A view on cryonics (was Re: [extropy-chat] Bad Forecasts!)

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

Brett Paatsch wrote:

>>>Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>### Now, this is news to me: do you think that Euclid's parallel axiom
>>is true? False? Neither? Non-scientific?
>>    
>>
>
>I think it is true. I'd hold it to be true until such time as I was shown
>that it was false.  Is it scientific? I can't see that it is scientific. I
>think that some things can be true without being scientific. I think
>that to practice science requires understanding some things at a more
>fundamental level than science because if we don't we can't do
>science.  Among these things, as chance would have it, is the notion
>of what identity is.  That A is A. That A is not anything that is not
>A.  I don't think a person can practice the scientific method without
>understanding contingency. One needs to be able to formulate a
>hypothesis that is intelligible and falsifiable.
>  
>
### Hm, I mentioned axiomatic systems with apparent usefulness in the 
real world as an example of something which appears to have an "obvious" 
truth value, yet on closer examination turns out to be a changeable part 
of a greater whole. You can state the parallel axiom as true, and go on 
to prove the theorems of Euclidean geometry, or reject it and go on to 
build non-Euclidean geometries (some of which are also "true" in the 
sense of having predictive capability in some physical systems).

All this goes to say that the scientific method frequently doesn't 
really produce absolute yes/no pronouncements (much to the chagrin of 
people who search for certitude in this vale of uncertainty).
------------------------------------

>I think Slawomir's notion of identity (Personal Identity) is better than
>yours. Not because it is his, but because it sets the bar the highest and
>you can understand it too. You can define a lesser requirement than
>the maintenance of full Personal Identity as still being desirable and
>of value to you and too your taste just as easily. You can coin another
>word that is less confusing.
>  
>
### You used the word "better". This is a value statement. When I say a 
Corvette is better than Prius, it's because I value its horsepower and 
speed more than the greeny "Friend of the Earth" image of the Prius. 
There is no objective method of proving which car is better, and your 
saying that Slawek's PI is "better" than mine is an expression of your 
own values, or tastes.

Now, as to coining a new term for my feeling of what is identity, I 
actually did use the word "Rafalness" in some previous discussions, to 
illustrate the subjective nature of our attitudes towards it - but, why 
should *I* yield linguistic ground? Why not ask you and Slawek to coin 
your own term?

Generally, in social practice, the meaning of terms tends to become set 
by majorities of users, and "personal identity" will be no exception. If 
the majority of users decide to accept non-continuous personality 
transfer (any transfers where information is conveyed, but no specified 
material objects are) as preserving identity, then this will be the 
meaning of the term.

Future multitudes of English speakers, not you or me, will decide.

----------------------------

> The point is we can explore a subject systematically and scientifically
>
>if we chose to, and historically I think we'd agree approaching things
>scientifically is useful, but we preclude the possibility of doing it
>jointly if we cannot agree on the meaning of a some key words.
>
>Logic and reason are more fundamental than science. So too is
>the ability to coin words.
>  
>
### Now, of course, agreeing on the meaning of words is important for 
discourse, and if underlying concepts diverge while the word remains the 
same, the discussion becomes impossible. It is easy to coin words to 
describe elements of reality that of themselves hold little personal 
value, which is why so little controversy surrounds the naming of 23rd 
magnitude celestial objects, or the genitalia of monocot plants. But, 
for issues so important as survival and self, simply coining a new word 
might not be enough - as I alluded above, giving linguistic ground might 
be interpreted as a sign of semantic weakness. You suggested: "You can 
define a lesser requirement than the maintenance of full Personal 
Identity....". Note the belittling of my concept of identity ("lesser"), 
and the exaltation of yours by using capital letters. Why should I 
accept meekly your overbearing attitude? Can't we just amicably agree on 
different but equal personal identities for each of us? Must there be 
the one that rules and the one that obeys?

(You might note that although the above is meant in a tongue-in-cheek 
fashion, there is a grain of seriousness - the suppression of dissent 
usually does start with quibbling about words. Let's not go that way).

(And another remark - how can the ability to coin words be more 
"fundamental" than science? But this is just a tangent)
----------------------------------------

>------------------------------------------
>  
>
>>The statement:
>>"I like the idea of having a self-similar material structure in the
>>future" is normative, and its normative content *may not* be subject to
>>verification - just as the normative content of your statement "I don't
>>care about having self-similar material structures in the future, except
>>if produced by continuity (of sorts) with my present structure".
>>    
>>
>
>By normative I'm assuming you mean statements that express
>preferences or norms but not truths.
>  
>
### Yes.

------------------------------------------

>>>      
>>>
>>###  Yes, my personality-defining information is inscribed in my brain,
>>currently. My aspirations for cryonics deal with this excellently.
>>    
>>
>
>...........your brain.  You simply positied another layer of containment
>where I omitted the middle container. You foot is in your shoe even
>if it is also in your sock that is in your shoe.
>  
>
### But a foot is not a concept, a mind is.

--------------------------------

>  
>
>>### I don't know how you can claim that a concept is
>>"located" anywhere. A concept may be written down in a
>>particular book, or be embodied in a patented machine,
>>but the word "located" should only be used for
>>material objects.
>>    
>>
>
>Well we are talking about the self concept which is a special
>case,  but even so wouldn't you agree that all concepts that
>you comprehend (as opposed to their representations) you
>comprehend in you brain?
>
>Concepts are represented symbolically in books and interpreted
>in the brain would be how I'd look at it.
>  
>
### But they are "located" in neither.

-------------------------

>At THIS time I suspect the best copies of you you could make would
>involve genomic information.  Children.
>  
>
### Nah, if you think about children as copies of self, they are hardly 
worth the effort. They have only 50% of your genetic information, and 
only an infinitesimally small fraction of memories (conveyed by speech 
and thus distorted and tagged with a "non-self" identifier, just like 
the images evoked by my father's stories about Hitlerjugend are only 
very poor approximations of the real deal). Not to mention that the 
general personality traits are likely to be largely different from mine.

I made children not as a copy of self, but simply because I like the 
idea of having children for their own sake.

-----------------------------------------------

> <>Haven't you ever decided not to bother correcting someone with a
> religious or superstitious world view not because you couldn't but
> because you had better things to do with your time than to try to talk
> someone out of what to them is a pleasing fastasy world?
>
### Well, if they appear to be polite, and otherwise coherent, so far I 
have not refused to talk - partially because I meet such people so 
rarely. But, there is a difference between not wanting to talk (which 
may be because you have no time, or because you have no arguments), and 
publicly deriding a belief (which implies interest and time), while 
failing to provide arguments against (which is most consistent with 
having none).

------------------------------------


> <>
>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Death as determined how?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### By cessation of heartbeat.
>>    
>>
>
>Some folks might prefer to have a doctor react for a defibrillator in
>that circumstances as a first choice. Others might think CPR would
>be worth a first try.
>  
>
### If this is in the hospice, me with terminal cancer, I would have big 
"DNR" (Do Not Resuscitate) written all over my room. Otherwise, indeed, 
a defib shot in the first 5 minutes is better, because you have a good 
chance of meaningful recovery.

------------------------------

>So 30 minutes after cessation of heartbeat, cryonics vitrification
>commences. How long does the vitrification process take? Or
>was that in your 30 minutes?
>
>  
>
### The process takes many hours. First there is injection of heparin 50 
000 units IV, bicarbonate to keep pH at 7.5, and cooling with external 
ice bath. At the same time the surgical team gets ready for decapitation 
and cannulation of carotids and vertebral arteries, then the washout 
starts, with gradients of vitrification solutions and further cooling, 
then very fast cooling with cold gas, then either maintenance in cold 
gas (still experimental at Alcor), or submersing in liquid nitrogen. All 
in all this takes at least 5 hours, usually much longer (but the "warm 
ischemia time", the time that has a direct impact on cell integrity, can 
be reduced to less than 30 minutes). If I had my druthers, I would do a 
glutaraldehyde fixation and prolonged perfusion with cryoprotectants  
before final cooldown, but this is just a methodological quibble for now 
(it could make some future steps easier but is not absolutely 
indispensable).

-------------------------------------------

>>
>>    
>>
>>>Down to (and including the synapses I presume) - you'd want
>>>your memories. To capture you personal synapse pattern you'd
>>>need nanoscale resolution.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### The resolution provided by a near-field scanning optical
>>microscope is more than sufficient (goes down to 32 nm) to image
>>synapses (500 - > 5000 nm). A confocal scanning microscope
>>has lower resolution but still sufficient to image synapses (and
>>even actin filaments).
>>    
>>
>
>>From memory the pores in an cells nucleus can be as narrow
>as 15 nanometres and yet things like retinoic acids and the steroid
>hormones are small enough to pass through them.
>
>Liposomes can be as small as 25 nm.
>
>I'm just curious - what do you think the diametre of a lipid
>membrane in an organelle is?
>  
>
### You mean the thickness of a lipid bilayer?

------------------------------------

>>### This is why you need to use a confocal or near-field
>>scanning microscope, as described.
>>    
>>
>
>One microscope? how long do you imagine your scanning is going
>to take to finish ?
>
>  
>
### It should be possible to build a microscope array with multiple 
independent scanning and machining beams. A single scan of an area 100 
millimeter square with one scanning beam can be accomplished in less 
about 10 seconds, depending on the desired sensitivity. The final speed 
of scanning will depend on the density of scanning heads. As far as I 
can tell, there are no fundamental technical limits to putting dozens of 
beams to operate on one brain surface simultaneously, imaging and 
machining layers of about 10 micrometer thickness. This means it should 
be possible to achieve a speed in the range of 10 micrometers per minute 
per brain surface, or better. Since the brain is about 10 centimeters in 
the vertical axis, it might be possible to collect the data in less than 
a thousand minutes.

------------------------------------

>>Non-proteinaceous
>>molecular species can also be detected by antibodies.
>>    
>>
>
>Antibodies in solution? Or are these machine-phase antibodies?
>  
>
### Regular, garden-variety antibodies labeled with quantum dots.

-------------------------------

>  
>
>>In the
>>unlikely case of nucleic acids assays being necessary, oligonucleotide
>>in situ hybridization can be used (FISH). You can actually see
>>single molecules in a regular microscope in this way.
>>    
>>
>
>miRNAs?
>
>  
>
### DNA, RNA, anything you like. There are a number of widely used 
protocols.

>>
>>    
>>
>>>How do you stop
>>>the tissue below the surface layer from heating up and information
>>>      
>>>
>getting
>  
>
>>>lost before you determine it?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### Using very short laser pulses of the correct frequency. Published
>>data describe no visible ultrastructural damage beyond a few hundred
>>nanometers with conventional lasik, and that is much less than the depth
>>of focus for a scanning confocal microscope.
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt that there is a lot of relevant published data. Do you have a link?
>I'd have thought there might be a variety of frequencies.
>  
>
### The frequency used commonly is 193 nm, from an excimer laser, but 
yes, other frequencies are used, too. There is a large amount of 
evidence about the depth of thermal damage in tissue ablation: Telfair 
WB, Bekker C, Hoffman HJ, Yoder PR Jr, Nordquist RE, Eiferman RA, Zenzie 
HH.     Related Articles, Links
Abstract     Histological comparison of corneal ablation with Er:YAG 
laser, Nd:YAG optical parametric oscillator, and excimer laser.

J Refract Surg. 2000 Jan-Feb;16(1):40-50.  Fagerholm P.     Related 
Articles, Links
Abstract     Phototherapeutic keratectomy: 12 years of experience.
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003 Feb;81(1):19-32. Review

The visibly destroyed tissue can be as little as .25 micrometer.

And please note that it is possible to reach depths of as much as 100 
micrometers using a confocal microscope - so the few hundred nanometers 
of destroyed tissue at the surface don't really mean anything. You can 
obtain multiple overlapping images from successive ablation scans, to 
maintain the slices in full register.

------------------------------------------

>>    
>>
>>>3D reconstruction onto what substrate?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### 3D computational model.
>>    
>>
>
>How can you tell that your model works? Its a model. Where
>do you get your mapping algorithm?
>  
>
### I am not sure what kind of an algorithm do you mean? The microscope 
provides 3D images of slices, and the algorithms for reconstruction are 
sold as part of the microscope, so this is what would be presumably used.

--------------------------------


>>
>>    
>>
>>>Surely not the same sort of organic substrate as originally - how
>>>would you put it together without it decomposing. And if on
>>>some other substrate how would you translate
>>>the infromation from the first substrate (unique info remember as
>>>memories
>>>can't be templated out) onto another substrate?
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### What do you mean by "templated out"?
>>    
>>
>
>Using a generic template of what would be typical when you can't
>determine what was actually there.
>  
>
### I would use the actual synaptic strengths from the brain under 
analysis, not generic ones.

--------------------------------------

>>-------------------
>>
>>    
>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>All the above steps use existing technologies, and reasonable extensions
>>>>of them (e.g. the antibodies to all important molecules are not yet
>>>>available, but will be once the molecules are cataloged).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You don't say how you will do important steps. You don't talk about
>>>algorithms
>>>for storing information,
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### Algorithms? The intermediate scan data can be stored as any other
>>form of digital imaging data.
>>    
>>
>
>Your going to take nanoscale photos? How?
>  
>
### Apply the commercially-available 3D reconstruction algorithms which 
are incorporated into the microscope. The resolution available is 
sufficient to image individual synapses.

----------------------------------------


>  
>
>>----------------------------------
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>for translation that information into something
>>>that
>>>could be ported to another sunstrate.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>### Explain?
>>    
>>
>
>In Merkles paper he was going to try and store the locations of
>species of molecules and where they were found. But that information'
>would not tell you where to put the molecules to form Rafals personal
>memories on another substrate unless exactly the same sort of substrate
>spatially and materially was used.
>
>There would be problems trying to create an organic brain of the same
>stuff as yours without it decomposing while it was being put together.
>  
>
### Oh, yes, there would be a substantial amount of work to be done in 
deriving the functional characteristics of neural networks from the 
description of their connectivity patterns, shapes of projections, 
chemical and physical properties of the cells. This is indeed the major 
remaining obstacle, both in terms of the huge amount of computing power, 
and the necessary detailed knowledge of the brain on many physical 
levels of organization. But, since the material structure of the brain 
determines the function, it's a task which should be in principle doable.

>  
>
>>The outline I gave suffices to define my proposed cryonics
>>approach. Now, if are you ready to give me a technical critique yourself
>>, tell me which additional data do you need, and which numbers that I
>>provided above and below do you disagree with.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not ready because your not ready.
>  
>
### With all due respect, I think you are trying to weasel out of doing 
a technical analysis of the problem.

>
>I think cryonics will not and cannot work. I am willing to take some
>reasonable steps to persuade you and to put myself to the test against
>someone who can defend developed ideas but I don't want to have
>to make the pro case as well as refute it. That takes way too much
>time.
>
>  
>
### I made an extensive case for cryonics, dealing quantitatively with 
questions of suspension, persistence of the material substrate of 
personality, methods for information retrieval, and the only issue I 
didn't elaborate on is neural net modeling from biological data. If you 
want to persuade me you know something when you say "cryonics cannot 
work", now is the time for your arguments.

--------------------

> 
>
>>From my point of view Slawomir has made his case. The sort of
>pattern preserving but not process preserving cryonics your aiming
>at wouldn't interest me anyway in itself.
>
### Yeah, I know, we are not interested in the same outcomes. But, if 
you have so little interest in the success of cryonics (because as we 
both agree, by definition it cannot give you what you want, even if it 
works exactly as advertised), why are you intent on "nailing a bad 
cryonics meme"?

Witch-hunt, anybody?

Rafal



> But I am interested because
>of the implications for nanomedicine. I've already explored this space
>to a fair extent and I'd be happy to get some proper closure for my
>efforts by nailing a bad cryonics meme once and for all.
>
### You sound like one of those guys who insist on having an opinion