Subject: CryoNet #26013 - #26020

From: CryoNet <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Apr 2005 09:00:01 -0000

CryoNet - Fri 15 Apr 2005

    #26013: to Ben Best [Thomas Donaldson]
    #26014: To Yvan, re his brain-computer proposal [Thomas Donaldson]
    #26015: reanimation/revival [anthony]
    #26016: SAFE AS IN THE ARMS OF THE LORD JESUS? [David Pizer]
    #26017: On the Complexity of Brains [Flavonoid]
    #26018: We need medical insurance [Basie]
    #26019: To Basie re: Resuscitation Insurance [Flavonoid]
    #26020: To: anthony re: revival/experimentationI   [Flavonoid]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26013%2D26020

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email-masked]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe

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

Message #26013
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:40:33 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <[email-masked]>
Subject: to Ben Best

To Ben Best:

You said something in your proposal for a Living Will which (possibly
because I didn't read it right) is not only wrong but NOT what you
likely want to do. You are not in a vegetative state when you're on
life support. It's true that IF you are in vegetative state you will
be on life support but they are far from identical. If you are in
vegetative state the upper parts of your brain no longer work, or
at least doctors can find no evidence, even with CT and MRI scans,
that your brain is still working. It's one of those conditions in 
which most people still don't consider you as dead, but you are
still dead. And since the upper parts of your brain are gone,
you hardly wish to remain in that state, nor is it likely that
any future medicine will revive you. As a cryonicist, you will want
to do everything possible to be suspended BEFORE you reach that
state. Otherwise there will be no more Ben Best to revive.

Yes there are other conditions which can create such states, 
particular states in which your brain has disappeared while even
your relatives resist letting you die (or be suspended) because
they believe you're still alive. Advanced brain cancers, Alzheimer's
Disease, and other brain conditions fall under that heading. 

To have a Living Will which asks that you not be suspended if
you're in a vegetative state is a MAJOR ERROR. As for the case
of being on life support, that one involves judgement about your
exact condition.

           Best wishes and long long life to all,

               Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26013

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

Message #26014
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:10:12 -0400
From: Thomas Donaldson <[email-masked]>
Subject: To Yvan, re his brain-computer proposal

Hello Mr Bozzonetti again:

In my discussion of your proposed way to build a mind-computer, I 
pointed out several points which you seem to have forgotten. The
major point, however, is quite simple: when a computer acts like
a mind, TIME SHARING IS WORTHLESS. Every one of your processors
is connected in a net, but each one acts differently AT THE SAME
TIME. And if you propose to build a mind-computer with time sharing,
it simply won't work in the real world --- which is where I believe
you want it to work.

I don't like repeating myself, but perhaps you simply didn't save
my message. Turing did good work for his time, but he wasn't
seriously trying to make a computer that acted like a brain. And
in brains, precisely because time matters, our neurons work 
simultaneously. Not time sharing, but simultaneously. Given the
number of parts even you think will likely be needed to make 
a mind-computer, the speed of those individual parts remains
too slow. There is a fundamental problem here which doesn't
come from the speed of neurons or computer processors, it comes
from the simple fact that the universe itself is working everywhere
simultaneously. Even very fast time-sharing processors will get
caught out by that, though no so easily as we ourselves would
be caught out (if we worked by time-sharing).

The second problem is that of growth. Your proposed brain cannot
grow new neurons (at least you haven't discussed how that could
happen). If your TRACs can move their connections, that's fine,
but our neurons, even in adults, grow new synapses. That is,
we don't just keep a constant number of synapses N. This becomes
particularly crucial because it MAY lie behind our long term
memories: the dentate gyrus in our hippocampus (which deals with
one kind of memories) grows new neurons, and a layer of stem cells
surrounding our brain ventricles creates new neurons, which migrate
to various places in our brain. (In many animals they mainly go
to the olfactory system, but they don't do this in us or apes,
either; and even when most go to the olfactory system in animals,
some do not).

As for your reading, I note a lack of books specifically on how
our brains and the cells which make them up work. Have you read the
Byrne and Roberts book FROM MOLECULES TO NETWORKS? Biochemistry 
is certainly useful in understanding brains, but you'll need much
more than that.

Your planned mind-computer remains light years from any computer
able to work like a human mind, or better than one.

          Best wishes and long long life to all,

                Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26014

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

Message #26015
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:18:07 -0600
From: anthony <[email-masked]>
Subject: reanimation/revival

Preservation is a last resort to resuscitation. Once a sufficient level 
of assurance can be had that each patients' cause of death can be 
reversed, there wouldn't be much point in keeping them suspended.

But that assurance may well require a great deal of experimental and 
clinical work. Who will provide their preserved bodies as test subjects 
for this work and accept the risks involved? So far I'm assuming the 
subjects who have been preserved wish to be revived, not experimented 
on. In pharmaceutical development there are "phases" of regulatory/legal 
test. I assume surgical or other medical techniques/technology may 
require similar phases of testing(?), or at least comparable numbers of 
test subjects (rarity of the disease permitting).

"Phase 0" involves pure research: computer modeling, animal testing etc.

Phase I trials are clinical trials involving small groups of patients to 
evaluate human safety (they may not even be ill - to guage 
effects/toxicity in healthy humans). (20+ people)

Phases II->III increasing numbers of patients are given the drug to 
evaluate its efficacy. (>100 people)

Phases III->IV is the passing into commercial distribution of a drug 
(Phase IV refers to safety monitoring after the drug hits the shelves). 
(1000+s of patients)

Seeing as the drug administration bodies in the US and Europe demand 
proof of a drug's efficacy and safety based on trials involving
thousands of subjects I do not find it that surprising that a medical
procedure such as cryonics is not widely recognised by the medical
profession. It's efficacy in terms of saving lives is at present a
wholly imaginary number!

Any thoughts?

Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26015

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

Message #26016
From: "David Pizer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: SAFE AS IN THE ARMS OF THE LORD JESUS?
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:23:00 -0700

Basie asked:
"Apparently kidnapping of bodies from graves are not uncommon in Georgia (the 
country). I wonder how Alcor And CI would deal with the kidnapping of a 
suspended patient."

===============  
When I was a kid, I had a friend who used to use the expresssion   "Safe as in the arms of the Lord Jesus."
===============

It would be very hard for an individual to kidnap a patient out of Alcor.   
They make it hard to get into the building.  
It is hard to get a patient out of a dewar.  You can't just open the top and take one.  
It is hard to identify which patient is where.  
It is hard to identify a properly perfused, frozen patient.

It would be very complicated and would probably require inside help, if it could be done at all.

A more realistic threat along that line is for a government agency to try to take a patient or an individual to try to get control through legal action.

This has been attempted twice that I know of at Alcor.  A woman tried to get her sister removed and presented enough evidence to the courts (and to Alcor mangement) to show that the patient had been frozen against her wishes.

The Riverside authorities tried to get Dora Kent.  They did not prevail and we made it very painful for them for trying.  

We humiliated them in public to where the leaders did not get reelected and they looked like the fools they were in the public eye.

We sued them and got $120,000 from them (Henson vs Riverside $30,000 & Pizer vs Riverside $90,000).  

We got a restraining order against them.

It was this matter that got Alcor a lot of respect from other bureaucrats.  They probably don't like what Alcor does but they are not going to take baseless pot shots anymore.

It may be the case that:  Once a person gets frozen and in storage at Alcor they are probably more safe than a non-frozen (still animated) person living on this planet.

David Pizer

 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26016

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

Message #26017
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:50:07 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: On the Complexity of Brains

Those in Southern California might be interested in the following, copied 
from E-Skeptic:

Brain, Mind & Consciousness
The Skeptics Society Annual Conference
Friday, Saturday, Sunday, May 13 15
at the Westin Resort & Hotel
and the Beckman Auditorium, Caltech, Pasadena, CA
Research on the brain, mind, and consciousness was given a significant 
boost by Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick in 1994, when he wrote in his 
book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, that you, your joys and your sorrows, 
your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free 
will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve 
cells and their associated molecules. 
This is what is called  the hard problem    explaining how billions of 
neurons swapping chemicals give rise to such subjective experiences as 
consciousness, self-awareness, and awareness that others are conscious and 
self-aware; that is, not only the ability to wonder, but the ability to 
wonder why we wonder, and even wonder why others wonder why.
Explaining each of the functional parts of the brain is the easy problem, 
such as the differences between waking and sleep, discrimination of 
stimuli, or the control of behavior. By contrast, what has come to be known 
as the hard problem in consciousness studies is experience: what it is like 
to be in a given mental state. Adding up all of the solved easy problems 
does not equal a solution to the hard problem. Something else is going on 
in private subjective experiences   called qualia   and there is no 
consensus on what it is.
Dualists hold that qualia are separate from physical objects in the world 
and that mind is more than brain. Materialists contend that qualia are 
ultimately explicable through the activities of neurons and that mind and 
brain are one. Our speakers, some of the top neuroscientists in the world, 
will address these and other problems, such as the evolution of the brain, 
and how and why it got to be so large. Skeptics will get a chance to 
interact with these world-class scientists on the breaks, during meals, and 
in a formal discussion period. We will also consider the implications of 
this new brain research to better understand apparent paranormal phenomena, 
as well as how and why people believe weird things.
Special Guest:
        Mike Reiss, head writer for The Simpsons
Magicians:
        James  The Amazing  Randi
        Bob Friedhoffer, the  madman of magic 
        mentalist Mark Edwards
        illusionist Jerry Andrus
Speakers:
Dr. John Allman
Molecular, Cellular, and Integrative Neuroscience, Biology Division, 
California Institute of Technology, author of Evolving Brains, conducts 
research on the evolution and development of the brain, reconstructions of 
cerebral cortex, the interface between emotion and cognition, and the 
relationship between the anterior cingulate cortex and attention deficit 
disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, phobias, 
post-traumatic stress, and anxiety disorders.
Dr. Susan Blackmore
is a Visiting Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol. 
With degrees in psychology and physiology from Oxford University and a 
Ph.D. in parapsychology from the University of Surrey, her research 
interests include memes and the theory of memetics, evolutionary theory, 
consciousness, and meditation. She is author of Beyond the Body, Dying to 
Live, In Search of the Light, Test Your Psychic Powers, The Meme Machine, 
and Consciousness: An Introduction.
Dr. Ursula Goodenough
Professor of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO; conducts 
research on cell biology, the evolution of the genes governing 
mating-related traits, the molecular basis for flagellar motility, emergent 
properties in biological systems, the evolution of symbolic communication 
in primates, and the interface of science and religion. She is the author 
of the widely adopted textbook, Genetics, and of the popular science book, 
The Sacred Depths of Nature.
Dr. Alison Gopnik
Professor of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley; runs the 
cognitive development lab, conducting research on cognition, brain, and 
behavior; theory of mind; psychology and philosophy; how children develop 
and change intuitive theories of the world in much the way that scientists 
do; children s causal knowledge and causal learning across domains, 
including physical, biological and psychological knowledge; in essence, how 
the brain learns to think.
Dr. Christof Koch
obtained his Ph.D. in (bio)-physics with a minor in Philosophy. After four 
years at MIT, he joined the California Institute of Technology, where he is 
the Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology. 
His laboratory focuses on experimental and computational research 
pertaining to neuronal correlates of selective visual attention and 
consciousness in the mammalian brain, a topic he has worked on for the past 
16 years with Francis Crick.
Dr. Richard J. McNally
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, author of Remembering Trauma 
and the classic paper in Psychological Science,  Psychophysiological 
Responding During Script-Driven Imagery in People Reporting Abduction by 
Space Aliens,  in which he demonstrates that imaginary traumas are as 
terrifying as the real thing. Conducts research on memories: true, false, 
recovered, repressed, and remembered.
Dr. Steven Quartz
Division of Humanities & Social Sciences, and Computation and Neural 
Systems Program, California Institute of Technology, co-author of Liars, 
Lovers, and Heroes: What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become 
Who We Are, conducts research in neuroeconomics, the neural correlates of 
product branding, and the neuroscience of cooperation, competition, and the 
development of trust.
Dr. V. S. Ramachandran
Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Professor of Psychology, 
University of California, San Diego, author of Phantoms in the Brain: 
Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind, The Emerging Mind, and A Brief 
Tour of Human Consciousness, and is Editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of 
Human Behaviour. Newsweek magazine called him one of the  hundred most 
prominent people to watch in the next century. 
Dr. Hank Schlinger
Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, author 
of Psychology: A Behavioral Overview, A Behavior-Analytic View of Child 
Development, and Introduction to Scientific Psychology and has published 
scientific articles in journals including the American Psychologist, 
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Pharmacology, 
Biochemistry and Behavior, Psychopharmacology, Psychological Record, The 
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, The Behavior Analyst, Skeptic and Skeptical 
Inquirer.
Dr. Terry Sejnowski
Director, Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute, Advisory 
Board Chair of The Science Network, author of Liars, Lovers, and Heroes: 
What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become Who We Are, conducts 
research on the hippocampus, believed to play a major role in learning and 
memory; and the cerebral cortex, which holds our knowledge of the world and 
how to interact with it.
Dr. Paul Zak
Center for Neuroeconomics Study, Claremont Graduate University, conducts 
research on the neurobiology of trust, the neural substrates of reward 
valuation, the relationship of touch and trust, and the link between 
economic systems, social structures, and trust.
tickets
Register online (www.skeptic.com/conf/reg.html) or call 626-794-3119
$150 Skeptics Society members, $175 nonmembers, $75 Students

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26017

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

Message #26018
From: "Basie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: We need medical insurance
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:38:12 -0400

About a month ago I was in the hospital for 5 days. The hospital bill was 
about $49000.00. This made me think. Who is going to pay the hospital bill 
in the future when a patient is taken out of suspension? Clearly unless 
there is money on the table no hospital is going to cooperate. Shouldn't 
there be medical insurance for the future?

Basie 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26018

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

Message #26019
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:53:57 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: To Basie re: Resuscitation Insurance

If anyone could help you, it might be:  www.rudihoffman.com

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26019

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

Message #26020
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 04:03:24 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: To: anthony re: revival/experimentationI  

I think you have voiced rather well a concern a lot of folks have regarding 
the current Cryonics organizations.  Some seem to be structured to accept 
anatomical specimens and provide minimal or no assurance to those who make 
prior arrangements for their services, regarding the extent of 
experimentation that might occur.   Others seem structured to provide no 
assurance of anything but to be an alternative burial arrangement.

Maybe the organizations could chime in positively on this.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26020

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

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************