[extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly? - No

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Tue Apr 20 12:38:02 UTC 2004

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

> Ok Brett, I'll tackle some of this now.  Perhaps more later.

Fair enough. No rush.

> > [Robert]
> > >  I would like to correct a misperception -- cryonics does *not*
> > > strictly require the disassembly of the brain.
> >
> > I think you are making a distinction without an important difference.
> > Its of course trivially true that cryonics - a purported potential
> > procedure does require anything. Its not a person.
> > [snip]
> > But go ahead and show me if you can, how Robert Bradbury's
> > superior perception of cryonics can do both an end-run around
> > entropy and extract sufficient information on personal neuronal
> > structures to produce even a very good *copy* of the original self.
> I don't have to show you.  Its documented in Ralph Merkle's paper
> on the "The molecular repair of the brain" [1] (which is about 10 years
> old now).

No you don't *have* to show me or anybody anything. BTW your
citations [1, 2, 3 etc don't map to anything.]

> Freezing doesn't damage *most* of the cellular structures
> we know that because we can freeze bacteria, yeast, sperm, eggs, etc.
> and revive them and they function perfectly well.

No relevant.

> The problem with
> freezing (as it is now done) vs. vitrification is that one gets
> fractures at the macroscale and that disrupts things like blood
> vessels, axon structure, etc.

> So long as you ..... have nanotech that can put things back together
> properly the fractures are not a problem.

So it's trivial then. All we need is nanosantas :-)

I'd noted that a lot of the keenest advocates of molecular manufacturing
seem to be pretty keen on cryonics as well. Perhaps a cynic might
see a link there ;-).

All we need to make cryonics - one purported potential techinolgy
that most people don't believe in to work - is that we get another purported
potential technology to work that most people don't believe in.

I can't imagine why that's so hard :-)

> So I would assert that in a significant fraction of cryonics patients
> you can put a "humpty dumpty" brain back together again (so long
> as you are dealing with solid material where there is little
> entropic effect).

I guess it hard to provide more details then the "humpty dumpty" stuff
because you are time constrained. Aren't we all.

> Now, there *are* some secondary effects due to external and internal
> radiation.  Robert Freitas has looked at part of this [2], though I'm
> not at liberty to release it.

Then I'm not a liberty to be persuaded by it. And more to the point
it can't persuade others that don't see it either.  I'm only one person
and I don't even vote in the US.

I know that you are aware that both cryonics and molecular manufacturing
ala Drexler are not exactly supported by a majority of scientists let alone
a majority of voters (voters matter cause they vote). So its not like
you have no incentive to communicate an argument if you have a good

> It looks like this isn't a significant
> problem for individuals who are frozen for at least hundreds of
> years (longer time scales -- such as interstellar travel times
> might start to present problems).

Your visual acuity is remarkable ;-) Now if only you could communicate
what you see.

> > No one isn't. No one has. Or do you have evidence that brains have
> > been reanimated after undergoing a cryonics "preservation"
> > procedure that I don't? If so please share.
> No direct evidence.

>  I am extending the idea that if many types of cells can be frozen
> and reanimated and function properly that the cells of the brain
> can be as well.  Eugen or Anders might know if people have
> actually frozen and reanimated neurons.

By Eugen and Anders didn't tell me seek to correct the
misperception - indicated either - you did. Its your perception
that you work from isn't it?

> One could argue that one might lose some fraction of the cells
> in the process -- *but* you are losing cells every day [3].

I know.

> I'm working on the basis of personal experience -- I've actually
> ordered Deinococcus radiodurans that were freeze dried at the
> ATCC and grown them in the lab.

This is a country mile from refuting my assertion.

>  You can't assert (to me) that
> one cannot recover frozen cells to a fully functional state.

No I can't. Indeed I know that in nature frogs do freeze
sometimes and thaw out in the winter. But your changing
the subject.

> > > Sooo... using my original analogy you may (*or may not*) get
> > > back your original atoms in their original structural form.
> >
> > I'm saying you can't. No way. No chance. But please show me if
> > you can, if you really think you can.
> Ok, first let me assert that you do not from day to day retain
> unchanging structural forms -- not at the molecular level.

Didn't say I did. I know I do.

> Ribosomes, neurotransmitters, neuroreceptors, etc. are all
> being recycled (broken down and rebuilt) at some rate (so the
> atoms and many molecules that were in one place yesterday are
> not the same atoms and molecules that may be in those places today).
> So this isn't a strict requirement.

I did not say they were and your still trying to change the subject.

> But this goes back to my discussion of the disassembly of Mars.

Irrelevant. Mars is even less biological than your other diversions.

> If you have the computer resources to compress and someplace
> to store the compressed information it is perfectly reasonable
> to disassemble things atom-by-atom and record the information
> (there are multiple experiments with AFMs and STMs doing this
> kind of thing now even without nanotech).

So you are talking about disassembling after all. Just about
something you know rather than about the misperception you
sought to correct.

> Now if you add an extra step of sorting and storing the atoms
> as you perform the  disassembly process, *and* you have robust
> nanotech, then  reassembly using the original atoms seems
> reasonable.

Now your arguing for *my* side and talking about DOING the
very comprehesive disassembly I stated that you'd need to do.

> Now
> with biological systems since there is so much redundancy
> (in the genomes and proteins)

Irrelevant - the structures of cells and of neurons are not
determinable by genomic and proteomic factors alone.

If you could make your case at the neuronal level that would
be pretty impressive. But you can't.

Brett Paatsch

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list