HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Why Cryonics? - a personal view
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:01:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul23.120111.6240
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

:-) for my reply, just have a little fun...

In article <1992Jul20.073400.1584@klic.rain.com> keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:

>Why am I signed up for cryonics?
>...
>I want to be a living witness to a child's fear of the Cuban Missile Crisis,

Which will have long since been revealed (or revised, depending on your
taste) as an overblown hoax, mere Kennedy-memorial propaganda.  

>the joy of the first moon landing, and the elation of the first shuttle
>launch (which I got to watch). 

Historically uninteresting dead ends.

>I will tell the engineers what it was like
>to watch integrated circuits grow from 8 transistors to 8 billion

Knowledge of which makes it more difficult for you to learn about their 
analog quantum-fractal neural nets.

>I
>want to tell people what it was like to live in a society of socialists,
>homophobes, religious fanatics, meat eaters, and all the other abberations I
>expect will have disappeared in 100 years 

You will be reanimated by Maoists who have engineered the gay-genes out
of the population, enforced planet-wide worship of the Earth Mother, and 
eat not only meat but human flesh.  How does fat quality last through
an Alcor freezing?  :-)

>I want to tell people what it was like to dance naked in a
>meadow beside the 150 year old wagon road that brought the settlers to Oregon.

Praise of native-genociding white people is a capital crime.

>I even want to tell them about hunger, and pain, and grief 

But they won't just tell you, they'll _show_ you.  :-)


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re:  neuronal misconceptions 
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 01:45:41 GMT

In article <dedmunds.711840674@sfu.ca> dedmunds@selkirk.sfu.ca (Darran Edward Edmundson) writes:
>wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
>
>>However, the brain is a very delicate organ.  Removing one neuron
>>can have very profound effects.  
>
>This is possible but extremely unlikely.
>Neural networks are typically very insensitive to
>the removal of a significant number of member neurons.  

Any college graduate who attended a number of parties can atest to this.
I've heard estimates of 100,000 neurons lost from getting drunk, many
a college student has past a test after frying 100,000 neurons.

>>Mis-timing could also wreck a system.
>
>One only has to consider the case of epileptics or revived drowning victims
>to discount this argument.

Or a good college party :) 

I've done relativity problems in my head when to drunk to feel my fingers.
Having your nerves operation thrown off by a huge percentage (enough to
eliminate signals traveling several feet) doesn't cause complete 
disfunction.

>>A functioning mature brain, to be recreated, would also require an
>>exact duplicate of not only the orientation and mapping of the cells,
>>but also complete duplication of the states of those cells and of the
>>chemical environment in which those cells live.  
>
>The `states of those cells' are governed by the synaptic connection weights.
>This information is presumably not lost by freezing or else cryonics would
>pointless.

Not to mention that you might be able to allow for a very large error in
duplication and still only result in a bit of foggyness (which would go
away when the brain adjusted itself).

>[ description of cloning and duplicating environment deleted ]
>
>>	In any case, through trial and error the computer may eventually
>>create a brain almost duplicating the original.  This is of course only
>>speculative but is in any case as realistic as any hope for defrosting
>>a corpse to life.
>
>Based on the above fallacies that you support, I have to question your 
>conclusion.

I tend to think moving the mind to a computer is a more realistic
alternative than nano technology repair. The actual technology to
scan a brain is probably available now, but the computing power to
make use of it isn't.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: caross@acsu.buffalo.edu (Christian Ross)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Quantum eraser vs cryonics
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:17:16 GMT
Organization: UB

Excuse me, but the posting on persons insuring that the universe "remembers"
them through cryogenics sounds like complete gibberish.

Quantum effects are visible on a macroscopic scale only in very specialized 
situations. At last mention of such phenomena, Schroedingers cat lives or 
dies before its observed, quantum does not apply on this scale.

I read your subject line, and expected a discussion on quantum "memory"
erasure, or the possibility that even at millikelvin temperatures the
electrical state of the brain may change, and thus beyond a certain time
a persons identity may not be able to be restored by thawing. 

-- 
Christian A. Ross                |               Student (Physics/Mathematics)
caross@acsu.buffalo.edu          |     State University of New York at Buffalo
-- 
 "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: rns@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Robert Noel STURROCK)
Subject: Re: Person on a stick
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 10:46:54 GMT

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>When people like you last herded people into gas chambers, few in the
>world believed such evil was possible. Now that we know what your kind
>are capable of, however, it is unlikely that we'll passively allow
>ourselves to be butchered by your ilk again.

When you want to start addressing some facts, rather than trying to
put a quick end to the debate through accusing me of Nazism, let
me know...

I won't use a gas chamber.  People will die of old age if allowed to.
I wouldn't be required to kill anybody- simply witholding medication will
do the trick.  Medication that costs thousands of dollars; so a few
senile old people can live for a few more years not knowing what day it
is.  I have had first hand experience of this.  A relative of mine was
in precisely this predicament, and I assure you that best thing that
could have been done for *all* (including the relative) would have been
to let the person die, rather than try keeping them alive..  If this
is what you call Nazism, then your definition is a bit twisted.





-- 
Rob Sturrock
<rns@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Computer Science IV, University of Melbourne.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Possible thawing process?
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:47:33 GMT


In article <92211.134455C09630GK@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C09630GK@WUVMD (Gary Kronk) writes:

>After writing to Ettinger (sp?) several years ago, I began wondering
>if the thawing process could be accomplished using some sort of
>complex microwave system (please, let's not start with the jokes :) ).
>I have read about cryobiology and have noted that different cells
>(i.e. skin cells, brain cells, etc.) required different rates of
>thawing to avoid damage. It would seem that a microwave unit could
>be built that would aim different units to different areas of the
>body so that different organs and tissues would thaw at different
>rates (lots of "differents" in that sentence).

The real problem isn't in warming the body up. The problem is that
cells are critically damaged and need to be repaired -- this will
likely require nanotechnology.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: The "Life Force" Argument
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:14:05 GMT

[ I have appended below two more messages on the "Life Force" topic. - KQB ]

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 22:51:43 -0500
> From: sjackson@tic.com (Steve Jackson)
> Message-Subject: Re:  cryonics: #1062 - #1070

Re: Vitalism
Perry Metzger made a very good point; no amount of exposure to science
will cure the person who is naturally superstitious. STAR TREK fans
will remember that Dr. McCoy disliked the transporter because he doubted
that it carried the soul along with the body and mind . . . 

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: 28 Jul 92 22:42:28 EDT
> From: Charles Platt <71042.3557@CompuServe.COM>
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS

 
                        Re: Life Force 
                        --------------
 
I basically agree with everyone who has said, one way or 
another, "There's nothing you can do to argue logically 
against an article of faith." At the same time I think it is 
important for us to be a little more humble and remember that 
*our* outlook is *also* an article of faith.
 
There is no proof that the mechanistic view of the world is 
sufficient. There could indeed be a life force which comes 
and goes capriciously or according to some logic which we 
cannot yet discern. Yes, the mechanistic view does *seem* to 
be sufficient *so far,* but for a long time, Newtonian 
mechanics seemed sufficient too, for similar reasons (no one 
could find anything that it didn't explain). 
 
To continue playing devil's advocate: suppose that the 
strength of the "life force" is a function of complexity and 
order; an index of the degree to which entropy does NOT 
exist. In that case, we could assume that in a perfectly 
preserved frozen brain, the life force is as strong as ever 
(albeit dormant) and could last for years. In a damaged 
brain, the life force is damaged. In a decaying brain, the 
life force gradually disappears. In a brain under repair by 
nanotechnology, the life force is being recreated. 
 
I run through this argument to emphasize again that there's 
no way to prove who's right and who's wrong. What concerns me 
is not proving the issue, but finding the best strategy for 
tempting someone away from the life-force position. No one 
was able to give me a case history describing successful 
conversion of life-force-believer into cryonicist; and I 
suspect (alas) the reason for this is that no one who replied 
to me has succeeded in achieving a conversion of this kind. 
 
--Charles Platt 
-----
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young)
Subject: Definitions, Nanotech.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:14:12 GMT

It's interesting that I've asked people just *what* is
nanotechnology... it's thrown around quite frequently, but the two
people I personally know who blab it all the time can't give a good
definition of the word...  Anyone want to try?

amyx
 
-- 
"Quick to judge, quick to anger.... slow to understand. 
	       		Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand."
              						--Neil Peart
-------------Me speak for my employer....?  bwaahahahahahahaha!!!--------------
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Possible thawing process?
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:48:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: U.TSF.92Jul29154801
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <92211.134455C09630GK@wuvmd.wustl.edu> C09630GK@WUVMD (Gary Kronk) writes:

   After writing to Ettinger (sp?) several years ago, I began wondering
   if the thawing process could be accomplished using some sort of
   complex microwave system (please, let's not start with the jokes :) ).

The Trans Time people who have done the experiments with cooling the
rats/hamsters/gerbils/whatever used a microwave to thaw the animals
they worked with.  The blood of the animals was replaced by an
experimental solution, then they were cooled to near 0 degrees
celsius, then they were thawed quickly with the microwave.  This
provided a quick, inexpensive way to get a rough idea of how well the
experimental solution did its job.

Unfortunately, when tissue is cooled to a lower temperature, damage
is done during freezing as well as during thawing.  Improved thawing
techniques are worthwhile, but it can't undo the freezing damage.

   It would seem that a microwave unit could be built that would aim
   different units to different areas of the body so that different
   organs and tissues would thaw at different rates (lots of "differents"
   in that sentence).

If two tissues are in contact and they need to be thawed at different
rates, how do we make them get different amounts of microwaves?
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: neuronal misconceptions 
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:55:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <dedmunds.711840674@sfu.ca> dedmunds@selkirk.sfu.ca (Darran Edward Edmundson) writes:

   wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

   >However, the brain is a very delicate organ.  Removing one neuron
   >can have very profound effects.  

   This is possible but extremely unlikely.
   Neural networks are typically very insensitive to
   the removal of a significant number of member neurons.  

And natural neurons die all the time, with no obvious effect if only a
few die.

--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
From: C09630GK@WUVMD (Gary Kronk)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Possible thawing process?
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:44:58 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD

Once again pardon my ignorance if this subject has been discussed in
the past, but I am interested in this subject matter. My interest is
probably more along the lines of future space travel than reviving
people in cryonic suspension, but the basic process of "thawing"
should be the same.

After writing to Ettinger (sp?) several years ago, I began wondering
if the thawing process could be accomplished using some sort of
complex microwave system (please, let's not start with the jokes :) ).
I have read about cryobiology and have noted that different cells
(i.e. skin cells, brain cells, etc.) required different rates of
thawing to avoid damage. It would seem that a microwave unit could
be built that would aim different units to different areas of the
body so that different organs and tissues would thaw at different
rates (lots of "differents" in that sentence).

The unit would be complex, but would solve a lot of the problems
of thawing the inner portions of the body at nondamaging rates.

Sincerely,
Gary W. Kronk
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Person on a stick
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:10:22 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.201713.14552@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	However, the brain is a very delicate organ.  Removing one neuron
>can have very profound effects.

Neurons die in significant numbers every day. Give evidence for your
claim, please.

>Mis-timing could also wreck a system.

Yes, but neurons aren't that precise in their firing patterns, and
there is no reason to 

>A functioning mature brain, to be recreated, would also require an
>exact duplicate of not only the orientation and mapping of the cells,
>but also complete duplication of the states of those cells

No. Brains have been "stopped" and restarted, so any sort of "dynamic
state" is obviously not important (see dog experiments, below).

>and of the
>chemical environment in which those cells live.

Why couldn't that be reconstructed?

>By adding chemicals
>to the brain which lessen the hazards of tissue destruction during
>freezing, one overbalances the system.

Dogs have been put through most of the cryopreservation process and
taken to temperatures just above freezing for on the order of hours,
and then been "restarted". Obviously, the problem isn't as bad as you
seem to think.

Lets not forget that real-world systems like human brains are NOT very
delicate. They have all sorts of faults occuring every day, and they
absorb and manage them. They get dosed with all sorts of chemicals,
and survive the experience. They lose cells, get jostled by
concussions, even get hit by bullet fragments, and still seem to work
more or less all right. The damage from freezing should be
straightforward to repair quite completely; its very localized and
does not disrupt cell structure very greatly.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject:  Re: Ice crystal damage (fwd)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:37:36 GMT

>Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 19:36:54 PDT
>From: danielg@autodesk.com (Daniel Green)
>Message-Subject: Re: Ice crystal damage

For Cryonet.  Editing/cross-posting ok.

I've been reading the cryonics mail list for some weeks now.
I have a question that I've been watching for some mention of
but it seems that no one else is concerned.  This makes me suspect
that it is a dumb question but I can't see why. It is simply this:
Why the assumption that freezing is the best way to preserve the
person/information?  What's wrong with formaldehyde or some other
such substance/technique?  If I were to have myself preserved,
it would be with the hope of preserving my information and not my
body (for future scanning) so I'd not be concerned with poisoning
my tissues.  It seems that such a solution would be far safer and
cheaper than freezing which takes constant care.

- Daniel Green
danielg@autodesk.com

[ Daniel, If I recall correctly, one of the early issues of Periastron
  concerned a proposal by Ben Best to combine chemical fixation with
  permafrost interment as an alternative to liquid nitrogen preservation.
  Unfortunately, a lot more research needs to be done to show that this
  approach has any promise.  (Long-term stability of low-level structure
  is a major issue.)  You may also want to see Hugh Hixon's article
  "How Cold Is Cold Enough?" (message #0015). - KQB ]
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Definitions, Nanotech.
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:31:57 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <BrwtJo.5FI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (amy young) writes:
> It's interesting that I've asked people just *what* is
> nanotechnology... it's thrown around quite frequently, but the two
> people I personally know who blab it all the time can't give a good
> definition of the word...  Anyone want to try?

I understand the term as "molecular or atomic scale engineering," but
why not go straight to the source?  Pop over to sci.nanotech and ask, or
better yet, read Drexler's Engines of Creation (I believe that was where
the term was first coined).

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Pursuit of Eternal Youth on HBO
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:42:41 GMT

> From: alcor@cup.portal.com  <- Ralph Whelan
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:18:29 PDT

Warm Up the VCR. . .

     . . . And make sure that you have HBO, because the month of August 
will see the premier of Never Say Die:  The Pursuit of Eternal Youth on 
HBO.  We're not quite sure what this is all about, or how much of the 
special will center on Alcor and cryonics, but the HBO folks did a 
considerable amount of filming here last year.  Unfortunately, I can't 
give you a specific date either.  In fact, we only know the title of this 
show because I happened to catch a promo for it while watching HBO earlier 
this week.  After flashing some scenes from the show, and spotlighting 
some boiling liquid nitrogen, a boomy voice announced "Never Say Die:  The 
Pursuit of Eternal Youth, coming in August. . . .

     "Because time. . . waits for no one."

     Now why didn't we think of that?

     [Last minute update:  a letter from Central Productions informs us 
that the show will premier August 17th at 9:30 P.M.  Subsequent showings 
will be August 20th at 11:00 P.M., August 23rd at 4:40 A.M., August 25th 
at 10:30 P.M., and August 31st at 11:55 P.M.  --Ed.]
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Just My Brain?
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:39:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.224816.3265@hyper.hyper.com> bonneau@hyper.com (Paul Bonneau,,) writes:
>Hi all.
>
>Well, now that the noise has abated somewhat (and I finally
>got caught up on all the messages), I have a question.  For
>you folks that are already members of a Cryonic Institute,
>have you arranged to have only your brain (i.e head) frozen,
>or your entire body?  Alcor charges roughly 3 times as much
>for whole body suspension and makes a case for regeneration
>of one's body from the preserved DNA.  Just curious to see if
>there is a consensus.

I'd prefer whole body for reasons of paranoia, but head only has
substantial financial benefits, and is also safer in so far as its
much easier to move a frozen head than a frozen body in an emergency.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: The "Life Force" Argument
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:13:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul29.071329.1249
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

Plenty of people who believe in a "life force" also believe
in reincarnation, and it is not inconceivable (given such a 
belief) that the soul would prefer its original receptacle.  This
doesn't doesn't do anything a materialist, which I suspect most
of us are, but it might help sell cryonics to New Agers.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics