152 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Which are you signed up for, or which are you planning to sign up for? There are certain benefits to either choice, Neuropreservation or Full Body preservation, or so it seems. If you feel strongly about one way or the other, please state why.

[Centurion]

All of meee why not take allll of meee. Frank songs aside, whole body is my option once it becomes available to me.

[jaydfox]

At this point, I'm planning to sign up for neruo. When the technology advances to the point that I feel secure in having a full body without sacrificing brain preservation, I'll probably go with that, on the off chance that those with neuros have to wait behind those with full bodies to be revived, due to the need to grow a new body.

I haven't signed up yet, mainly due to financial reasons. And on a side note, I have major philosophical problems with the idea of cryonics for me personally (but not for anyone else; it's mainly a solipsistic concern, so everyone else, please sign up!). But once I can reasonably afford it, I figure my signing up will not only ensure my own physical continuance, it will also help support the movement and and in some small way help cryonics be available to more people, which I strongly believe in.

[quadclops]

I've signed up with the Cryonics Institute for Whole Body Suspension, because it's currently the only option they offer, and I liked their prices better than Alcor's.

Emotionally, I have no problem with the Neuro-option though, as I was once considering strongly to sign up for it with Alcor, some years ago, before I discovered CI.

[Bruce Klein]

OK, Jay.. I am signed up as a head only. Total cost is about $600/yr, which includes a life insurance policy premium and an annual Alcor membership. This comes to less than $50/mth for the world's best human brain back-up program... in case of accidental power outage.

[Infernity]

The mind is what important. The body is nothing more than a box that maintains it...

-Infernity

[Centurion]

True, but it would be a shame if there were no means to recreate that box in the future. Futurama glass jars abound....

[chubtoad]

$50/mth

hmm cable or backing up my brain...?

[Bruce Klein]

hmm cable or backing up my brain...?

[lol]

[Live Forever]

Do you have your insurance with Rudi Hoffman or someone else, Bruce?

[Bruce Klein]

I purchased insurance online a few years back (before I knew Rudi).

[lunarsolarpower]

The mind is what important. The body is nothing more than a box that maintains it...

While this is true to some degree, there are many phenotypic elements that we know are developmental rather than genetic in origin. It's truely a shame that neurosuspension gives a better result at this time. I want to know what prevents a combination of the best of both types from being offered?

[jaydfox]

want to know what prevents a combination of the best of both types from being offered?

I'll toss this out here until someone more knowledgeable comes along and sets me straight.

In order to achieve the best possibly results for brain preservation, the brain must be cooled as rapidly and uniformly as possible, and the perfusion of the cryonic preservative must be as rapid and even as possible, within certain reasonable bounds.

With the neuro-preservation, all the attention goes into the head. With the whole body preservation, it's much more difficult to vitrify the entire body, as it takes much longer (due to size, limited blood flow to various tissues/organs, etc.). With blood/cryoprotectant circulating through the whole body, it'd be difficult for the brain to get too far ahead of the body, in terms of temperature, unless two separate blood flows were maintained (which the body wasn't really designed for: there's only one aorta).

There is a hybrid approach, where the brain is vitrified but the body is at best partially vitrified, and mostly just frozen (but still better than a straight freezing). However, I'm not sure if this process reduces even slightly the effectiveness of the neuro-preservation. If not, I may opt for this procedure. If there is a slight drop in effectiveness for the brain preservation, I'll stick with neuro for now (though probably get a life insurance policy big enough to cover a full body option at a later time, if the cost difference is small enough).

[Infernity]

Of course I don't forget that the experience you have, and memory in your brain would not be the same if you had no body..But still, the brain is what I'd save.

-Infernity

[DJS]

With the neuro-preservation, all the attention goes into the head. With the whole body preservation, it's much more difficult to vitrify the entire body, as it takes much longer (due to size, limited blood flow to various tissues/organs, etc.). With blood/cryoprotectant circulating through the whole body, it'd be difficult for the brain to get too far ahead of the body, in terms of temperature, unless two separate blood flows were maintained (which the body wasn't really designed for: there's only one aorta).

Just speculating, but couldn't you instead preserve the brain and body separately and thereby avoid these technical difficulties (if cost isn't a factor).

Anyway, I agree with Infernity. Who cares about their body? Surely, even if one did care, the fidelity wouldn't as much of an issue as it is with the brain/mind. Body preservation is an aesthetic thing rather than an identity thing - this discussion will probably seem quite silly to future beings. However, if one is really set on maintaining a particular physical appearance in the future, then the cheaper option would be to extensively measure and photograph the body at various points in its life trajectory for the purpose of future recreation.

Personally, I am looking forward to upgrades, but I might still go with the good ol 2000 Don from time to time.

[Live Forever]

I don't think it matters what the current technology is, the head alone will always be much easier to preserve than the whole body. I don't think it matters if it is vitrification, or the ability to get cryoprotectants perfused as quickly, or anything else that may come in the future. The whole body just takes longer and requires more procedure than the head alone, so there will always be a slight preservation advantage (imo) to neuropreservation as opposed to whole body preservation.

Just speculating, but couldn't you instead preserve the brain and body separately and thereby avoid these technical difficulties (if cost isn't a factor).

Yes, I think some people have done this as well, paid for a neurosuspension and a full body suspension, and then have the body as well as the head in seperate dewars. I would think there would be certain advantages to this if someone had enough money to do so.



Also, I found it interesting that the main reason the Cryonics Institute gives for not doing "neurocryopreservation" (as they call it) is for cultural reasons.

In their own words:

Journalists and horror novelists invariably have a field day with 'frozen severed heads', and focus not on the scientific or humanitarian sense of cryonics, but on making cryonics look grotesque or ridiculous.  Why ask for such trouble - trouble that can put a patient at risk?

I wonder how much of a detrimental effect that neuro-only preservation has on cryonics? ...And, also, how many people choose full body preservation because they think the neuro would be harder to take for their family? (having a head detached is kind of spooky culturally)

[Live Forever]

Has anyone here initially chosen one and then switched at a later point? (Either start out with a full body contract, then change your mind and change it to a neuro, or vice versa)

[garethnelsonuk]

I will be signing up for full body with instructions for emergency conversion to neuro. My thought is rather simple - what if my body is required even as a reference for rewiring the nervous system and it's been destroyed? Taking it with me avoids these problems and I believe that vitrification of the brain that is imperfect is still enough to preserve the information.

[Lazarus Long]

I am undecided from the underlying assumption to the given selection here.

Frankly I see cryo as no more (or less) valid than Pascal's wager.

That said I must say that I favor neuro over whole body in principle, but that principle is probably more committed to uploading tech than cranial cryo.

For cryo to have an increased chance of success I think the whole body method improves the odds because cranial cryo depends too much on specifically advanced nanotech, and logically dependent processes that we are only hypothesizing about today.

The pragmatics of those processes are likely to turn out differently than our expectations and that influences the odds of success for the process.

That said if we have the kinds of advanced nanotech that meet the current expectations then the same tech can be applied in a number of ways to increase the odds of all the currently available methods, including living state uploading.

Will uploading protect the body I currently inhabit?

( Yes that is an implicit assumption of duality in the mind/body problem but that assumption is implicit in the choice offered in this topic for cryo tech.)

Probably not but rebuilding a broken yet relatively complete corpse and ALSO returning the *personality* (memory character) of the body are two different problems predicated on having an accurate map of the original inhabitant of the body in the first place.

That or you are placing a value in the body that implies just saving the head would not in itself be sufficient to retain. Cranial cryo depends not only on rebuilding the body from scratch (and perhaps even better than the original), it also depends on the ability to resurrect the conscious state of the body's mind before being frozen AND THEN interface old and new physiology. These actually are two different technologies, both of which are necessary to make the more limited (cranial) option possible.

Technically in the whole body option all you *might* need is the tech to repair the body to a functional state, since the support for a neurophysiology is already present. A neurophysiology, which either survived cryo (making this option possible) or the entire approach is moot without the second stage of cognitive interface development. This advanced tech amounts to a BCI interface with download ability from an advanced AI that can handle the temp file storage model during transcription into the neuro-physiological rebuild. This is because the transcription from the biological state to the encrypted state of pure information is required in the first place to make most cranial-cryo applications feasible.

That is unless the process offers a full body support structure that can provide for the thawed head, both as autonomic life support AND interactive sensory/motor controls. If so, then this tech logically depends on the same underlying principles as uploading/downloading human cognitive function.

If the up/download processing ability for advanced BCI interface becomes possible then the ability to store consciousness actively or inactively in an AI matrix would also be more reliable than depending on the original biology except as *additional* insurance. All that is really needed to rebuild the original physiology is sufficient seed tissue DNA with both mtDNA and nDNA to build from.

Once the body was built to a specific stage of development cognitive transfer could be initiated, probably in staged phases. Of course if you want an alternative from the specifics of the original body this becomes an option too.

In fact a myriad of such options becomes possible.

[xlifex]

At the annual CI meeting last year, Robert Ettinger proposed that CI should also offer a neuro option.

Unfortunately, there was some resistance from other CI directors.

[bgwowk]

Frankly I see cryo as no more (or less) valid than Pascal's wager.

This comparison is made often. Even Ralph Merkle still uses it in his cryonics talks. The problem with it is that it makes no allowance for the technology used to do cryonics. As extreme examples, consider permafrost interment, which has a probability of success of ZERO, and demonstrably reversible brain cryopreservation, which has a probability of success of ONE. There is a vast difference between all possible "might works" in between. If there is to be progress in the field, a more discerning perspective of the odds and how to improve them is needed rather than simply "better to be frozen than not."

For cryo to have an increased chance of success I think the whole body method improves the odds because cranial cryo depends too much on specifically advanced nanotech, and logically dependent processes that we are only hypothesizing about today.

By "cranial cryo" (not a recognized term) I assume you mean neuropreservation, which is preservation of the brain within the head. Preservation of the head is incidental to the goal of brain preservation, which is best done without removing the brain from its protective enclosure.

Terminology aside, which procedure really requires "specifically advanced nanotech," neuro or whole body? Growth of whole bodies from a single cell, even bodies without brains, is a technology already demonstrated in nature. No exotic nanotechnology is required. The goal of regenerating lost limbs, organs, and ultimately whole bodies around brains can be done by a combination of unmasking old growth programs and writing new developmental code into DNA of ordinary cells ("ordinary" cells that are these days called stem cells). The point is that regenerating new bodies around brains doesn't require anything qualitatively different from what nature already does. The same biochemistry, same cell types, same cellular machinery can do it all. Only the programming need be adjusted.

Reparing freezing injury, especially extensive freezing injury, is another matter. If the proposal is to go through a body, and restore cells and cell components disrupted by ice crystals back into a healthy tissue state, that is a process without natural analog. We can see ways to do it, but doing so will require the design and creation of synthetic nanodevices (nanomechanical robots or at least synthetic microorganisms) like nothing in nature. It's possible according to laws of physics, but a step beyond anything yet seen in nature.

You could always say we don't need to repair freezing injury throughout a freeze-damaged body, we could just regenerate tissue instead. And of course that would be the simplest thing to do, but that just brings us back to the intrinsically simpler technology of regenerating whole bodies. When standard algorithms already exist for building things rather than repairing them (e.g. modern technological devices AND human bodies), replacement is generally easier than repair.

Probably not but rebuilding a broken yet relatively complete corpse...

Ahem (coughs, clears throat). "Corpse" is a very offensive word in cryonics because the imagery it conjurs up is antithetical to the practice and purposes of cryonics, which is preservation of life. The label is unjustified until a proper determination of the survival status of individual cryonics patients is eventually made. Yes, even in cryonics there is "political correctness".

Probably not but rebuilding a broken yet relatively complete (body) and ALSO returning the *personality* (memory character) of the body are two different problems predicated on having an accurate map of the original inhabitant of the body in the first place.

This is probably the best argument against neuropreservation; the regrown body might feel different, and lack certain learned motor skills. In response to this concern, it might be noted that a *really* advanced technology (the kind of technology that would be required for uploading) could theoretically analyze brain memory patterns to infer what body characteristics and neural connectivity wouldn't feel different. But that would be a very high level analysis of brain contents, and require more fine control over the regeneration process than discussed above.

There is one final argument in favor of whole body. If there is ever going to be reversible suspended animation of whole people, and if this is going to be developed before comprehensive tissue regeneration, then there must come a time when whole body preservation will be good enough to be reversible before neuro is reversible. This is not an argument in favor of whole body as much as it is argument for securing as much cryonics funding as you can if you are young so you can retain the option of switching to whole body later.

[benbest]

As extreme examples, consider permafrost interment, which has a probability of success of ZERO

Permafrost burial should be the final stage in a process that begins with good chemical preservation of the brain, possibly dehydration and an attempt to minimize exposure to oxygen (which could be something as simple as covering the person with waxy petroleum jelly). Under these circumstances I would not say permafrost has a zero probability of success, although other methods of preservation will nonetheless be associated with less injury and deterioration.

This is probably the best argument against neuropreservation; the regrown body might feel different, and lack certain learned motor skills.

I think a good argument against neuropreservation at present is the fact that the body may have many clues about a person's personal history which could assist in reconstructing the personality. The strongest argument against neuropreservation at CI is the political environment (within CI and within society). On the other hand, I have long favored preserving the body and head separately (although this is not feasible in the current political environment). Until we come close to the time where reversible whole body cryopreservation is within sight, perfusing a whole body will necessarily compromise the quality of perfusion of the brain. I think that the brain should be the main objective. In that sense, CI procedures amount to a neuropreservation to the extent that our initial perfusion with vitrification mixture concentrates on the brain (even though the body remains attached and may subsequently be perfused with etylene glycol).

[Centurion]

The mind is what important. The body is nothing more than a box that maintains it...

-Infernity

But you'd lose your singing voice [mellow] Unless there would be some way to approximate it from memory and recreate it.

[bgwowk]

Ben wrote:

I think a good argument against neuropreservation at present is the fact that the body may have many clues about a person's personal history which could assist in reconstructing the personality.

Surely you mean this in the same low-order sense of preserving photo albums or personal belongings. Usually when we refer to preservation or reconstruction of "personality" in cryonics, we mean personality in the deep sense of personal identity. Losing my body in some traumatic accident would change my personality by making me grumpy and depressed (to put it mildly), but not my personal identity. If I became a quadriplegic tomorrow, I'd still be me. Even if I got a crude Robert White-style body transplant, I'd still be me. Conversely, the existence of my body after destruction of my brain would not be the least bit useful in reconstructing my mind.

[benbest]

Ben wrote:

I think a good argument against neuropreservation at present is the fact that the body may have many clues about a person's personal history which could assist in reconstructing the personality.

Surely you mean this in the same low-order sense of preserving photo albums or personal belongings. Usually when we refer to preservation or reconstruction of "personality" in cryonics, we mean personality in the deep sense of personal identity. Losing my body in some traumatic accident would change my personality by making me grumpy and depressed (to put it mildly), but not my personal identity. If I became a quadriplegic tomorrow, I'd still be me. Even if I got a crude Robert White-style body transplant, I'd still be me. Conversely, the existence of my body after destruction of my brain would not be the least bit useful in reconstructing my mind.

I am not implying that the body contains consciousness. But I think that the record of life experiences that could be gained by studying the body would be much, much more instructive than what could be gained by studying photo albums. Even if not, it would be a very different kind of recording of experiences than photo albums, and valuable for the different insights it would offer.

[jaydfox]

I am not implying that the body contains consciousness. But I think that the record of life experiences that could be gained by studying the body would be much, much more instructive than what could be gained by studying photo albums. Even if not, it would be a very different kind of recording of experiences than photo albums, and valuable for the different insights it would offer.

Bear in mind, a person's very lifestyle may affect this to some degree. Athletes, or even just athletic people (e.g., a scientist who plays tennis on the weekends or whatever), will probably have a lot of their memories, skills, emotions, etc., tied up in physical things, and the reflexes and other aspects of the nervous system beyond the base of the brain stem would need to be preserved to capture much of that.

A person who loathes his or her body, or at least is very sedentary, may not be as psychologically impacted by the loss of that peripheral information.

[jaydfox]

This question is rather off the cuff, so to speak, so apologize for my ignorance: What about the spinal cord?

Remember in RoboCop II, when that criminal guy was reduced to a brain and spinal cord, floating in a vat? (I'm not saying RoboCop II gave me the idea, just that it has the visual imagery I'm going for.) I can see a case for preserving the spinal cord, if the whole body is not the best option. Would it be possible to save the spinal cord as well? Or would that be basically as difficult as saving the whole body? Would it perchance occupy a middle ground between the neuropreservation and whole body options, even if it could only be researched and made available once a lot more funding is available?

[Live Forever]

Yes, I had heard someone mention (I don't believe here) at some point that the spinal cord, or at least the very upper part of the spinal chord that attaches to the brain, might contain some useful information as well. I have no idea if there is any merit to this, however.

[Ghostrider]

I guess what I don't understand here is when is cyronics applied? I thought that death almost immediately results once blood stops flowing to the brain. So if you collapse at the shopping mall, how can you be saved in time before your brain goes permanently and irreversibly dead?

[Live Forever]

I guess what I don't understand here is when is cyronics applied?  I thought that death almost immediately results once blood stops flowing to the brain.  So if you collapse at the shopping mall, how can you be saved in time before your brain goes permanently and irreversibly dead?

Well, I am sure others know much more about this than I, but I think that
1) The brain might be irreversibly dead with today's technology, but that is not taking into account future advances (which would be required anyway)
2) I believe that there are studies on how much information is retained and for how long, and it is quite awhile, even before cool down procedures are started (of course I could be wrong about this)
3) There are procedures that can keep blood flowing (CPR, machines, etc.) artificially. If you were to collapse at the mall, the ambulance would already be trying to use these types of procedures on you, and when Alcor (or CI, or your family) were contacted, I would assume they would tell them to keep you on the machines until the cryonics team came
4) When the cryonics standby team (although I guess it really wouldn't officially be "standby" since you were already gone) came they would inject you with a variety of things (blood thinners and stuff I think), keep your blood flowing by artificial means, and start cooling you down. This would keep anything (or not much anyway) further from being lost from that point forward.


I don't think there is any way to know for certain how much is or is not lost, but this is of course the best option there is. How much brain information is lost from rotting in the ground? 100%!