X-Message-Number: 9566
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:56:56 -0400
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #9558 Simulated Deterioration
References: <>

>Message #9558
>From: Ettinger <>
>Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:37:19 EDT
>Subject: Simulated Deterioration

>That "failure of nerve or imagination" of which A.C. Clarke spoke--and which
>he himself displays--still afflicts most people, even many of those in
>cryonics.

This is completely mistaken and a gross insult to many cryonics giants.

>Current leaders of some
>organizations want to put almost total emphasis on research, very little on
>recruitment. This seems to me badly out of balance.

"Balance" is not an objective absolute. It is highly relative to ones
viewpoint and ones value system. I could say with just as much (or
little)
validity that it is you and others who are "out of balance".

>First, there are at least six things on which most of us ought to be able to
>agree, even if our emphases differ:
>
>1. If we had fully perfected suspended animation, then a patient in biostasis
>would only have to wait for a cure for senility or other fatal ailment, and
>not for the much more difficult cure for freezing damage etc. Achieving this
>would also greatly change the climate of opinion.

It is refreshing to see you state this so strongly.

>2. If you have the ability and willingness to pay, you should choose what you
>believe to be the best available procedure--even if the degree of superiority
>isn't clear.

And we are in full agreement here also.

>3. Almost any kind of biostasis--cryogenic freezing, non-cryogenic freezing,
>vitrification, freeze-drying, chemical fixation, whatever--will preserve more
>structure and information than would be preserved in the grave, hence offer a
>better chance of rescue.

This is where we start to differ. IMO, this is not true as stated.
There is a "threshold" of damage obove which recovery of sufficient
mental attributes to constitute "identity" is impossible by *any*
means. At present we have no good idea where that threshold lies.
However, all damage above that threshold is equalent to "death".
Thus, I reject your statement that "almost any kind of biostasis
--- offer a better chance of rescue" than burial or cremation

>4.  If your organization is unable to keep you in biostasis--if e.g. it goes
>bankrupt--then the method of biostasis will not matter.

Again we differ on the way you have stated this, but here I am more
positive
than you. Since some organizations have patient funds well separated
from the
organization or patient storage operation. It would be more accurate to
say
"--if e.g. your funding is lost and no charitable funding is
forthcoming--" 

>5. If you cannot afford any of the procedures offered, or if you are talked
>out of it, then you have lost any chance you might have had. (And if you are
>the one talking somebody out of it, then you have lost him or his relative any
>chance he might have had, as well as any contribution he might have made to
>the strength of the organization.)

On the assumption that death occurs to such an individual, this is
correct.
I don't believe that any of those (including myself) who advocating that
we
spend the vast majority of our time, energy and money on research, ever
"talk
anyone out of" getting cryopreserved. There is a vast difference between
that
and realistically describing the state of cryonics and their chances to
them.

>6. Cryonics organizations must be very careful about what they appear to
>promise, for fear of lawsuits

This much is true.

> as well as for fear of misleading the naïve to their later regret.

How can someone "regret" something after being placed in suspension,
*even*
if they are resuscitated? 

>That said, my main aim today is to offer a slightly different slant on the
>unappreciated power of inference, including one tactic I have not seen
>mentioned before. 
>
>Leading up to this, I remind readers that shredding and crumpling paper does
>not destroy the information printed on it, any more than the information is
>destroyed by taking apart a jig saw puzzle and mixing up the pieces. 

The fact that use would even use a jig saw puzzle as an analogy (even a
3-d
one with picture unknown) shows to me that you have no conception
whatever
of the complexity and magnitude of chaotic damage which can be and is
being
done in brains preserved with current techniques. I believe that it is
you
and others who have a "failure of imagination".

>Of course, a puzzle in three dimensions, with many orders of magnitude more
>parts, and pieces that at some levels are not rigid, and constituting a
>picture we currently could not even recognize, is a different story. If you
>were (somehow) to homogenize a brain so thoroughly that each kind of atom 
>would be equally likely to be found in any randomly selected volume, then the
>individual has been destroyed (whether or not capable of reconstitution by any
>means). But this does not happen, and we are in fact dealing simply with
>varying degrees of practical difficulty.

No, no *that* much damage happens, but once again you are failing to
understand the idea of a "threshold". We are *not* "dealing with varying
degress of practical difficulty" at all. We are dealing with
*impossibility*
up to a level of damage much less than the random distribution of atoms
which you have described. Unfortunately, we do not know what level of
damage
constitutes that threshold (which I call "death"). It is true that above
the
"death threshold" there *are* "varying degrees of practical difficulty".

>Most people are simply incapable of the small leap of imagination required to
>foresee enormous increases in the capabilities of future technology.

While this is certainly true for most people. For the people in cryonics
who
are most strongly supporting more resources put toward research, I
believe it
is just the opposite: they are precisely the ones who are able to make
the
"leaps of imagination" necessary to see that suspended animation *can*
be
perfected and its accomplishment (or much closer to it) is necessary to
save
our lives.

> (A moon rocket
>with three million separate parts and costing billions of dollars was
>previously unimaginable to many people for essentially the same reasons.)  

Again, IMO, this analogy does not relate to fixing freezing damage.

>Elsewhere (e.g. on our web site) I and others have indicated some of the
>direct and indirect means at our disposal to infer information about the
>frozen brain. Here's another--possibly a little different from the tactics
>suggested by Drexler, Merkle, and others :
>
>With computing power several orders of magnitude beyond ours, and substantial
>gains in other fields, we could simulate the deterioration of cryosuspended
>brains under an enormous variety of conditions and from an enormous number of
>starting points. Then the nanobots investigating the patient could just report
>what they found to the master computer. (Nothing new so far.) But now the
>master computer, instead of trying to work backwards from effect to cause by
>brute force or by other methods previously discussed, would just compare what
>was found to its humongous store of simulated sequences of deterioration,
>naturally with the focus on key regions of the brain. The closest match night
>be good enough, or at least it would offer a much more advantageous starting
>point for putting the jigsaw puzzle together.

I hate to have to say it, but this is a ridiculous idea! You have
completely
misunderstood the magnitude of the difference between individual brains,
the
different ways that damage can occur, and effects of choas.

>In Israel there is a saying: "If you don't believe in miracles, you are not a
>realist." Arthur Clarke, before he got old and tired, said (roughly): "The
>achievements of future technology will be not only greater than we imagine,
>but greater than we can imagine."

Even with "miracles" there are vastly different levels and of course,
once
they happen and are verified, they are no longer miracles.
IMO, a more appropriate expression is "you can't get blood from a
stone".

>It isn't hard to imagine the aforesaid nanobots and computers. Their
>precursors are already at work or on the drawing boards, their principles well
>understood. Nerve and imagination, time and motivation--that's what it takes.

Yes, it takes the "nerve and imagination" to say and to see that our
methods
and ideas are failing and that we must change our approach radically if
we
really are going to save our lives.

>This is not "faith" and it is not the total sum of wisdom; it is an informed
>view of reality and it is just one element of a rational life plan

Those who are going to attain unbounded lives need the wisdom to put
all their resources toward developing technology, to do so, by means 
of the principles of the scientific method -- that body of methodology
which has given us the vast technological progress which we now enjoy.
It is "faith" in the proven accomplishments of the scientific method
which will save our lives.
 
-- Paul --

 Voice/Fax: 416-968-6291 Page: 800-805-2870
The Institute for Neural Cryobiology - http://neurocryo.org
Perfected cryopreservation of Central Nervous System tissue
for neuroscience research and medical repair of brain diseases

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9566