I say “reduce” instead of “eliminate” because as far as I can tell no one has actually taken random samples from a human brain that’s been preserved with vitrification. There are ethical reasons why the cryonics organizations would not want to do this
I assume the ethical reason is that one shouldn’t damage the brain of someone who gave it to you with the expectation that you wouldn’t damage it. This suggests a thought to me. I’m pessimistic about the success of cryonics procedures, which is one of the several reasons I haven’t signed up for it. But I approve of the attempt in principle. Perhaps it would be desirable/ethical/useful to donate my brain, upon death, for cryonic experimentation of exactly the sort you mention. If I believe the probability of success with current techniques is low enough, and if the information gained will help improve the techniques or provide a better estimate of their efficacy to those who come after, then it might be a net positive over getting frozen with intent to live.
“one shouldn’t damage the brain of someone who gave it to you with the expectation that you wouldn’t damage it”
Definitely, but I think they would also refuse to experiment on a brain given to them without that expectation. The people at cryonics organizations don’t tend to take the common-on-lesswrong view that someone cryogenically preserved is probably dead but has a small chance of actually being recoverable. To them a “cryonaut” is stll alive. For example, Alcor’s website says:
Cryonics is not a belief that the dead can be revived. Cryonics is a belief that no one is really dead until the information content of the brain is lost, and that low temperatures can prevent this loss.
So while you would view it as acceptable, knowing what you were getting into, and I would view it as acceptable, given the very high chance that your brain no longer contained you, people at Alcor or CI would likely find it unethical experimentation on a still-living human.
(I don’t know how old you are, but if Alcor or CI were willing to participate in a test like this it would probably make more sense to find someone already about to die so we could run it sooner.)
I hadn’t considered that. Are the techniques they use publicly documented in detail? Are there other organizations that do not hold such views, that would be willing and able to perform such studies, even if they don’t do cryonics themselves?
“Are the techniques they use publicly documented in detail?”
Yes. See this Reddit AMA comment by Ken Hayworth. 21st Century Medicine is applying similar techniques to preserving a mouse brain.
“Are there other organizations that do not hold such views, that would be willing and able to perform such studies, even if they don’t do cryonics themselves?”
Probably. And to be fair I haven’t asked Alcor or CI about this, so I could easily be wrong.
I assume the ethical reason is that one shouldn’t damage the brain of someone who gave it to you with the expectation that you wouldn’t damage it. This suggests a thought to me. I’m pessimistic about the success of cryonics procedures, which is one of the several reasons I haven’t signed up for it. But I approve of the attempt in principle. Perhaps it would be desirable/ethical/useful to donate my brain, upon death, for cryonic experimentation of exactly the sort you mention. If I believe the probability of success with current techniques is low enough, and if the information gained will help improve the techniques or provide a better estimate of their efficacy to those who come after, then it might be a net positive over getting frozen with intent to live.
I think the usual solution is to do those tests on animals. Vitrifying and testing a pig brain should give us enough info.
“one shouldn’t damage the brain of someone who gave it to you with the expectation that you wouldn’t damage it”
Definitely, but I think they would also refuse to experiment on a brain given to them without that expectation. The people at cryonics organizations don’t tend to take the common-on-lesswrong view that someone cryogenically preserved is probably dead but has a small chance of actually being recoverable. To them a “cryonaut” is stll alive. For example, Alcor’s website says:
So while you would view it as acceptable, knowing what you were getting into, and I would view it as acceptable, given the very high chance that your brain no longer contained you, people at Alcor or CI would likely find it unethical experimentation on a still-living human.
(I don’t know how old you are, but if Alcor or CI were willing to participate in a test like this it would probably make more sense to find someone already about to die so we could run it sooner.)
I hadn’t considered that. Are the techniques they use publicly documented in detail? Are there other organizations that do not hold such views, that would be willing and able to perform such studies, even if they don’t do cryonics themselves?
I’m 31. I don’t expect to die soon.
“Are the techniques they use publicly documented in detail?”
Yes. See this Reddit AMA comment by Ken Hayworth. 21st Century Medicine is applying similar techniques to preserving a mouse brain.
“Are there other organizations that do not hold such views, that would be willing and able to perform such studies, even if they don’t do cryonics themselves?”
Probably. And to be fair I haven’t asked Alcor or CI about this, so I could easily be wrong.