X-Message-Number: 7398
From: 
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:03:49 -0500
Subject: Vitrification; Reality

1. WHY WAIT FOR VITRIFICATION? 

According to relatively recent published and unpublished word from Greg
Fahy--if I understand it correctly--rabbit kidneys (and perhaps other
specimens) can already be preserved, using his methods, by vitrification, and
stored at liquid nitrogen temperature without significant damage. The main
problem remaining is the RF rapid thawing required, which has also already
been solved in theory but not yet in practice. 

>From the standpoint of near-future patients, why not use these vitrification
methods (if applicable to brains)? The thawing problem (large licensed RF
transmitters etc.) can be solved at leisure. We would really then HAVE brain
cryopreservation that is reversible to a near-certainty.

>From the standpoint of public relations, of course there would be very
limited favorable reaction to e.m. photos showing no discernible damage to
the vitrified brains. Until we get walking-around revived patients (mammals
at least), only a few people will take the prospect seriously. But these
numbers could still be substantial on our scale of business. Perhaps even
more important, there might be a tremendous boost to morale in the ranks.

By the time of the Alcor technology festival (Feb. 1-2) I hope to have some
updated facts and figures to kick around. 

2.  REALITY is the heading of Charles Platt's Cryonet # 7390, partly
suggesting that I am too confident about revival chances, and giving his own
estimate (for current patients, presumably) of only one in 10,000. And indeed
that is always what it is all about: who has the best grip on reality?

I do indeed claim that the probability of revival--looking only at the
SCIENTIFIC problems, not those of economics, sociology etc.--is closer to
unity than to zero. Very few people have troubled to read the booklet I wrote
about probability theory and cryonics, and probably few of those both
understood it and gave it serious thought. But it is NOT true that "...it's
all a matter of opinion;..." as Charles says. 

Not all opinions are created equal. For example,  my opinion about certain
aspects of the foundations of probability theory is superior to that of
Richard von Mises, the great mathematician and one of the founders of the
frequency theory of probability--even though he was much smarter than I am.
Truth is not a respecter of persons or of reputations. I have PROVEN he was
wrong about certain basic ideas, and offered better ones.

This ties in with some recent exchanges on Cryonet about how broadly or how
narrowly one should construe the scientific method or attitude. I assert that
the scientific method is appropriate and applicable to ALL areas of life and
thought. This is an understanding on which your life may depend.

Centuries ago, or even millennia ago, any observer could have said that
flying machines are possible, since many animals do in fact fly, and there
was no reason to believe that those animals exhausted the possible types of
flying machines. Of course, the narrow-constructionists of those eras could
say, and did say, that such speculation was idle, since no engineer was close
to an operational plan for a flying machine, and no known technology could
duplicate the wings of a bird or a bee. So who had the better argument--those
who looked at life in the large, at the sweep of experience; or those who
wanted proof rather than evidence?

No doubt I will continue to be accused of complacency or over-optimism, but I
deny the charge. I could always be wrong, but I look at evidence, not
druthers.

Robert Ettinger 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7398