[extropy-chat] Cryonics without comprehensive brain disassembly? - No
Robert J. Bradbury
bradbury at aeiveos.com
Tue Apr 20 17:06:12 UTC 2004
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> No you don't *have* to show me or anybody anything. BTW your
> citations [1, 2, 3 etc don't map to anything.]
How annoying (editing error). Let me try again (see the end of the msg).
> So it's trivial then. All we need is nanosantas :-)
Not completely true -- one does probably need at least
highly parallel AFMs/STMs -- or alternatively very clever
bioengineered cells that are very good at the repair of
tissue that has been damaged (engineered stem cells for
> 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 ;-).
Of course. People supporting cryonics presumably have to have
some optimism that the problems will be solved in one way or
another. MM is a relatively well defined path by which one might
build the necessary technical components to solve the problems
involved in cryonics.
Re: other technologies
> I can't imagine why that's so hard :-)
People are working on alternate technologies all the time.
Survival of ischemia-reperfusion injury is a classic example.
> I guess it hard to provide more details then the "humpty dumpty" stuff
> because you are time constrained. Aren't we all.
Fractured samples of solid objects have a reasonably unique 3D
structure. That is why I can take 2 pieces of fractured diamond
and precisely put them back together (mind you one would need something
relatively complex to rejoin covalent bonds that have been broken) --
but reassembly of fractured biological tissue is much simpler because
most, if not all, of the bonds that will be broken will be hydrogen
bonds and these will naturally self-assemble themselves.
> 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'll ask Robert F. if it is ok to release the paper.)
> > 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?
I'm not sure I understand this question. E/A may simply be more
familiar with whether or not neurons or brain tissue have been
frozen and thawed and returned to am operational state.
> This is a country mile from refuting my assertion.
Ok, since this has been a long thread -- why don't you restate
Mine would be:
1) It is probably possible to repair the brain using the original
atoms and structure after it has been frozen (this is in part
the subject of ).
2) It is probably possible to completely disassemble a brain to
an atomic level and reassemble it if one has advanced MNT capabilities.
3) It is probably possible to completely disassemble a brain, map
out its neural architecture and reassemble it on completely
different hardware (e.g. uploading).
2. R. A. Freitas, "Implications of Natural Internal Radiation
(Endoradiation) for the Reanimation of Cryonics Patients"
3. Pakkenberg, B. & Gundersen, H. J. G., "Neocortical Neuron
Number in Humans: Effect of Sex and Age", J. of Comparative
Neurology 384:312-320 (1997)
More information about the extropy-chat