From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: The "Life Force" Argument
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:14:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.151947.21660@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown) writes:

>> From: Charles Platt <71042.3557@CompuServe.COM>

>         How Do We Tackle the "Life Force" Argument? 
>         -------------------------------------------
> 
>I am married to someone who does not believe that cryonics 
>can work. I have a literary agent who feels the same way. 
>Recently I showed my wife and my agent a piece that I had 
>written to address their skepticism. Briefly, my arguments 
>ran like this: 
> 
>1. Complete recovery after brief periods of no vital signs 
>(e.g. following heart attacks or cold-water immersion) 
>suggests that if blood circulates containing oxygen, glucose, 
>and other nutrients, and if ischemia has not had time to 
>occur, and if body temperature is in a normal range, cellular 
>processes will spontaneously restart; and these processes 
>will sustain nervous activity which, in turn, enables us to 
>think and function. 
> 
>2. Therefore, consciousness depends fundamentally on 
>chemistry. If the chemical reactions that sustain electrical 
>activity in the brain are not supplied with necessary 
>nutrients, we lose consciousness. If the flow of nutrients 
>does not resume, all brain functions cease and we are "dead." 
>If circulation can be restored and/or damage can be repaired, 
>we will "return to life." 
> 
>I assume most cryonicists would agree with this, broadly 
>speaking. However, my wife and my literary agent (both of 
>whom are smart people) did not agree. They have a very strong 
>gut feeling that life cannot be as mechanistic as this. There 
>is a "life force" involved; not necessarily a spirit or a 
>soul, but something that cannot be explained so easily. 
> 
>>From their perspective, a victim of cold-water drowning who 
>is restored to life never really lost that "life force" and 
>therefore was not really dead. Conversely, it is impossible 
>for them to believe that the life force would survive in a 
>detached head immersed in liquid nitrogen, especially bearing 
>in mind the damage that results from freezing. Therefore, as 
>far as they are concerned, cryonics cannot work. 

I think that this is the weak point--they're going by a feeling
of what the life force can tolerate before it gives up on a
body. (I may be personifying the life force a little too much.)
This is a guess based on very little experience. (It could still
be right, of course.)  However, since there's no reason to think
that any disaster (due to life force or other reasons) will result
from trying to revive frozen people, it's worth while to try the
experiment of revival. 

Comes to that, if a frozen person is restored to full chemical
functioning but does not regain life, that would tend to suggest
that there is physical proof of a life force. This is a pretty
interesting outcome. 

I don't think, given their premises, that you can convince them
that cryonics will _work_, but you might be able to convince them
that it's a plausible thing to try out. 

[lots of civilized stuff deleted]

                                    Hope this helps,
                                    Nancy Lebovitz  

                          calligraphic button catalogue availible
                             by email (170K)
                          nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu