Paul Crowley

I don't know if this is of any use to you but this is about part cryo suspension and how they had to use other methods to prevent brain damage.

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200011/000020001100A0260262.php

Still googling for other stuff. :)

From:

I'm not an expert in these fields at all, which is why I'm glad people are discussing this with me. I'm afraid I don't see the implications for cryonics, could you spell it out for me?

From:

One of my main thoughts is the risk of brain damage. If this patient was incredibly high risk brain damage during this operation surely a complete body suspended long term would be at even higher risk?

I know less than you so I'm just poking around.

Just watching a youtube video on the pros and cons to see if there is anything useful in there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MkCBhEwJNw

From:

I must confess I have been rather enjoying today the thought of coming to, much like from an epileptic fit, spaced and confused, trying to grasp memories that seem to slip too easily from my grasp, to see the friendly, near-euphoric face of

ciphergoth looking over me, and hearing:

"Anne! Welcome to 2563! You'll never guess how quantum mechanics worked out! That's old hat these days!"

From:

I really would be absolutely unspeakably euphoric to see you.

From:

One point in this video that comes up was in a study of 9 embryos 4 didn't survive. Obviously doing this on embryos and fully grown humans is completely different but I thought it was an interesting point.

Googling 'cryo suspension pros cons' came up with a few results. :)

From:

Googling 'cryo suspension pros cons' came up with a few results. :)

Couldn't find any good ones in that list, any you'd like to draw my attention to?

From:

Well there is the video. I just skim read them i'm afraid. I'm still watching the video now as it's slow to load.

Are there any specific areas of the cons you want to read about. I've goggled for the brain damage side but are there specific points other brought up?

From:

"Unfortunately the first time anchor wasn't put down until 2115, but I already met Holly Draycott's great-granddaughter, and she's the spit of K, and apparently was a hugely successful author back in the day. Given you're an Early Adopter, we've been given a special permit to go back, if you like - just the once - it's bloody expensive. Honestly, it's almost like the 21st century back in the 22nd. Almost like home..."

I mean, the possibilities are endless, eh? ;o)

From:

Another couple of links I just found....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVPCGMYmQjw

http://frozenbook.com/

From:

Actually, I'd freeze myself for 500 years just to get a chance at a full explanation of quantum entanglement. :o) I'm sure they'll have worked it out by then.

From:

damerell.livejournal.com

Worse if some seemingly trivial matter from the 20th century has got out of proportion. "Oh wise one from the past, is it boots then corset, or corset then boots? Millions have died in the great Corset War. And what is a corset, anyway?"

From:

damerell.livejournal.com

Argh, not the Pascal's Wager analogy, that's obviously bogus. The trouble with Pascal's Wager is that you _don't_ in fact know that the possible outcomes are oblivion or eternal bliss. But you can speculate quite sensibly about what a future that might revive corpsicles might be like - you might be wrong, but you certainly have _some_ information.

I think a much more cognent objection is the one that there are probably better ways to extend your life with $30,000.

From:

I'm not taking the piss, btw - I am actually thinking about it.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_lj_sucks_/

I recommend listening to This American Life episode 354, Mistakes Were Made (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1291).

Also, Penn and Teller's "Bullshit", the episode on cryonics is worth watching.

From:

akicif.livejournal.com

Other way round: by its very premises Pascal's Wager is such that the only outcomes are Heaven, Hell or oblivion.

But by speculating about what life as a revived corpsicle would be like one falls into the Underpants Gnome fallacy and palms the card with the route between here and there.

You are quite right to say there are more productive ways to spend the money.

From:

damerell.livejournal.com

The point is that those premises are fatuous. Either a very specific god exists or no god at all? Says who?

I don't think, conversely, it's at all unreasonable to speculate about what future societies with a high level of medical technology would be like. In particular, as I mentioned in t'other post, it's a somewhat contrived (not impossible, but unlikely) scenario where death isn't still an option if you don't like it.

From:

elsmi.livejournal.com

That "Why we'll never be downloaded" article is curious. "I want to give two reasons that are totally unlike Searle's Chinese Room argument, because that argument sucks. Argument 1: Searle!"

From:

andrewducker

That last one says some odd things:
"The implicit idea of the Turing Test is that the mind is a program and a program can be described purely in terms of its input-output behavior."
strikes me as particularly barking.

From:

I know, but it's the best I can find. Given that pretty much everyone is convinced that it's obviously crazy, it's odd that there isn't a P Z Myers out there, meticulously detailing all the false claims and such of the cryonics world.

From:

emarkienna.livejournal.com

I don't think the point for everyone is simply that they want to go to the future in the hopes that life is much better (although that would be a nice added bonus), but to live for longer, whatever things may be like.

It's possible that an authoritarian world or nuclear holocaust could happen in our lifetimes, but I'd still rather stay alive to see, and take my chances, rather than killing myself now just in case.

I think the only grounds Pascal's Wager is comparable if is someone was making the argument of "I don't care how unlikely it is; as long as the chance is non-zero, it's worth making the bet", because one could just as well spend the money on voodoo spells. But if one believes cryonics has a better chance of success, that doesn't apply. We have no way of knowing if one kind of God is more likely than another kind of God, but I think we can make better guesses about whether something like this might have a chance of working.

From:

djm4

Well, there's 'makes provably incorrect claims' crazy, and there's 'requires the invention of Wonderflonium' crazy. To the extent that I think cryonics is crazy at all, I think it's the second sort of crazy. It has a tendency to use arguments of the form: 'this requires technology that we don't know how to make yet. But 100 years ago, we didn't know how to make an iPhone (on many, many, levels). So in 100 years, we may know how to make the technolgy we need.' It's much harder to argue against that sort of crazy, which is what I was trying to get at with my 'not even wrong' and 'to get from X to Y requires [tech]' reply yesterday, although I should probably have used 'Wonderflonium' rather than 'magic pixie dust'.

That said, I don't think cryonics is crazy enough that you shouldn't try it if you think the Wonderflonium is plausible, or, at least, not totally impossible. I have other reasons for not wanting to extend my life which most certainly don't apply to you. The image of you and

ajva waking up together in the future in the way you talk about above is certainly an appealing one, and I hope it comes to pass.

From:

Cryonics organisations make lots of claims about why cryonics might be a good bet (one example: Scientific Justification of Cryonics Practice, Ben Best pdf) which sound impressive to the non-expert. If these claims are rubbish, it's a shame no-one's spending any time debunking them.

From: