X-Message-Number: 9814 Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 04:17:15 -0700 From: Paul Wakfer <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #9807 Lost Brain Information References: <> > Message #9807 > Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT) > From: John K Clark <> > Subject: Heckling > In #9797 On Thu, 28 May 1998 Paul Wakfer <> Wrote: > > >The crucial point which Thomas and I have tried to make again and > >again is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT STRUCTURES OF THE BRAIN CONTAIN > >OUR MEMORIES AND IDENTITY. > > It doesn't matter, unless of course religious people are right and identity > has nothing to do with the brain at all. You used the word "structures" and > that implies information, if that can be recovered then these structures, > whatever they may be, are not irretrievably lost. I stand by my statement > that Dr. Merkle ideas have value. He gave good reasons for thinking that the > brain does not enter a chaotic turbulent state when it's frozen so that the > information in it may not be irretrievably lost Whatever reasons he gave do not stand up against examination of the EMs of healthy young animal brains frozen with the best current methods, which clearly show distributed "chaotic turbulent" areas, the structure of which is, IMO, *not* retrievable by *any* means. If current patients are "lucky", then this lost structure does not contain critical memory/identity information. But ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE?? I am not and *that* is why I am pushing so hard for making *certain* that memory/identity information survives through the achievement of perfected suspended animation (or as I called it in Taiwan - revivable stasis). The only other solution would be to wait until neuroscience research can tell us definitively and precisely what structures in the brain house our memory/identity. However, IMO this too will be a long time coming, and even then, we will have to do research to make sure *those* structures are not irreversibly damaged by then current cryopreservation methods. > >Therefore, if there is even one *iota* of distributed irreversible > >damage (ie. truely lost brain information), it makes no sense at all > >to say that nanotechnology, of whatever level, can retrieve and > >reconstruct our memories and identity > > > It's logically possible I suppose that one crucial bit of information is the > key to identity, Not one *isolated* bit, but one *type* of distributed structure damaged throughout the brain. As Chris Rasch stated some weeks ago, think of the brain as being perforated by scattered tiny vaporized "blow torch" holes (not necessarily at random, but related to certain structures). > and it's logically possible that freezing a brain will > permanently erase that important bit, Now you are beginning to get the point. It is not just logically possible. Major distributed damage which appears to be irreversible is happening to every currently suspended patient and for all we know those irreversibly damaged areas may contain the critical memory/indentity information. Of course, that information may also be much more robust and/or not contained in the damaged areas. We simply do not know! > but are you so certain of this to say > that people who think it may not be true are making no sense I have seen the micrographs and I have read and heard those more knowledgeable than I (and more knowledgeably than Ralph Merkle in this particular area) describe them. Yes, I am convinced that current methods do produce major distributed damage which is irreversible by any means and I believe that those who believe otherwise are just hiding their heads in the sand. As I said above maybe those being cryopreserved with current methods are lucky, maybe the memory/identity information is not contained in those irreversibly damaged areas, but it is the height of foolishness to count on that when there is an untried alternative! > and are actually harming Cryonics? Well, *I* didn't say that, Thomas did. However, as it happens, I agree with him on that evaluation also. It is harmful because is gives people a false sense of hope and keeps them sitting on their hands, doing nothing to support the research which is crucial for us to make *certain* that our memories and identity survive, at least, with the best possible cryopreservations. > I think the hostility I'm receiving over this Again, I don't believe you have received any hostility from me. I certainly intended none and if any was implied then I apologize. > comes not from what I actually > wrote but from what people think I'm trying to imply. Well, I'm not ashamed > of my opinions and I enjoy a good argument, if I thought that improving the > science of Cryonics was unnecessary I would not hesitate to say so loud and > clear. The reason you have not heard any such statement from me is that I > don't think it's true, in fact I can't think of any area of research that's > more important. Yes, John, I know and appreciate that. You have been one of several nanotechnology "fans" (no insult intended, I too am a fan of nanotech in areas not related to cryonics) who have supported the Prometheus Project. How about making a tax deductible donation to the Institute for Neural Cryobiology's Hippocampal Slice Vitrification Project? > PS: Paul do me a favor, read Ralph Merkle's post [#9762]. Ok, since you asked as a friend :-), I just did. I now remember reading it when Ralph Merkle first posted it. It is very persuasive and logically written (as is all Ralph's work), however, as you have stated, it is not any kind of "proof". And since his argument cannot be further improved to *become* a proof, it *is* irrelevant for *that* purpose. I, for one, am simply not willing to "bet my life" on his analysis being correct. This is especially true when we have not even *begun* to do our best to achieve reversible cryopreservation. If it turns out that perfecting suspended animation with "today's" technology is an intractable problem, *then* the kind of analysis which Ralph Merkle does so well *will* be relevant, since it will be all that we have. BTW, major new and clear discerning of damage has been uncovered since the research for the paper "The Effects of Cryopreservation on the Cat" and Ralph Merkle's followup post in 1993 occurred. As I understand it, what was discovered was that the thawing process had partially masked the damage. When brain slices were "freeze substituted" (ie. the ice remove in situ) and then fixed, the true nature and extent of the damage was seen. I am no expert here. If this explanation is wrong, someone please correct me. Another point that I want to make is that even many current major hospital operations do not allow for the complete recovery of memory/identity information. At the least, patients often recover with IQs reduced by many points. Whether nanotechnology would be able to "fix" that problem, I do not know. However, these events do suggest that IQ, at least, is something quite delicate which is easily damaged by the ischemic or other major traumas of even survivable procedures. Hands up all those who will be satisfied to be restored 100 years from now with memories intact but with an IQ 20 points lower! -- Paul -- Voice/Fax: 909-481-9620 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=9814