[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
your assertion(s)?

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 [1]).
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).


1. http://www.merkle.com/cryo/techFeas.html
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 mailing list