosuppressants, managed to deliberately infect himself
> with pneumonia so he could be suspended before his mind was gone.

And you think he shouldn't have been prevented
from doing this?It sounds demented to me.

> You say,
> "Absent better evidence that suspension is in fact reversible,
> I don't see that deliberately hastening the cessation of one's
> life processes should be accepted."
> But some others *disagree* with you to the extent that they would choose 
> premortem suspension *for themselves* under circumstances such as the 
> above. I am one of those people. I could be wrong, and they could be wrong. 
> Maybe cryonics won't work, though I happen to think it probably will. But 
> whether it will work or not, *we should have the freedom to choose*.

I believe in eradicating death,
not treating it as a legitimate
goal of a thinking person.

We need fanatical,not conditional,
opposition to death.

> > > The latest comprehensive list of cryonics patients, as far as I know,
> > > is from *Cryonics*, 4th quarter 1998 It shows several brain-only's
> > > from different organizations. More details if you are interested.
> >
> >Well,I guess I don't know the history well enough.What organizations
> >have offered brain-only preservation in the past?
> Officially, it hasn't been "offered" in the sense of "advertised," but it's 
> done on a contingency basis, depending on circumstances. Besides Alcor, I 
> think both ACS and Trans Time have done brain-only's.

They're functionally one now,aren't they?
TTime being a provider to ACS?

> In one case, apparently relatives objected to removing the whole head, so
> just the brain was taken. Another involved a suicide victim who was autopsied
> (a legal requirement, probably like the Wilson case) and his brain removed.

As noted,I find it hard to consider a
frozen brain realistically a person.
There are many preserved brains in
anatomy departments...are they people

> >(Alcor inherited the salvageable CSC bodies,
> >I gather,not sure where CSNY's went...)
> The only "salvageable" case that CSC handled was that of James Bedford.
> He was frozen in 1967 by CSC but stored only briefly by them before being 
> transferred elsewhere by relatives. Miraculously, he remains in suspension 
> today. The CSNY patients were transferred by their relatives out of the 
> care of that organization, and were all subsequently lost. A good lesson 
> here is not to depend on relatives to maintain you. Bedford was lucky,
> but he is maintained by Alcor now.

And from what I've read in the Cryonet archives,
Bedford's relatives have completely lost interest.
Was CSNY organized to be too dependent on relatives
in ensuring continued care?

> >As far as transporting patients into the future goes...James Bedford 
> >has already been taken 34 years from his clinical death.I don't know 
> >how much better 2001's treatment of lung cancer's is from 1967's,but 
> >revival of frozen bodies is not much less beyond us now than it was 
> >then,I expect!
> On the other hand, in 1901 I bet most people would have considered powered 
> flight about "as far beyond us" as it was in 1867, just after the Civil 
> War. For what it's worth, I don't expect to see revival of frozen bodies 
> in 2003 either, but progress can surprise you.

I think it will take more like another 34 years
than another 2,and quite probably more than that.
(Hmmm...where would Moore's Law take us by 2035?
I'll be 74 that year...)

> >I've been told the earliest-born cryonically suspended person was born 
> >around 1888...that could mean that the cryonicists might soon hang an 
> >asterisk on who the oldest living person is,depending on definition.
> >I am presently aware of five living people documented or very likely 
> >to be documented as born before 1888.
> As far as I know, James Bedford is the earliest born (of those still 
> frozen), his DOB being April 20, 1893.

The 1888 was an estimate I got from
Robert Ettinger.(When was his mother born?)

Living persons born before 4/1893 are more
common than I can count...I have a cousin
only four years younger than that myself.

Marie Bremont(born April 25,1886) is still
with us,as is Maud Davis Farris Luse(Jan 1887).
Two others born in 1887 have been confirmed
alive to me in the past month.Another likely
born that year is being investigated.

From 1888,I have two people alive as of this
spring,and two others not confirmed alive since
last year,as well as another still having her
documentation checked.1889 has six documented
people confirmed alive this year,and five more
(all in Japan) with documented birth but not
specifically confirmed alive since last year.

> >While I consider it wrong in principle,and that the more we are able 
> >to nullify considerations that might compel us to change ourselves,
> >the less we can justify changing ourselves.
> I think people "will do what they will" and the day will come when that 
> will include significant modifications amounting to enhancements, including 
> higher intelligence. Those who want to stop this will, I predict, find 
> themselves up against a superior force and not able to suppress it.

I believe that certain modifications that may be
aspired to deserve suppression,and will support
efforts at such suppression whatever their prospects.
Some people believe in "mind-expanding drugs"...
anything that dehumanizes a brain is bad for it.
Enhancement has to be within a biological context.

> ...
> >A freshly printed book is not as old as the
> >first writing of its words.
> The book itself, to me, is not just the printing,
> and it *is* as old as "the first writing."

Don't kid yourself that any copy you pick up
IS the original manuscript!!

> >...
> > > > > Additionally, "being human" is just a stage in the life of a
> > > > > hopefully growing and developing individual.
> > > >
> > > >Certainly no (non-theological) precedent for that.
> > >
> > > Well, there is a precedent, call it what you will. And I think it is
> > > becoming increasingly feasible to address this issue scientifically,
> > > without invoking any mysticism.
> >
> >What precedent are you citing,then?You don't make it clear.
> Nothing mysterious. You said "no (non-theological) precedent"; okay, it is 
> theological, i.e., this is something theologians have considered. But I 
> think now we can approach it scientifically too. One book that does this 
> Robert Ettinger's *Man into Superman*; another, more recent example is my 
> own book, *Forever for All*.

OK,so there is no actual precedent
for the occurrence,just for the
assertion that this is possible.
You can't point to humanity being
transcended as part of an ongoing
process that has really happened.

Anthony Quinn has joined the dead.

I forget what multiple of 10,000,000,000
is the number of so-far-dead humans...

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16418