My post Monday on donating $5K to a Brain Preservation Prize testing fund has induced commentary (here, here, here, see also here). They’ve raised many issues on the choice between freezing brains or fixing them with chemicals.
To what extent does plastination require organizational support, rather than using something like a time capsule? My impression is that organizational support would really improve the odds of being revived.
To what extent is/can the organizational risk be mitigated by something like Alcors Patient Care Trust Fund (http://www.alcor.org/AboutA..., where ongoing preservation is paid for with interest, rather than the principal of the investment?
It seems pretty solid to me. When there are dips in the economy, it shrinks the fund and you have to eat into the principal. But when the economy does well, the fund grows. Furthermore, the cost of preservation is likely to shrink.
I'm not sure how what direction these forces point towards on balance, but my impression is an optimistic one. I don't know what would happen if Alcor went under, but there was still enough money in the fund though.
The field was 0.01 milliTesla, or 0.1 Gauss. The Earth's magnetic field is about 1 Gauss. The effects of such field on anything like freezing will be utterly insignificant. Complete BS, no further reading necessary. If they had such effect, never mind cryonics they should get their Nobel prize for discovering some entirely new physics.
I guess they tested different fields and had many enough tests so that one passed the statistical significance criteria.
Any cryonics organization that from their site refers in positive light to this study, I will consider to be either stupid or a fraud or both.
What you're missing is that this blog used to be co-written and get comments from members of the lesswrong community who fanatically support cryonics and are blind to its weaknesses. If robin was truly interested in pointing out bias he would point this out, but this post and others recently are a big step in the right direction.
I think Alcor would be able to handle a declining customer base by cutting back on the speed and quality of new suspensions.
My biggest concern is that they will become focused on preservation to the exclusion of reanimation. The conservative approach they need to keep existing suspendees safe is psychologically very different from the attitude needed to pioneer reanimation. I can easily imagine them permanently saying "we need more research to make sure it works well; we don't yet have enough money for that research".
Plastination might avoid that risk if the plastinated brains could be stored somewhere such as a bank safety deposit box where the entity responsible for reanimation is separate for the storage business, and the company responsible for storage wouldn't depend on this particular customer base to remain in business.
Agreed. If this is a serious description of cryonics (and I don't think it is) the label "Ponzi-like" applies.
Why don't you think it is?
Not true, since cryopreserved people consume a very small fraction of what living people do.
But they don't work hence they don't produce anything, and given that cryonics organizations have some financial difficulties, I'm not sure the maintenance costs are so low.Anyway, even if the investment fund was producing more revenue than the expenses, it would act as a drain that removed wealth from the economy.
Furthermore the efficiency gets dramatically better on a larger scale. The energy costs to maintain cold temperatures in a given volume are based on the surface area of the container
That's not relevant since there is a maximum size above which making containers becomes impractical.Alcor, for instance uses four-bodies six-heads containers, not a single refrigerated warehouse for all its >100 cryopatients.
Anyway, IIUC, refrigeration expenditures are just a small fraction of the total maintenace cost per person.
I seem to remember Brian Wowk took a look at that back when it first came out, his verdict was that it is most likely not really doing what it sounds like. (Possibly something like forming smaller ice crystals. Preventing ice from forming altogether was not considered physically plausible.)
It doesn't make any difference with respect to the unviability of the business model.
Agreed. If this is a serious description of cryonics (and I don't think it is) the label "Ponzi-like" applies.
I don't think so. If the number of cryopreserved people becomes any signficant fraction of the human population, they'll start effectively competing for resources.
Not true, since cryopreserved people consume a very small fraction of what living people do. You would have to have significant multiples, not fractions, to seriously compete for resources.
Furthermore the efficiency gets dramatically better on a larger scale. The energy costs to maintain cold temperatures in a given volume are based on the surface area of the container -- you only have to insulate the outside. You can also add thicker insulation without running up against diminishing returns from the increased surface area as quickly.
Some researchers in Japan seem to have made a significant advance in cryonics. They were trying to preserve sushi. They drop the sample well below freezing while vibrating the water molecules with a magnetic field, then turn off the field for instant freeze. No ice crystals, no chemicals. Now they're exploring it for organ transplants. Google "sushi freeze magnetic organ."
Doesn't solve organizational failure, but bring a mouse back from deep freeze and the cryonics companies' financials are likely to improve.
This isn't directly related to risk. My gut reaction is that plastication has a lower ick factor than cryonics, but I am uncertain. e.g. Are there more people who find frozen heads creepy, but would like to have grandpa's brain in a case on the mantle? Or just plain burying the plastinated brain with the body, to my mind it 'feels' almost traditional.
Academic circles often organize competitions, usually with no prize or just token prizes, since the real reward is largely social. These competitions do seem to spur innovation.
To what extent does plastination require organizational support, rather than using something like a time capsule? My impression is that organizational support would really improve the odds of being revived.
To what extent is/can the organizational risk be mitigated by something like Alcors Patient Care Trust Fund (http://www.alcor.org/AboutA..., where ongoing preservation is paid for with interest, rather than the principal of the investment?
It seems pretty solid to me. When there are dips in the economy, it shrinks the fund and you have to eat into the principal. But when the economy does well, the fund grows. Furthermore, the cost of preservation is likely to shrink.
I'm not sure how what direction these forces point towards on balance, but my impression is an optimistic one. I don't know what would happen if Alcor went under, but there was still enough money in the fund though.
What about a Third Option - start off with cryonics, and in the case of organizational failure, have them plastinate you?
Downsides:- Sudden organizational failure.- Do you trust them to plastinate you?
I did read the paper's abstract:
http://www.sciencedirect.co...
The field was 0.01 milliTesla, or 0.1 Gauss. The Earth's magnetic field is about 1 Gauss. The effects of such field on anything like freezing will be utterly insignificant. Complete BS, no further reading necessary. If they had such effect, never mind cryonics they should get their Nobel prize for discovering some entirely new physics.
I guess they tested different fields and had many enough tests so that one passed the statistical significance criteria.
Any cryonics organization that from their site refers in positive light to this study, I will consider to be either stupid or a fraud or both.
What you're missing is that this blog used to be co-written and get comments from members of the lesswrong community who fanatically support cryonics and are blind to its weaknesses. If robin was truly interested in pointing out bias he would point this out, but this post and others recently are a big step in the right direction.
I think Alcor would be able to handle a declining customer base by cutting back on the speed and quality of new suspensions.
My biggest concern is that they will become focused on preservation to the exclusion of reanimation. The conservative approach they need to keep existing suspendees safe is psychologically very different from the attitude needed to pioneer reanimation. I can easily imagine them permanently saying "we need more research to make sure it works well; we don't yet have enough money for that research".
Plastination might avoid that risk if the plastinated brains could be stored somewhere such as a bank safety deposit box where the entity responsible for reanimation is separate for the storage business, and the company responsible for storage wouldn't depend on this particular customer base to remain in business.
Agreed. If this is a serious description of cryonics (and I don't think it is) the label "Ponzi-like" applies.
Why don't you think it is?
Not true, since cryopreserved people consume a very small fraction of what living people do.
But they don't work hence they don't produce anything, and given that cryonics organizations have some financial difficulties, I'm not sure the maintenance costs are so low.Anyway, even if the investment fund was producing more revenue than the expenses, it would act as a drain that removed wealth from the economy.
Furthermore the efficiency gets dramatically better on a larger scale. The energy costs to maintain cold temperatures in a given volume are based on the surface area of the container
That's not relevant since there is a maximum size above which making containers becomes impractical.Alcor, for instance uses four-bodies six-heads containers, not a single refrigerated warehouse for all its >100 cryopatients.
Anyway, IIUC, refrigeration expenditures are just a small fraction of the total maintenace cost per person.
Their patent is nonsense.
6,250,087
I seem to remember Brian Wowk took a look at that back when it first came out, his verdict was that it is most likely not really doing what it sounds like. (Possibly something like forming smaller ice crystals. Preventing ice from forming altogether was not considered physically plausible.)
It doesn't make any difference with respect to the unviability of the business model.
Agreed. If this is a serious description of cryonics (and I don't think it is) the label "Ponzi-like" applies.
I don't think so. If the number of cryopreserved people becomes any signficant fraction of the human population, they'll start effectively competing for resources.
Not true, since cryopreserved people consume a very small fraction of what living people do. You would have to have significant multiples, not fractions, to seriously compete for resources.
Furthermore the efficiency gets dramatically better on a larger scale. The energy costs to maintain cold temperatures in a given volume are based on the surface area of the container -- you only have to insulate the outside. You can also add thicker insulation without running up against diminishing returns from the increased surface area as quickly.
Possibly, but keep in mind that a mouse weights 0.035 kg, while a human brain weights 1.4 kg.
How does the technique scale?
Some researchers in Japan seem to have made a significant advance in cryonics. They were trying to preserve sushi. They drop the sample well below freezing while vibrating the water molecules with a magnetic field, then turn off the field for instant freeze. No ice crystals, no chemicals. Now they're exploring it for organ transplants. Google "sushi freeze magnetic organ."
Doesn't solve organizational failure, but bring a mouse back from deep freeze and the cryonics companies' financials are likely to improve.
Self-interested Singularitarian's Maxim #1: 'There can be only one'
Hacker's Maxim #10: 'Don't lose your head'http://www.youtube.com/watc...
This isn't directly related to risk. My gut reaction is that plastication has a lower ick factor than cryonics, but I am uncertain. e.g. Are there more people who find frozen heads creepy, but would like to have grandpa's brain in a case on the mantle? Or just plain burying the plastinated brain with the body, to my mind it 'feels' almost traditional.
Academic circles often organize competitions, usually with no prize or just token prizes, since the real reward is largely social. These competitions do seem to spur innovation.