From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 16:09:59 MDT
Please forward to Mr. Krippahl:
Posing the problem as one of information storage and retrieval doesn't
solve anything because we don't know what's the necessary information to
store nor how to test if we stored it. So even if we specified all
connections on cd we couldn't then check to see if it worked at replicating
the person.
### On the contrary, we do know what is the necessary information to store:
it is the information physically encoded in the structure of a brain within
at least 3 hours after death (possibly more). This fact is well known to
neurologists - restoring blood flow within 3 hours to an ischemic brain does
restore function, as measured by objective criteria (e.g the NIH stroke
scale).
We can verify adequate storage of information by comparing the
ultramiscroscopic images of cryonic brains with reference structures, like
living brain slices, fixed brain slices, analyses of distribution and
content of neurotransmitter, etc. etc.
-------
Terry W. Colvin forwarded:
>[...] One perfectly reasonable cryonic reanimation scenario
>involves a destructive, slice by slice, readout of your information content
>using for example AFM's scanning the synaptic connections at the molecular
>level.
This may look perfectly reasonable on Star Trek, but the point is that it's
not science at this time. There is no adequately tested procedure to do
this, nor is there any way to guarantee with a minimum of confidence that
it will be possible to do this on a brain that is frozen with current
technology.
### On the contrary. The relevant technologies for information readout
already exist (laser tissue machining, quantum dot antibody labeling,
confocal microscopy).
-------
> It is also not "quackery" since this is
>essentially a bet based on reasonable projections of technology
>developments based on historical trends (e.g. Moore's Law) and
>authoritative and informed opinions (e.g. Feynman, Drexler, Merkle, etc.).
A bet is not quackery. But it's not science.
### Science is the well-organized common sense. Cryonics relies on empirical
data and reasonable extrapolation of trends, firmly parts of common sense.
Ergo, cryonics is science, even if it is a bet, too.
-------------------------
Evidence indicates they are ruining the brains, yet they claim to be
preserving them. This is quackery.
### What evidence?
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:31 MST