9 replies to this topic

[Bruce Klein]

Chat Topic: Alcor Patient Care Assistant and author of "Forever for All", Mike Perry chats with ImmInst about his current work and the future of Cryonics.

Chat Time: Sunday Dec. 14, 2003 @ 8 PM Eastern
Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat
or, Server: irc.lucifer.com - Port: 6667 - #immortal




R. Michael Perry, Ph.D.
Patient Care Assistant
mike@alcor.org

From Alcor Bio Page

Dr. Perry was hired by Alcor in 1989 following two years of volunteer work at the Foundation. Dr. Perry monitors Alcor’s dewars, provides facility surveillance during off-work hours, and performs writing tasks and computer programming. Dr. Perry has authored or contributed to the automated cooldown and perfusion modeling programs, and has kept the patient log books current for many years. He is a regular contributor to Alcor newsletters.

Prior to becoming active in cryonics, Dr. Perry worked as a computer programmer from 1968 until 1987. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1979 with a B.S. in Mathematics. He received an M.S. in Computer Science from Colorado University in 1979, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the same institution in 1984.

Dr. Perry is a Director of the Society for Venturism and has been a member of this organization since 1986. He is an ordained minister in this organization and performs wedding ceremonies and memorial services. Dr. Perry has been a member of Alcor since 1984.

Dr. Perry has authored two books: Toward Self-Optimization of Machine Intelligence (Ph.D. Thesis), Los Osos, CA: Dove Systems, 1984; and Forever for All: Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, and the Scientific Prospects for Immortality, Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2000. A listing of Dr. Perry’s principal scientific papers follows:




Forever For All: Moral Philosophy, Cryonics, and the Scientific Prospects for Immortality By R. Michael Perry

Amazon
Universal Publishers

From the Publisher
This book considers the problems of death and the hereafter and how these ages-old problems ought to be addressed in light of our continuing progress. A materialistic viewpoint of reality is assumed, denying the likelihood of supernatural or other superhuman assistance. Death, however, is not seen as inevitable or even irreversible; it is maintained that the problem can and should be addressed scientifically in all of its aspects. The book thus follows recent, immortalist thinking that places hopes in future advances in our understanding and technology. A functionalist, reductionist argument is developed for the possibility of resurrecting the dead through the eventual creation of replicas and related constructs. Meanwhile, it is urged, medical advances leading to the conquest of biological death should be pursued, along with cryonics: freezing the newly deceased for possible, eventual reanimation. A common ground thus is sought between two hitherto largely independent strands of scientific immortalism, the one based on hopes in a remote but hyperadvanced future, the other on the nearer-term prospects of presently advancing technology. The resulting philosophy, encompassing both past and future, is directed toward the long-term interests of each sentient being, and it thereby acquires a moral dimension. The immortalization of humans and other life-forms is seen as a great moral project and labor of love that will unite us in a common cause and provide a meaningful destiny.

About the Author
Michael Perry has a Ph. D. in computer science and lives in Scottsdale, Arizona, where he works for Alcor Foundation, an organization that freezes people for possible later reanimation.

[Bruce Klein]

Message #22967
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:57:46 -0700
From: Mike Perry <mike@alcor.org>
Subject: Libertarianism, Cryonics, Religion


Recent exchanges on libertarianism inspired the following, with an
additional boost from some remarks on religion. I begin with some issues
that seemed to call for further, brief comment, then move on to tie in
libertarianism with cryonics and immortalism (albeit in a somewhat limited
way). Finally I address the subject of religion, with some thoughts on why
a scientific version may be both feasible and desirable at this point, and
some tentative suggestions of how I intend to proceed with such a project.


The point seems well-established that no libertarian system has been tried
and shown itself able to stand on its own and out-compete alternatives. I
argued that the failure of libertarianism to take firmer hold has deep
roots in human nature, including the fact that people exist, in some
measure, to perpetuate their genes rather than being motivated by more
rational self-interest. (It's the genes, we could say, that motivate their
hosts to do what is "rational" from the genes' point of view.) Some think
of the system in place in the days of the Founding Fathers as much closer
to a libertarian system than today's U.S. governmental apparatus and in
certain important ways they are right, particularly as regards the federal
government-though it was still not fully libertarian. They see the
historical trend, though, if I understand it right, as being one of a
steady erosion of individual freedoms and usurpation of authority, which
may culminate in a complete totalitarian system. The federal government, it
is true, has tremendously increased its powers and control over the past
two centuries, and this may seem to reflect an unstoppable trend toward
full totalitarianism. But I think that, if you consider the system as a
whole, which means government on all its levels, there are strong
countervailing tendencies. In 1790, for instance, women couldn't vote and
blacks could be owned as property. These things were not mandated in the
Constitution but were not forbidden either, and did exist as an accepted
part of the total system.


As our history unfolded, people demanded the abolition of slavery and the
enfranchisement of women, and these reforms took place. In some other ways
you can see progressive reforms, such as the elimination of "blue" laws
against working on religious holidays, outlawing of racial segregation, and
the recent Supreme Court decision banning laws against private sexual acts
between consenting adults. Other reforms are possible too, of course,
depending on what the people feel is right and proper and try to see
enacted via their power to vote. (And we have seen reforms in some other
countries too, most notably in the collapse of communism in the Soviet
Union and Europe and its ongoing accommodations with capitalism elsewhere.)
This brings us to the present.


Today we have better opportunities for both good and bad than ever before.
The bad possibilities should not be overlooked, but here I will focus on
the good ones, from an immortalist perspective. Mainly, we could transform
society into something that has never existed, and which bears comparison
with some of the religious concepts of heaven. We could eliminate diseases
and aging as well as poverty and even stupidity and the need for employment
as we now understand it (working at a job you would not choose if
independently wealthy).


Reforms on this level, though, would require, among other things, modifying
the basic human organism. Some fearful pessimists realize this could really
happen and is perhaps even starting already. They would impose legislative
measures to bring it to a stop before it goes very far. Their fear of the
possible downsides exceeds any appreciation of the possible benefits. It
seems that they would recognize the present human species as a kind of
"person" in its own right, and an entity with a right to exist surpassing
that of the individuals who now comprise that very species but who might
voluntarily abandon it under foreseeable circumstances. So they would
impose restrictions on an individual's right to choose, for instance, a
treatment to eliminate aging, and the physical means to otherwise improve
one's body and/or mind, were such to be developed. They fear that allowing
this sort of thing would result in something other than homo sapiens
populating the planet after a period of time. Cryonics has attracted some,
if limited, notice from this group too. Predictably there has been some
negative reaction, and we can expect more, since cryonics could serve as a
stepping stone to an existence other than human, and in any case is
offensive in its intended purpose of permitting an escape from the normal
attrition of aging. (So far I think cryonics is mostly dismissed on grounds
that it has no serious chance of working anyway, but that could change if
there were more appreciation of the scientific case for cryonics,
particularly with some new preservation protocols.)


The fears of these people, I think, are well founded-the possibilities
really do threaten the biological homo sapiens. The threat exists through
the free, voluntary choices of individuals who could decide to opt out of
what they would perceive as a biological strait-jacket. As immortalists, of
course, we demand the right to choose, should the option present itself.
Ultimately, that body of ours must be found wanting, if for no other
reason, because it is running down and in time will run no more, unless
something is done. We are not concerned about the "needs of the species" if
said needs require our physical sacrifice. Some powerful guarantees of our
freedom of choice would thus be in order. It is unfortunate that such
libertarian thinking as Mill's principle was not firmly embedded in our
legal framework; it would serve us well. All is not lost, though; as one
ray of hope, the Declaration of Independence (not a part of U.S. law but
still widely respected) recognizes the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. You could use it to justify a person's right to
choose to have his aging process reversed, with extension to other
improvements. If such procedures were available there should be widespread
support, which should be helped by this historic precedent. (I also think
the respect for freedom to date in the U.S., even if it stops short of full
libertarianism, has helped keep cryonics legal, given that the public is
not particularly interested in it and is even somewhat repelled.) So the
ayes would probably outshout the background noises of any holdout luddites.
But now we have to confront the fact that the proven procedures are not in
place, and the nay-sayers are making their bid to try to forestall the very
possibility.


Ironically, they could win, and the consequence could be the destruction of
the very species they are trying to save--or perhaps the lesser calamity of
a new and lengthy, technophobic dark age. Such could be the outcome if we
don't achieve liberation from our present human form, as a consequence of
the resulting stagnation and frustration. Imagine a steady-state homo
sapiens culture, with individuals dying as usual and new ones being born
who would have to relearn everything from square zero to keep the system
going. Life would become more or less a zero-sum game (as it was until
relatively recent times), with a constant struggle between haves and
have-nots. It could, among other things, make a good breeding ground for
terrorists of many different stripes and gripes, some of them, it may be
presumed, having considerable brilliance along with the traditional
fanatical hatred. Sooner or later, one misguided group or lone individual
could wreak horrible damage, if some rogue nation didn't do it first. But
along with that would surely be a scientific, constructivist underground
which would be trying to topple the system in a very different and more
hopeful way, that is to say, provide the means for individuals to escape
the dreary birth-death cycle and become something more than human.


I doubt if matters will come to the point of a worldwide ban on good
science, however. If it did come to that in the West, national rivalries in
other parts of the world, Asia, and yes, the Middle East too, would kick
in, and you'd see more of the good progress happening there. Our backward
bailiwick might then sense it was being left in the dust, undo its
repressive policies, and get moving again. In any case, the prospects for
the biological homo sapiens don't look good, and we aren't likely to see
the steady state for very long, if at all. We should be grateful that at
least one of the alternatives, the path to something higher, is both
possible and gaining support.


We wonder what we can and should be doing to further the good alternative,
and particularly, make it happen for us. Cryonics is an obvious choice-the
life-extending technologies are not here yet, and this offers our best
chance of persisting physically until they will be. Beyond that, we can
talk and otherwise communicate about our choice of cryonics, and try to
support the important work with our resources allocated as seems fit. I
will not deal with this difficult subject in any generality here. But I
will mention one approach that is sometimes suggested and other times
cautioned against: religion. Religion has been a powerful force in human
society up to now, and in particular has served to legitimize and honor the
deep wish felt by humans through the ages to be something more than human.
True, traditional religions have proposed and promised means of achieving
this that are not exactly the scientific and technological approach we
transhumanists are now advocating. But we can make the point that here the
end really is more important than the means, then try for something more:
to meet the religionists on something approaching their own turf.


To do this, we have to think of religion in a different way from those who
dismiss it as "fantasies about spirits" or insist it must involve belief in
the supernatural. If you think instead of religion as a process of
attempting to meaningfully engage with what is of transcendent or ultimate
significance, the possibility of a rational, scientific religion gains
plausibility, at least if we can center our attention on what is, in fact,
of truly deep, beyond-human-level significance. But of course this is just
what we immortalists are doing with our attempts to overcome death
scientifically, something we know must become a never-ending quest and take
us to rather distant reaches of knowable reality if it is to continue.
Something along the lines of an immortalist religion has been attempted
with Venturism, but I sense the need for something deeper. This I think
would fit within the Venturist umbrella--and that's what Venturism is, an
umbrella movement within which other cryonics-endorsing movements could
find shelter without being in total agreement. What I am proposing, though,
would not be an umbrella movement, but a religious enterprise with more
specific content--it would, of course, not be acceptable to everyone who
may find the "umbrella" congenial, an inevitable tradeoff.


Tentatively, I propose to name the new movement Aionism after the Greek
_aion_, "eternal." It is to be based on my book, _Forever for All_, but to
more directly address the special concerns of religion, and itself be
called and considered a religion. Aionism would posit no supernatural
entity or presence, but would recognize an Ordering Principle or Way of
things, which is manifest in everything from mathematics to the world of
our experience. A kind of Dao, then--and Aionism would be a scientific
Daoism. It would provide a rather generous eschatology for humans--and
other sentient beings too--eventual resurrection in some meaningful form,
and eternal happiness, but no guarantee that the path thereto will be
smooth or swift--which means that one's choices and behavior will
definitely make a difference. (In particular, choosing cryonics will
arguably "smooth the path," a subject explored in the book. More generally,
though, Aionism would advocate the highest moral standards and
consideration for all that is right and good, insofar as these things can
be ascertained.) The path of one's existence, though, has special
significance, progress and growth in an appropriate sense being important,
with no final state ever being reached.


Well, I said this will not be for everyone, but we can ask if such a
project would help our cause overall more than hurt. I think it would, even
though it could inspire a backlash from traditional religionists who might
be especially offended by it. But they in turn have to live with each other
who have different persuasions. And a movement that truly advocates what is
right and good, as Aionism is to be, must inspire some favorable response
from the many in traditional religions who also favor these things. So my
guess would be that with proper presentation Aionism would be accepted at
least as another kind of religion, again, a variant of Daoism, with special
emphasis on science on one hand, and individual salvation and immortality
on the other, which implies that each individual is something rather
special. I think it could, in particular, serve as a means of clarifying
and legitimizing in some skeptical minds what it is we really want with our
"tampering with nature." For we are seeking the loftiest and noblest goals
imaginable, and yet they are things humans have long dreamed of and sought
after. It's just that we think we've found a new and better way to approach
these goals, one that is more rooted in the reality that scientific
evidence reveals.


Looked at from the Aionist perspective, then, the human race is a great
start but not an end-in-itself or final goal. It must be nurtured
carefully, like a growing child, not stunted, to find a proper destiny
beyond its present level.


Mike Perry

[Da55id]

Organized Religions have a history of putting huge resources into killing new and potential competitors and usually succeed. Existing religions are some of the most long lived entities in existence and can thus expend resources over very very long periods of time against competitors - with the unabiguous goal to crush them out of existence. Adolescent religions are also of great concern because they succeed against older religion by mobilizing the disenfranchised to fight somebody/thing with all their being. My point?

Don't tug on Superman's cape :-)

[advancedatheist]

I've grown skeptical of the practicality of libertarianism because my many years of working with the public and observing human behavior in general have led me to conclude that at least a third of the adult population, and probably more, is incapable of being "self-reliant" even when it has to. They require some level of zoo keeping to stay out of trouble, and would benefit considerably if the competent people made them public wards and handled some major decisions for them.

There seems to be an animal model for this. Psychologist Abraham Maslow in one of his books references a scientific experiment conducted in the 1930's where a group of chickens were allowed to eat anything they wanted from a selection of foods of varying nutritional value. A minority of chickens consistently chose a diet healthy for their species, and grew big and strong. A minority at the other end of probably a normal distribtution consistently chose a poor diet and remained underdeveloped and sickly. Then the experimenter isolated the "stupid" chickens and offered them only the diet chosen by the "smart" ones. The stupid chickens' development and health improved considerably, though they didn't quite come up to the level of the smart chickens. Maslow conjectured from this experiment that humans might analogously fall into a spectrum of good versus bad choosers, so that the values of the good choosers could provide a nonarbitrary naturalistic basis for ethics and morality that would benefit even the bad choosers, if enforced on them against their inclinations.

[jonano]

What`s the "% of ischemic damage" occuring while a perfusion and a vitrification process while we are at Alcor?

[Bruce Klein]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but, wouldn't ischemic (lack of blood supply) mainly depend on factors unrelated to the actual process of vitrification?

Check Ben Best's Cryonics and Ischemic Damage.

[jonano]

I`m not talking about ischemic damages then. I`m talking about the damage occuring while a vitrification and an un-vitrification of the brain from the Alcor procedure. Do you have a rate, a pourcentage (%) somewhere? I think the rate is around 0,02% of the brain broken..

[Bruce Klein]

the following doesn't answer your questions.. but may help with definition:

Myth 2: Cryonics freezes people.

The current technology favored by Alcor is vitrification, not freezing. Vitrification is an ice-free process in which more than 60% of the water inside cells is replaced with protective chemicals. This completely prevents freezing during deep cooling. Instead of freezing, molecules just move slower and slower until all chemistry stops at the glass transition temperature (approximately -124°C). Unlike freezing, there is no ice formation or ice damage in vitrified tissue. Blood vessels have been reversibly vitrified, and it was reported at a recent conference that whole kidneys have been recovered and successfully transplanted after cooling to -50°C (-58°F) while protected with vitrification chemicals.

In 2001, Alcor drew on published advances in the field of organ vitrification to implement a protocol for vitrifying the human brain. This procedure is not yet reversible because of biochemical effects of the vitrification solution, but structural preservation is excellent.

The less advanced methods used by Alcor before 2001 still suppressed most freezing damage. Comparisons of cryonics to freezing vegetables and other ridiculous analogies therefore never had merit, even before the advent of vitrification. 

REF: http://www.alcor.org/cryomyths.html

[Bruce Klein]

CHAT ARCHIVE


<Utnapishtim> Looking forward to tonights chat?
<BJKlein> quite so... special guest.. and great author
<Utnapishtim> I haven't read his book
<BJKlein> hop to it man
* MichaelA checks out the first 25 pages that are online
<MichaelA> http://www.bookpump....-b/1127243b.pdf
<Utnapishtim> Would it ever be viable to have Eric Drexler or robert ettinger participate in an imminst chat ya think?
<BJKlein> I've asked Ettinger.. but he's not yet receptive
<BJKlein> I've asked Ray Kurzweil.. and he's not yet receptive as well..
<Utnapishtim> but he hasn't ruled it out in the future I hope...
<BJKlein> haven't asked Drexler
<BJKlein> not I don't think he's ruled it out
<Utnapishtim> I think Kurzweil will be a lot more receptive shortly before his new book is launched
<BJKlein> could be.. he's offered to help us with the ImmInst Book Project
<Utnapishtim> Maybe he is worried about being grilled by Eliezer
<Utnapishtim> wow.. That would be awesome
<BJKlein> heh.. would be.
* MichaelA hopes the new book won't be a disaster
<BJKlein> Kurzweil's book?
* MichaelA nods
<BJKlein> hmm.. not sure..
<mikep> "Show time" must be soon, eh?
<BJKlein> 2mins i think?
<mikep> Okay.
<BJKlein> unless my clock is slow...
<MichaelA> 1.5 minutes!
<MichaelA> 1 minute! (by my clock)
<BJKlein> this shall be quite fun!!
<BJKlein> same here..
<Utnapishtim> I hope that his overoptimism regarding getting the book release date is not a reflection on his future predictions in general...
* BJKlein Official Chat Start Now (Welcome Mike Perry!)
<mikep> Welcome.
<Utnapishtim> Thanks for joining us Mike!
<BJKlein> Have you counted up the number of suspensions you have helped with over the years?
<mikep> Some years ago I did. I think it was 43. Add maybe 10 more since then.
<BJKlein> That's amazing...
<mikep> Most of Alcor's cases I've helped on, actually.
<BJKlein> is there anyone with more cases?
<mikep> Hugh Hixon, definitely. Anyone else--not sure. CI has quite a few now too.
<MichaelA> memetics questions: how has the attention towards Alcor increased since the Williams case, and how much attention has your book received?
<mikep> The Williams case resulted in a lot of media and other inquiries but did not change the signup rate by any substantial amount.
<MichaelA> (interesting quote from the book: "Immortality is not precluded; even self-engineered, eternal salvation must be regarded as a possibility.")
<mikep> As for my book, some but not overwhelming. Maybe 250-300 copies sold so far. No advertizing though, except from what you see on the Web.
<MichaelA> not bad
<MichaelA> your book hopscotches over a lot of interesting issues that the more mainstream transhumanist/immortalist authors would be reluctant to touch
<BJKlein> Yes, that's a respectable sum considering no advertisment, etc.
<mikep> I was tempted to try one of these deals where you can reach millions of email addresses to promote the book--what they now call spamming. Glad I didn't.
<BJKlein> bless you Mike
<MichaelA> yeah, that would probably garner much more annoyance than anything else
<Utnapishtim> How likely do you personally consider the resurrection of cryonics members suspended under presently ideal conditions to be?
<hkhenson> the williams case was very different from the Dora Kent case that resulted in a large upsurge in the numbers signing up. Is there speculation in Alcor as to why the difference? If so, what do they think made the difference?
<mikep> Resurrection under presently optimal conditions: pretty likely I think. If enough brain structure survives, it should be a "go" unless civil unrest or something else terminates suspensions.
<John_Ventureville> Hello Mike, this is John from the "Ventureville News," please include in your answer how Larry Johnson affected things."
<John_Ventureville> : )
<mikep> Williams case again: (hkhenson): I haven't heard much talk about this, but one factor is that with DK we were perceived as underdogs attacked unfairly by the mighty bureaucracy. That may have made a difference.
<MichaelA> I guess it was just a matter of how most media outlets chose to spin the story
<Cliff> Do you believe that means will eventually be devised to compute the essential characteristics of all possible sentient identities? Is cryonics a hedge against the possibility that a person's sentient identity will never be duplicated in any other place, time, or universe unless sufficient information from its initial occurrence is preserved continuously until scientists gain the capability of restoring it? Alternatively, is cryonics s
<mikep> for John_V.: We got some press of various sorts with LJ (some of it favorable in fact), then things quieted down--very quiet now.
<John_Ventureville> but do you think the future lawsuit will really stir things up?
<Guest> Are there any research efforts into improving cryonics or improving the chances of successful resurrection?
<mikep> I'm getting a lot of questions, so it may take a little while before I can get around to any given one, but I'll try.
<BJKlein> take your time.. no problem
<John_Ventureville> *time for dessert*
<mikep> For Cliff: there is an article that should appear in the upcoming _Cryonics_, "Coping with Imperfect Preservation"--should address some of your questions. I try briefly here.
<mikep> Again, Cliff: All sentient entities (at all points of their lives) can be described by finite bit strings, at least. So, with sufficient, finite resources, you could recreate a copy of anybody who ever lived.
<MichaelA> Mike, do you have an opinion on Tipler's OPT?
<mikep> This could serve as a basis for a resurrection. But cryonics offers the possibility of doing it much more straightforwardly. My book has a chapter on why I think the biostasis (including cryonics) route it the better one
<mikep> plus there is the article.
<MichaelA> do you have personal opinions on ETAs for medical nanotech or seed AI, per chance?
<cyborg01> (What's ETA?)
<weirdnrg> expected time to arrive
<weirdnrg> btw, hello everyone :o)
<MichaelA> hello weirdnrg
<mikep> For John_V: the future lawsuit? Haven't heard about that in awhile and don't feel like speculating at this point.
<mikep> On Tipler's OPT: I'm skeptical about his cosmology, but something like it in essential respects (resurrecting the dead) may happen eventually, I'm optimistic.
<Cliff> What do you propose should be done about the problem of infinite accumulation of memories? If an immortal person deletes some memories to keep personal memory from becoming overgrown, does this constitute a death of part of the person?
<weirdnrg> anyone check out this online book by Harold Percival? http://www.word-foun...ddestinypdf.htm
<weirdnrg> i just stumbled upon it..
<mikep> Research efforts in cryonics: there is work, not really confined to cryonics, to develop demonstrated, reversible cryopreservation. That is the cutting edge here now, I think.
<shedon> wow, someone else that has seen that
<BJKlein> weirdnrg, we're talking to mike.. thanks
<weirdnrg> Bruce, ok
<shedon> thinking and destiny**
<weirdnrg> and sorry
<BJKlein> no problem..
<mikep> Infinite accumulation of memories: deletions could well be a problem. I think that, to achieve true immortality, at least a core subset of one's memories must remain and grow without bound, hopefully the universe will allow this.
<shedon> would it be true deletion or just a matter of dormancy? like a foundation so to speak
<shedon> for example 2+2 becomes a dormant foundation of the mind that is currently resolving consciously on a calculus level
<mikep> ETAs on medical nanotech, seed AI and so on: hard to guess, so much could happen in 30 years if conditions are right, and a lot seems possible, but 1973, 30 years ago was not that long ago.
<MichaelA> retaining highly abstracted versions of past memories might be sufficient
<MichaelA> Mike, depends on how fast stuff is speeding up, and what the true technological prerequisites are
<Chestnut> mikep: may i ask a personal question? are you singed up for neuro or full body suspension? i knoe right now that may be the only insurance we have to preserve ourselves should something happen to us but in my ignorance and perhaps childish mind i just can't get past the idea of beinf "frozen" it scares me...what advice can shed to one such a myself to maybe get over this fobia? :O)
<mikep> You have a basic informational issue there, though. There are limits to how far you can reasonably abstract. In all, I think it reasonale to say that one's identity-critical information, however construed, must grow without bound.
<MichaelA> how much information is identity-critical may be partially a matter of convention and personal preference
* weirdnrg scratches head
<weirdnrg> :O/
<mikep> Signup arrangement: I am signed up for neuro. As for "phobia"--being "frozen" (now it's "vitrified"--at least in Alcor) is better than being buried or cremated.
<BJKlein> Therein lies the necessity for an infinite universe(s) if we are to hope that immortality is possible
<MichaelA> I would still think that living for trillions or quadrillions of subjective years would be better than living for 70, although some people try to argue that if you can't live forever, then it's not worth living more than the evolutionary default :\
<weirdnrg> it's nonsensical
<weirdnrg>
<John_McC> I'd like to ask a question about "critical information" as it pertains to identity. Is Alcor only considering storage of biologically based identity information?
<mikep> Evolutionary default: that's a good term I haven't heard before, and it seems to be what many instinctively want to affirm is "right" even if they don't use this particular term.
<shedon> when you open up the debate unto whether time exists or not and entertain that it does not, well then the "how many years" issue goes out the door and life/death perception changes a bit.
<mikep> Alcor stores memorabilia as well as biologically-based info.
<Guest> Isn't our evolutionary default more like 40 years? Medicine and qaulity/safety extend it to 80currently
<Guest> yikes, sorry for the typos
<mikep> So far I haven't worried much as to whether time "exists"--it's what I call a "frame of reference" issue. The frame of reference seems to be there in any case.
*rav3n* hey
<mikep> Evolutionary default again: 40 years if you count diseases, predators and such, assuming the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle (or maybe 50 if you survive childhood?).
<shedon> i hear ya . . . but with given my statement, Shakespeare's "To Be Or Not To Be" is the issue, rather than "how long to be"
<MichaelA> Guest, right, we already ahve "unnatural" lifespans
<MichaelA> *have
<shedon> the ideal and focus (illusion) of time might be the distorting element to acheiving such (spirirtual/physical) resonance
* MichaelA would bring nothing but a teddy bear if he were to be frozen
<MichaelA> if philosophical issues with "time" crop up, then you can just invent a new word
<shedon> i guess this chat is a cryonics chat though, not time
<shedon> (did not want to distract) i was just goin on/off
<BJKlein> shedon - you're fine
*gustavo* hi man. I have not been very active at imminst because my daughter was born a week ago. I hope to gradually go back to my activities in one week or so... in case someone asks...
<mikep> One problem in cryonics concerns the scientific/political climate in the world at large, particularly in the U.S. where the cryonics operations are presently. We want good research to continue and not be hindered for unreasonable reasons.
<BJKlein> this is where ImmInst hopes to do some good
<BJKlein> answering questions and changing one person at a time
<BJKlein> I propose that making the idea that death = oblivion more clear would be a help to the cryonics movement
<John_McC> I've got to apologize for this question, since I missed the first half hour of the chat... What's been happening with vitrification research at Alcor? Is it stagnating like some news articles claim?
<mikep> Alcor itself does not presently do vitrification research but it is being done. Progress is being made, but the problem of actually achieving indefinite shelf-life for a cryopreserved organ is a very hard one, and hasn't been solved yet for anything sizable.
<Guest> What is the current maximum shelf liefe?
<Guest> life*
<shedon> hey a question just hit me when pondering the usefulness (i dont automatically see a positivity of cryonics along side my i am not against it) of being frozen.....can light or electromagnetic energy be frozen?
<EmilG> I assume the vast majority of the damage happens with the initial cryopreservation?
<shedon> answer when ready
<mikep> The maximum shelf life--don't have exact figures, which will vary with the organ, but order of a day or two at most I think. Not affected by the vitrification progress as far as I know. With vitrification, you now have good but still not adequate preservation, in terms of just being able to reanimate by a simple warming procedure.
<cyborg01> Mikep: what kind of anti-freeze agent is used in vitrification?
<hkhenson> trade secret. sorry
<BJKlein> heh
<cyborg01> I'm very curious=)
<weirdnrg> => | <=
<weirdnrg> locked
<mikep> Can light or electromagnetic energy be frozen? I would need to have this problem defined better--don't know exactly what you mean. I've heard that photons can be "stopped"--maybe that's a form of "freezing" (?).
<hkhenson> though if you know much about the area, you can make a very informed guess.
<shedon> it is related to the chakra system idea and the individual (possibly seperate from body on a physical level) soul
<mikep> Antifreeze agent(s) We used to always use glycerol (in water-based solution with other ingredients). Now, a proprietary cocktail, DMSO is one of the ingredients but not the only one.
<weirdnrg> ah - DMSO, I use that for a chronic skin condition
<weirdnrg> 3x a day
<weirdnrg> i mean, sorry for the interruption :>
<mikep> For shedon re "chakra system": I am skeptical about any mystical notions--more evidence needed, in my view.
<shedon> i was sittin here thinking of what -I- would go through if i was frozen, and it brought me back to a suicide attempt (half the reason was curiousity, heehee) i did, i was "close to death" and feel because of being that close am -more- aware of what death is. alike the subjective experience a masochist goes through as to defining what pain is to themselves......so if i was frozen, would it just be a ticket to lose the bod
<shedon> btw, i do not know that i have a soul seperate from body, i identify that I AM a soul, not that I HAVE one...
<BJKlein> We're coming up on the last 5 min..
<shedon> but i can say i have "felt" these chakras, however ideal they may be
<EmilG> shedon: That view would not be inconsistent with the purely physicalist interpretation.
<John_McC> I've come the conclusion that there's not a whole lot inside a human. Even a very smart human. Frozen humans may not hold much interest for the future. This seems to be a major risk factor in being frozen.
<weirdnrg> John - why do you believe that?
<weirdnrg> there isn't much inside us humans :?
<mikep> For shedon: "a ticket to lose the bod"? Not likely. What would you "go through"? How about this? You're in a hospital bed, then suddenly -- it seems that maybe some time has passed, only not too much, and you're awake again, and feeling better, and you learn it's some decades in the future, and they have reanimated you. Of course you'd be unconscious while all this was going on, then awakened when it's all done.
<shedon> john: ?define "inside"?
<BJKlein> Mike Perry will be free to stay but the Official Chat will end soon.
<hkhenson> john_m, there might not be, but it's all we have.
<John_McC> Humans have some innate complexity, but very limited computation abilities compared to even a P4... Future machines will achieve all the complexities of a human brain, and far more computational power.
<EmilG> John: Nonetheless, there's a whole lot more than was thought in the behaviorist days. With evolutionary psychology we're finding mental "modules" all over the place. But, yeah, the number of such modules is ultimately limited by the size of our DNA, though not in some obvious way.
<hkhenson> that's far from true.
<hkhenson> humans have monsterous computing capacity in parallel
<hkhenson> which is part of the reason we get by on so little memeory
<John_McC> And it terribly unreliable. we need massive amounts of redundancy to achieve anything useful.
<MichaelA> relative to future posthumans, we're still as simple as clockwork, which is why future posthumans will need to see being kind to all sentient creatures as an end-in-itself
<mikep> For John: people often express the fear that no one will want to revive them--no way to dispel this, and can't prove it won't be a problem. But some of us at least feel committed to the principle that people should be revived if they can be. The Venturist organization, http://www.venturist.org, is officially committed to this position.
<Guest> Why not then just integrate human strengths of parallel processing with the speed of linear copmputer processes
<hkhenson> so are those of us who have friends in suspension we want to get out.
<John_McC> I figure the best way around the problem of being revived is a foundation, which is exactly what Alcor has done. A few more in parallel wouldn't hurt, either.
<hkhenson> of course the *best* way is just to live long enough.
<EmilG> John_McC: I see your thesis was on self-improving AIs ...
<John_McC> We will see computer implants in the future, probably not even the very distant future. It may complicate vitrification.
<mikep> I will need to leave pretty soon, enjoyed this.
* BJKlein Official Chat Now Ends
<hkhenson> give my best to the folks at Alcor Mike.
<BJKlein> Thanks very much Mike!
<John_McC> Gotta go.. Got kids to put in bed... Bye All!
<Guest> bye, john
<BJKlein> you have been very generious with your time
<Chestnut> thx mike!
<shedon> P3@C3
<mikep> I did do my thesis on self-improving AIs, wanted to continue this work, nobody interested that I could find--wound up (where else?) in cryonics! Bye for now.
<Guest> bye mike, thx for the chat
<Cliff> Thanks Mike

[treonsverdery]

This might be a thing to do research on

I think it is super wonderful that There are Alcor members online. Maybe there are things to be thought on that will make humans more thawable pre nanotech. Think what a big jump it will be when living mammals are thawed, thinking on that I thought there might be a way to map the vitrified tissue then place just the right quantity of energy to thaw plus shift the tissue towards a previtrified morphology

Walking talking Alcor members might devise a tracer with stable isotopes or even, using those bad glycosylation products to human advantage, a glycosylation residence time type chemical with the idea that they are mapping or gridding thier cytostructure.

I wrote BJ thisish

I have been thinking on the idea of using photoactive tracer molecules that will trace the path of membrane motion plus cytostructure as the tissue is vitrified such that a ordinary sized computer will have a map to use when it guides the thaw process.

The thaw process that I am thinking of is a 2003 working technology known as photon teleportation. Researchers are able to teleport photons 1M with an automatic machine To thaw a mouse you teleport linked photons to the tissue, then linked photons away from the mouse body map the ways the vitrified cytoplasm is shaped

A mouse has perhaps 10 billion cytae, thus an ordinary 1Ghz PC might build a DB with perhaps 320 measures per cyte in near an hour. Using the way big DB the researcher then uses photon teleportation to pump the tissue full of light with just the right thermal values to order the tissue, nudging membranes, so that freeze damage was reversed or thaw damage wasn't even there.

The thing with it being a mouse, an ordinary computer, plus a present photonic technology is that if it works now to thaw a living mammal then Alcor type stuff will be vastly popularized.

Photon teleportation is better than microwaves as microwaves jiggle lipids, photon teleportation might be able to jiggle mapping chemicals or whatever.

I think this might be a new topic tho my button is funny