From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 31 2001 - 21:42:29 MST
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> The Spike wrote:
>
> >Wow, this is a new one. A do-it-yourselfer who froze his grandfather in
> >dry ice.
Sometimes I think science would move forward a bit faster if we
had a bit more of this spirit. Remember the Wright brothers!
> it is truly interesting to see how much importance
> people place on each.
Since it would appear the individuals involved are willing to settle
for half-a-loaf (a clone, rather than a reanimated individual) then
there may be less need to split hairs on what will work and what will not.
> some, like Bauge, don't seem to care all that much about quality control
> going into and during suspension. Perhaps too much faith in future tech?
> There are no scientific guidelines or any current proof, so it's impossible to say.
No, but given what we think we now know (they pysical basis for short
and long term memory) -- it *should* be relatively easy to do concrete
pysical experiments to determine the relative *rate* of loss.
I suspect Anders or Eugene could do these (or at least they know people
who could do these) experiments. I expect one could raise the certainty
of potentially successful reanimations (assuming sufficiently advanced nanotech
to accomplish this) to near the level of scientific/medical certainty
for say the recovery of people suffering heart failure. E.g. physicians
"know" hearts damaged "this much" are essentially unrecoverable, so physicians
knowing "this much" neural interconnectivity loss (based on time elapsed
rate of decay) are essentially unrecoverable.
Its really a shame that more scientists do not take this more seriously.
There are several separate questions of scientific importance: (a) How
long after "death" do basic cellular structures remain intact such
that highly interventionist biochemistry & biotechnology could
return those cells to a functional state?; (b) How long after "death"
does the basic synaptic "architecture" of the brain remain intact?;
(c) How long after "death" are there sufficient "fingerprints"
of the preexisting synaptic "architecture" that you can reproduce
it with relative accuracy (potentially via a computer simulation, should
regenerating it in its physical instantiation prove very difficult)?.
Exploration of these areas would allow a much greater degree of certainty
with regard to the verification of "deadness". For the more macabre,
see: http://www.graphicszone.net/monty_python/hgsounds.htm
search for: "Just Die Already"... Any lackey can claim "I'm not dead"
what we need is proof.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:11:17 MST