I’m somewhat confused about what the success scenario for neuro preservation looks like. Are we expecting future medical science to grow a new biological body? Are we expecting some kind of upload into a computer?
I have no particular knowledge of cryonics or even of biology or medicine. But I imagine that reviving the actual body that is frozen will be easier than either of the above scenarios, and will therefor happen centuries sooner than any mechanism for reviving a bodyless brain. If I am right, fewer centuries in a freezer is a lot less risk, fewer centuries where something could go wrong with that freezer. That seems like a strong argument for whole-body preservation.
If we are simply reviving frozen whole bodies, then what does the recovery process look like? For the first batch of people frozen and unfrozen, which is what we hope to be, might there be a months or years long process of physical therapy, learning to walk again, etc? If so, might that negate any benefit to the musician/etc of keeping the same hands? Might they have to re-learn their instrument (if they choose to) anyway?
These two lines of throught seem to push in opposite directions, and are both obviously highly speculative, but I’m curious what thoughts mingyaun or anyone else might have on them.
If I want to sell my great-grandmother on cryonics, “freezing your brain so in centuries it can be transplanted into a young body” sounds like an easier sell than “freezing your brain so in centuries it can be turned into a robot”. Freezing her whole body sounds like an instant, understandable no.
Being trapped in an old body sucks. Extrapolating contemporary medicine forward until we can unfreeze the cryopreserved elderly and keep them from dying is not a great prospect.
Uploading seems the most plausible route with very high probability to me. ‘Reviving’ a frozen body seems impossible: neurons in the brain will be severely damaged, there seems no plausible way to repair them without magic nanotech at which point uploading seems easier.
I think nanotech is “magic” in the same way that uploading is “magic”. Neither exists but there’s no good reason to think that either wouldn’t be possible imo.
It seems that they can use vitrification as opposed to solely freezing the body, and this is more effective at preservation. Here’s a paper about scientists vitrifying a rabbit kidney then rewarming it and successfully putting it back into a rabbit (h/t wait but why). However, it seems that each organ must be studied so that it can be successfully vitrified given its unique complexities, so we can’t just apply that paper’s solution to every organ.
I’m somewhat confused about what the success scenario for neuro preservation looks like. Are we expecting future medical science to grow a new biological body? Are we expecting some kind of upload into a computer?
I have no particular knowledge of cryonics or even of biology or medicine. But I imagine that reviving the actual body that is frozen will be easier than either of the above scenarios, and will therefor happen centuries sooner than any mechanism for reviving a bodyless brain. If I am right, fewer centuries in a freezer is a lot less risk, fewer centuries where something could go wrong with that freezer. That seems like a strong argument for whole-body preservation.
If we are simply reviving frozen whole bodies, then what does the recovery process look like? For the first batch of people frozen and unfrozen, which is what we hope to be, might there be a months or years long process of physical therapy, learning to walk again, etc? If so, might that negate any benefit to the musician/etc of keeping the same hands? Might they have to re-learn their instrument (if they choose to) anyway?
These two lines of throught seem to push in opposite directions, and are both obviously highly speculative, but I’m curious what thoughts mingyaun or anyone else might have on them.
If I want to sell my great-grandmother on cryonics, “freezing your brain so in centuries it can be transplanted into a young body” sounds like an easier sell than “freezing your brain so in centuries it can be turned into a robot”. Freezing her whole body sounds like an instant, understandable no.
Really? The plausibility ordering is “transplant to new body > become robot > revive old body”?
I would have guessed it would be “revive old body > transplant to new body > become robot”.
Am I missing something?
Being trapped in an old body sucks. Extrapolating contemporary medicine forward until we can unfreeze the cryopreserved elderly and keep them from dying is not a great prospect.
Uploading seems the most plausible route with very high probability to me. ‘Reviving’ a frozen body seems impossible: neurons in the brain will be severely damaged, there seems no plausible way to repair them without magic nanotech at which point uploading seems easier.
I think nanotech is “magic” in the same way that uploading is “magic”. Neither exists but there’s no good reason to think that either wouldn’t be possible imo.
What am I missing about this?
It seems that they can use vitrification as opposed to solely freezing the body, and this is more effective at preservation. Here’s a paper about scientists vitrifying a rabbit kidney then rewarming it and successfully putting it back into a rabbit (h/t wait but why). However, it seems that each organ must be studied so that it can be successfully vitrified given its unique complexities, so we can’t just apply that paper’s solution to every organ.