How come people here are not very interested in cryonics/brain preservation?

#21

I’d like to see actual hard “progress” first that deals with this core issue which will almost certainly happen in the utmost ideal situation with generously given hypothetical plausibility, before even thinking about it. It should be pretty easy for anyone including the companies to advertise this and eventually have a pub somewhere.

I prefer seeing the pubs to avoid the situation of - if I just read this “article” or “blog” or “video” if that makes sense. No offense - I simply don’t like reading through content intended for a layman’s audience for certain things.

3 Likes
#22

The current protocols from my understanding will damage personality traits even in the incredibly unlikely event of a resurrection assuming the science is even plausible.

Not sure how you can know this. Seems like an area of considerable uncertainty. Would be curious to hear your reasoning.

Necrosis of neurons and their irreversible morphological changes likely can be detected within 4 hours after death due to ischemia

Your citation says 6 hours. Complex topic, happy to discuss it in more depth. Anyway, preservation can be started within minutes in a case with medical aid in dying. No need to wait 6 hours. California Man Becomes the First ‘Death With Dignity’ Patient to Undergo Cryonic Preservation

The number of non-functional nerve cells during freezing in laboratory conditions depends on storage time and reaches 40% already after one year of storage

Not sure this article says what you said it says – “Cell viability was not substantially affected by the duration of cryostorage, as cells frozen in CS10 for over a year exhibited only a small decrease in viability compared to vials stored for a few days”. Fig 8a has a non-significant effect.

Separately from this article, there is very good evidence that cells and tissues can be stored at liquid nitrogen temperature for years or decades. See for example many people preserving eggs/sperm/embryos/ovarian tissue etc in this way.

The main question is not storage duration but getting to and from liquid nitrogen temperature without damage. Which is much trickier and will lead to damage. That is the core gamble of contemporary cryopreservation.

Damage of 5% of neurons in the human forebrain [6] in a stroke event leads to negative personality changes

It’s obviously the case that damaging neurons leads to personality/memory changes. But the brain is fairly robust. See for example the findings that memory and personality can be maintained even after a hemispherectomy for intractable epilepsy: Why would you remove half a brain? The outcome of 58 children after hemispherectomy-the Johns Hopkins experience: 1968 to 1996 - PubMed

I’m still not fully convinced about the plausibility of science in the first place over the seemingly more scientifically plausible alternatives.

Not sure what you mean here. What is the alternative?

1 Like
#23

Really? I made an harmless quip about self-identifying as a different gender, it got several upvotes and… was promptly deleted with a warning.

Soured me on contributing to the site because such an anti-science admin position makes me question what else the site will bend the knee to for the powers that be.
Thus, I rarely visit anymore.

You are either science-based or you’re not. There is no serious person (who isn’t pandering) who accepts that we can chose up to 53 genders that can further change as the wind blows. Science accepts XX or XY with no room for moon/moonself or any other nonsense. I see plenty of sarcasm and even aggressiveness on this site that stands, but a post poking fun at changing genders on the fly was a bridge too far…

I had no intent to comment on this moderation strike against me- but reading the above about being science based was rather impossible to ignore.

#24

So there are really two things that can be attempted in cryonics/brain preservation:

  1. Functional preservation - this has very bad/effectively no outcomes.
  2. Structural preservation - this has been demonstrated in an ideal case of animal models to preserve the connectome, which is thought to be a core neural substrate of memory/personality, with the preservation technique of aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation. Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation - PubMed

A core question, then, is whether there will ever be a technology developed that might actually allow for revival following aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation. In my view, it’s highly unclear and depends on how technology develops in the distant future, which is very difficult to predict.

1 Like
#25

I have a question for you… Given your apparent interest in this what do you do differently now that you wouldn’t do if you didn’t believe it. What is actionable?

The goal here is to help people live healthier and longer lives. Its not clear how cryo nics is helpful right now.

5 Likes
#26

I haven’t any recollection of that. It must be mistake of some kind. I live in San Francisco and don’t really consider gender (binary or non-binary) as an issue in any sense with regard to discussions here. I apologize for any confusion.

3 Likes
#27

Yeah, it is a complex topic and I don’t have all the answers. That’s precisely why I’d rather there be hard “progress” before I revisit the topic. Otherwise, we’d continually be talking about “what ifs” and debates on how uncertain something is in what appears to be a purely hypothetical and probably not scientifically possible sense. There’s just other more pressing priorities I’d like to read up or discuss. I’m not particularly keen on weeding through this topic until there is hard “progress” that deals with all the core issues both with the process and the operational side that I already mentioned in a significantly more tangible manner.

As for the analogy you mentioned, it is not quite the same. A suggestion would be the classic story of Phineas Gage.

There are several alternatives:

  1. Cracking how aging works through a hypothetical AI singularity (not sure if plausible)
  2. Whole brain emulation (highly, highly implausible)
  3. “Longevity escape velocity” (highly unlikely, but may be plausible) - perfecting gene editing and other longevity-extending interventions that buys more time to reassess odds more accurately.

To be clear, I’m not against this industry inherently and I hope it works out. I simply don’t share the same level of enthusiasm as you do regarding cryo at the moment although I’m quite open to reviewing it again when there’s something to show even in a very preliminary preclinical type of deal that piques my interest

4 Likes
#28

I just want to add that i am all for the end goal here and hope it is successful. I just don’t see it being soon.

2 Likes
#29

I think you would find this interesting… Head transplants Longevity Resources from the Foresight Institute

There are apparently startups working on this today.

1 Like
#30

“How come people here are not very interested in cryonics/brain preservation?”

Another possibility:

Some percentage of people here have religious beliefs. And although they are interested in a longer healthspan and lifespan, they also believe in life after death. And so being brought back to life in the future doesn’t comport with their spiritual beliefs.

I recently posted a topic here about a neurosurgeon who wants to experiment with brain transplantation to extend life. He thinks he can surgically overcome the current obstacles. Ethical debate aside, this seems more like cheating death than bringing someone back to life.

4 Likes
#31

I am more optimistic about cryonics than others seem to be.

I do not think it’s accurate to claim that “the general scientific consensus is that cryonics has a 1 in a billion chance of being successful.” While many scientists who have limited knowledge about cryonics may dismiss the idea, there is no consensus among experts that the odds are as low as 1 in a billion. To my knowledge, there is no published scientific study quantifying the odds in this low range, let alone a consensus review.

Estimating the odds of cryonics success is difficult, but I side with the 68 signatories of The Scientists’ Open Letter on Cryonics who state there is a “credible possibility” it might work.

There’s experimental evidence that simple multicellular organisms (Vita-More & Barranco 2008) and entire organs (Sharma et al. 2021) can be cryopreserved and revived. Brain ultrastructure can be preserved through vitrification (Pichugin et al. 2006) and aldehyde-stabilization (McIntyre & Fahy 2015), including an entire large mammalian brain. There is also evidence of technological advances and arguments that damage during cryopreservation can be repaired in the future with medical technology as outlined in a recent book (Freitas 2022).

Cryonics research currently receives only a very tiny fraction of the funding invested in longevity research, which in turn is dwarfed the amount of funding being poured into cancer research and other mainstream areas of medical research. I am optimistic that the situation will eventually change as argued in this article. Certainly, there is no competition between cryonics research and longevity research. Both could grow by redirecting funds from cancer research or, better, the annual consumption of potato chips.

I believe the major challenge for cryonics is not technical, but carrying out a high-quality cryopreservation directly after pronouncement of legal death. This requires a supportive doctor, supporting relatives, ways to avoid dying undetected, and proximity to a cryonics provider or local support group who can help with the initial steps of cool down and cardiopulmonary support (CPS). Signing up for cryonics, informing relatives and doctors about one’s wishes, and helping to build a local support group for cryonics are examples of actions one can take to improve the odds.

References:

Freitas Jr, R. A. (2022). Cryostasis Revival–The Recovery of Cryonics Patients Through Nanomedicine. Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Scottsdale Arizona.

McIntyre, R. L., & Fahy, G. M. (2015). Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation. Cryobiology 71: 448-458.

Pichugin, Y., Fahy, G. M., & Morin, R. (2006). Cryopreservation of rat hippocampal slices by vitrification. Cryobiology 52; 228-240.

Sharma, A., Rao, J. S., Han, Z., Gangwar, L., Namsrai, B., Gao, Z., … & Bischof, J. C. (2021). Vitrification and nanowarming of kidneys. Advanced Science 8: 2101691.

Vita-More, N., & Barranco, D. (2015). Persistence of long-term memory in vitrified and revived Caenorhabditis elegans. Rejuvenation Research 18: 458-463.

PS: I am sorry for not including direct links in my post. As a new user, I was only allowed to include two of them :frowning_face:

1 Like
#32

I also believe there is one major key factor missing here. Cryonics industry funding research in how to resuscitate folks appears to be pretty absent (at least last I checked). The motivation of Alcor based on a talk with the founder appears to be money, rather than even creating societal acceptance of life extension (which would indirectly relate to research funding in aging and perhaps even cryonics). Seems pretty backward to me.

Not necessarily saying money is inherently bad, but it would behoove one to really take a hard look at motivation and incentives.

1 Like
#33

Welcome to the forum!

Sorry, that was my quick way of saying the odds seem to be low. Exactly how low, over what period of time, is certainly an open topic of debate.

I have to admit i do find the science around hibernation to be fascinating. There is a startup company doing a lot of research in this area called Fauna Bio, a spinout from Stanford being done by a group of women veterinarian researchers. I look forward to following the progress.

2 Likes
#34

Far more likely that we find a way to transfer consciousness to computer than figure out cryogenics?

3 Likes
#35

No, that’s just another hypothetical.

I’m more on the higher likelihood of “longevity escape velocity” happening via perfecting gene editing and other longevity-extending interventions that buys more time to reassess odds more accurately.

Why spend money now on cryonics instead of saving and investing it for gene editing - which could end up costing around 1M? Not sure why this isn’t a better gamble until there is better information to assess cryonics.

2 Likes
#36

Great question! I guess the main action item for me was signing up for cryonics/brain preservation. Personally, I’m also interested in researching it.

I wouldn’t want to push this on anybody else though. It’s a deeply personal decision and everyone should make it for themselves.

Regarding whether these organizations are just scams trying to get money as tangMD has repeatedly suggested: I don’t think that’s broadly true today, with some exceptions aside.

The vast majority of organizations are non-profits. Eg Cryonics Institute and Alcor. You can review their financial statements if you’re interested. They’re not making much money, and again, they’re non-profits. Simply not what I would expect if these organizations were scams.

1 Like
#37

I didn’t say they were scams. I’m merely saying they have an appearance of impropriety and motivations/incentives are questionable

Check out the nonprofit ratings here, 1/4 rating, worst on accountability and finance.

1 Like
#38

Yeah I think that whole brain emulation is more likely than most longevity approaches, like cryonics with the goal of rewarming for revival, or longevity escape velocity. It’s just so much easier to manipulate bits than atoms. All that is needed is:

  1. Scanning the brain tissue at a detailed enough molecular level.
  2. Building models of how brain cells work (in separate experiments).
  3. Building virtual reality worlds.

All of these things could be dramatically accelerated by or performed by AI, and in my view almost certainly will be, assuming that humanity survives the coming 50-150 years.

The critical piece that people don’t usually appreciate is that cryonics/brain preservation is a potential bridge to a world where whole brain emulation technology has been developed. Because this technology probably won’t be available in many people’s lifetimes.

1 Like
#39

I suppose you believe that an AI singularity is plausible (which we don’t actually know and still of active debate - so such a claim of “almost certainly would be” is far too optimistic). If we generously assume that is true, such an AI probably would solve the biology of aging before that happened. It’s much, much more likely I survive 50-100 years to wait and see

#40

My personal opinion is that I don’t think that Alcor is scamming people though or hiding their money. The most common critique of them, which I agree with, is that they are too conservative with money and don’t allow access to enough people.

That rating on charity navigator seems to mostly have come down to lack of independent audit. Fair enough. I don’t know enough about the space to say if this is a big deal.

There are a lot of organizations in the space. Even if one of them is doing problematic things with their money (which might be true, I don’t know that much about it, although I would bet against it), it doesn’t mean that all of them are or that the idea is bad.

Certainly, we could find organizations in the rapamycin space that have motives that seem mostly about making money. But that doesn’t mean that rapamycin is a bad idea as an anti-aging treatment. It just means that those organizations should be avoided and/or that others should be started to pursue the underlying idea.

I suppose you believe that an AI singularity is plausible (which we don’t actually know and still of active debate - so such a claim of “almost certainly would be” is far too optimistic). If we generously assume that is true, such an AI probably would solve the biology of aging before that happened. It’s much, much more likely I survive 50-100 years to wait and see

You’re right “almost certainly would be” was too optimistic. Fair point. I should defer more to the consensus in the field.

I don’t believe in an AI “singularity”, just incrementable, compound progress that eventually replaces human intelligence in all or nearly all areas.

The key point, though, is that these AI advances are likely to occur after many people alive today have died. The only way for those people to potentially access the benefits of these likely future AI advances is to preserve themselves when they die.

I agree that if people are alive at that point when dramatic AI advances occur, then there will be other approaches instead that might be preferable, like AI solving the biology of aging. For younger people that are lucky enough to not die of something unavoidable like cancer or ALS before then, they might be more likely to access that. I certainly hope this happens! That would be fantastic.