X-Message-Number: 9816
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 11:00:57 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #9802 - #9813

Hi to everyone!

Well, once more for Mr. Clark (and since Bob Ettinger has gotten into
this something for him too).

Let's see here. My very first comment is that it simply isn't enough,
when talking about how our brains might be changed by cryopreservation,
to leave the matter so open as Ralph did. It is quite possible to test
empirically to get an idea of just how much motion may occur. Naturally
the kind of motion makes a big difference; that is a big problem. 
Neurons are close to one another, and there are many different kinds.
Just by saying that things have been jostled around a bit, we still 
don't know whether the puzzle can be put back together. Survival of
memory, which I believe is what we are really after, will require that
we put back the puzzle to an as yet unknown degree of exactness. Not
only that, but movement may involve rotation, plus the intrusion of
other tissue into cracks. 

In one sense I agree with Ralph: I too am optimistic. But if we are going
to talk about the motion of brain tissue and cells and cell parts during
the freezing process, we should get some DATA first. I do not believe
there is any general argument which would allow us to avoid that need
for data. It simply isn't enough to talk generally about how we will be
able to locate every atom and molecule. Since our memory very likely
exists on a higher level than the molecular, we need to know how badly
that higher level has been disrupted. And that will need more knowledge
about brains.

For instance, consider synapses. By some process as yet unknown, our
memories may be stored in the "strength" (left undefined) of synapses.
Fine. But does freezing with cryoprotectants disarrange the structures
responsible for this storage? It is important here to know that synapses
have tended to be more durable than the cell membranes themselves.
That, to me, is much more pertinent information than any future ability
to locate atoms and molecules precisely.

Again, single synapses dislodgd from their neurons won't tell us a 
lot. However it turns out that neurons don't all use the same neuro-
transmitters, and hence by examining the receptors on a synapse we
can exclude some possible candidates for its original location, and
list others. 

I'm not talking generally, I'm talking neuroscience. 

Bob discusses various points about the general physics of freezing.
Yes, LARGE cracks do happen, and in that case it's clear that we know
how to put them together. But I've not yet heard any detailed data about
the fine, lower level cracks and how they behave in brain tissue. Do we
get something sharp, or do you just get a collection of pieces which
began by being distorted and partly frozen, and then froze completely.
Brain tissue is a complex form of matter, which can't be modelled as if
it were a uniform volume. If Ralph, or Bob, or anyone wants to do the
experiments needed to get better models, then I'll happily help out.
One major problem that I see is that our memories probably exist in
the fine connectivity of our neurons. If the pieces don't retain their
original shape, we can't use shape to fit them together. Yes, there
are chemical clues that may help --- but that is neuroscience.

In my original posting that started this off, I gave quite a number of
questions which could be answered now or soon, though they would take
lots of work. I hope that we get around to answering them, since

they will take us away from the very general arguments with have 
dubious application to a discussion of just what happens. If we are 
going to model the behavior of brains when frozen, we need to get more
parameters. It's simply not enough to make simple assumptions and 
decide on that basis that repair will likely be possible. A lot is
going to depend on the traits of this complex form of matter we call
our brain.

As for Goldwater: too bad, one more.

And just a little for Mr. Mazanec: 
I've already explained why I think cryonics won't go away. There will
always be conditions which we don't know how to fix at any given time,
though we can hope someday to learn how to fix them. My arguments here
come simply from the fact that we will never totally control the 
Universe. I would even argue that we'll never totally understand it,
but to fix anything we need control, not just understanding.

And I've also explained the problems that will arise when we can 
reverse suspensions. Fine. This will mean that we can tell someone who
has a currently incurable disease that he can be suspended for an
indefinite time and hope for a cure. And that he will know that he
can be revived at any time in the same dying condition he had before.
The problem with "currently incurable diseases" is that most people
will consider them to be similar to death: not just currently incurable,
but something for which a cure is IMPOSSIBLE. Will they ever shake
themselves loose from that idea? 

Incidentally, we're seeing yet one more case of the impossible cure
slowly moving into possibility. There's been lots of work over the
last few years aimed at repairing broken spinal cords, with significant
advances in animals. Go back 25 years and tell doctors about this, and
they would not have believed you. They would probably simply write
you off as another crank.

I believe that the main reason (though it has many byways
modifications) for which most people will not consider cryonics is
that when they do so they must consider their own death, which they
don't want to do. And all their excuses for not thinking about cryonics
come down to ways to avoid thinking about their death.

			Best to all, and long long life to all,

				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9816