it provides me no information that he thinks cryonics works.
I don’t think cryonics “works.” I think it’s worth doing. That’s not the same thing. I’ve explained that cryopreservation causes damage that is severe by contemporary standards. It cannot be reversed by any near-term technology. Nobody should confuse cryonics with suspended animation or established hypothermic medicine.
The purpose of cryonics is to prevent “information theoretic death,” or erasure of the neurological basis of personal identity. Any evaluation of the effects of procedural details on cryonics patient prognosis must be with reference to that.
Unfortunately none of the recent criticisms of cryonics procedures address the issue of information preservation, which is what cryonics is all about. The criticisms that I’ve seen have all been with reference to what effect various procedural problems would have had on living patients expected to spontaneously recover at the end of hypothermic medicine procedures. The information preservation significance of a delay in cannulation for someone who already suffered a “fatal” period of cardiac arrest before cryonics procedures begin, who may be transported across the country on ice, who will be exposed to hours of cryoprotectant perfusion, their brain dehydrated, possibly decapitated, and then major organs fractured by thermal stress doing cooling, has not been discussed. Yet that is the real context of cryonics. Cryonics is not someone having aneurysm surgery.
To be clear, this bad stuff is going to happen no matter who does the procedures. It’s intrinsic to present cryopreservation technology. The scientific reality is that for a cryonics patient, as distinct from a hypothermic medicine patient, the composition and concentration of what cryoprotectant ultimately gets into tissue is enormously more important than how long cannulation for field blood washout takes, or who does it, within reason.
Getting back to the question of whether cryonics “works,” it was actually Ms. Maxim who took exception to me saying that she didn’t believe cryonics could work. She said:
I have never said I “don’t believe anybody’s survival actually depends on cryonics because it won’t work.”
I have CLEARLY stated I believe someone preserved in a fairly pristine state might be revived.
There are two possible interpretations of this. Either she believes that cryonics done by the right people today could result in a “fairly pristine state,” and cryonics could work. Or she believes that the unavoidable cryoprotectant toxicity, long cold ischemic times, and thermal stress fractures in multiple organs, likely including the brain, that is intrinsic to today’s cryopreservation technology is not a sufficiently pristine state to permit later revival. In that case, the entire debate over procedural details and who does them is academic. The technology isn’t good enough to work for anyone.
I don’t think cryonics “works.” I think it’s worth doing. That’s not the same thing. I’ve explained that cryopreservation causes damage that is severe by contemporary standards. It cannot be reversed by any near-term technology. Nobody should confuse cryonics with suspended animation or established hypothermic medicine.
The purpose of cryonics is to prevent “information theoretic death,” or erasure of the neurological basis of personal identity. Any evaluation of the effects of procedural details on cryonics patient prognosis must be with reference to that.
Unfortunately none of the recent criticisms of cryonics procedures address the issue of information preservation, which is what cryonics is all about. The criticisms that I’ve seen have all been with reference to what effect various procedural problems would have had on living patients expected to spontaneously recover at the end of hypothermic medicine procedures. The information preservation significance of a delay in cannulation for someone who already suffered a “fatal” period of cardiac arrest before cryonics procedures begin, who may be transported across the country on ice, who will be exposed to hours of cryoprotectant perfusion, their brain dehydrated, possibly decapitated, and then major organs fractured by thermal stress doing cooling, has not been discussed. Yet that is the real context of cryonics. Cryonics is not someone having aneurysm surgery.
To be clear, this bad stuff is going to happen no matter who does the procedures. It’s intrinsic to present cryopreservation technology. The scientific reality is that for a cryonics patient, as distinct from a hypothermic medicine patient, the composition and concentration of what cryoprotectant ultimately gets into tissue is enormously more important than how long cannulation for field blood washout takes, or who does it, within reason.
Getting back to the question of whether cryonics “works,” it was actually Ms. Maxim who took exception to me saying that she didn’t believe cryonics could work. She said:
There are two possible interpretations of this. Either she believes that cryonics done by the right people today could result in a “fairly pristine state,” and cryonics could work. Or she believes that the unavoidable cryoprotectant toxicity, long cold ischemic times, and thermal stress fractures in multiple organs, likely including the brain, that is intrinsic to today’s cryopreservation technology is not a sufficiently pristine state to permit later revival. In that case, the entire debate over procedural details and who does them is academic. The technology isn’t good enough to work for anyone.