Synaptic comments on Open Thread, June 16-30, 2012 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 June 2012 04:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (344)
Tags: open thread open_thread

Comments (344)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Synaptic 15 June 2012 05:08:52PM 9 points [-]

Somewhat positive:

Ken Hayworth: http://www.brainpreservation.org/

Rafal Smigrodzki: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Cryonet/message/2522

Mike Darwin: http://chronopause.com/

It is critically important, especially for the engineers, information technology, and computer scientists who are reading this to understand that the brain is not a computer, but rather, it is a massive, 3-dimensional hard-wired circuit.

Aubrey de Grey: http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/tag/aubrey-de-grey/

Ravin Jain: http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/meetdirectors.html#ravin

Lukewarm:

Sebastian Seung: http://lesswrong.com/lw/9wu/new_book_from_leading_neuroscientist_in_support/5us2

Negative:

kalla724: comments http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/8f4/neil_degrasse_tyson_on_cryogenics/

The critique reduces to a claim that personal identity is stored non-redundantly at the level of protein post-translational modifications. If there was actually good evidence that this is how memory/personality is stored, I expect it would be better known. Plus if this is the case how has LTP been shown to be sustained following vitrification and re-warming? I await kalla724's full critique.

Comment author: jaibot 15 June 2012 06:40:51PM *  1 point [-]

Thank you for gathering these. Sadly, much of this reinforces my fears.

Ken Hayworth is not convinced - that's his entire motivation for the brain preservation prize.

“Do current cryonic suspension techniques preserve the precise wiring of the brain’s neurons?” The prevailing assumption among my colleagues is that current techniques do not. It is for this reason my colleagues reject cryonics as a legitimate medical practice. Their assumption is based mostly upon media hearsay from a few vocal cryobiologists with an axe to grind against cryonics. To try to get a real answer to this question I searched the available literature and interviewed cryonics researchers and practitioners. What I found was a few papers showing selected electron micrographs of distorted but recognizable neural tissue (for example, Darwin et al. 1995, Lemler et al. 2004). Although these reports are far more promising than most scientists would expect, they are still far from convincing to me and my colleagues in neuroscience.

Rafal Smigrodzki is more promising, and a neurologist to boot. I'll be looking for anything else he's written on the subject.

Mike Darwin - I've been reading Chronopause, and he seems authoritative to the instance-of-layman-that-is-me, but I'd like confirmation from some bio/medical professionals that he is making sense. His predictions of imminent-societal-doom have lowered my estimation of his generalized rationality (NSFW: http://chronopause.com/index.php/2011/08/09/fucked/). Additionally, he is by trade a dialysis technician, and to my knowledge does not hold a medical or other advanced degree in the biological sciences. This doesn't necessarily rule out him being an expert, but it does reduce my confidence in his expertise. Lastly: His 'endorsement' may be summarized as "half of Alcor patients probably suffered significant damage, and CI is basically useless".

Aubrey de Grey holds a BA in Computer Science and a Doctorate of Philosophy for his Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory. He has been active in longevity research for a while, but he comes from an information sciences background and I don't see many/any Bio/Med professionals/academics endorsing his work or positions.

Ravin Jain - like Rafal, this looks promising and I will be following up on it.

Sebastian Seung stated plainly in his most recent book that he fully expects to die. "I feel quite confident that you, dear reader, will die, and so will I." This seems implicitly extremely skeptical of current cryonics techniques, to say the least.

I've actually contacted kalla724 after reading their comments on LW placing extremely low odds on cryonics working. She believes, and presents in a convincing-to-the-layman-that-is-me manner, a convincing argument that the physical brain probably can't be made operational again even at the limit of physical possibility. I remain unsure of whether he is similarly skeptical of cryonics as a means to avoid information-death (i.e., cryonics as a step towards uploading), and have not yet followed up with him given that she seems pretty busy.

Summary:

  • Neuro MD/PhDs endorsing cryonics: Rafal Smigrodzki, Ravin Jain

  • People without Neuro-MD/PhDs endorsing cryonics: Mike Darwin, Aubrey de Grey

  • Neuro MD/PhDs who have engaged with cryonics and are skeptical of current protocols (+/- very): Ken Hayworth, Sabastian Seung, kalla724.

Comment author: Synaptic 15 June 2012 07:55:16PM *  4 points [-]

It's useful to distinguish between types of skepticism, something lsparrish has discussed: http://lesswrong.com/lw/cbe/two_kinds_of_cryonics/.

kalla724 assigns a probability estimate of p = 10^-22 to any kind of cryonics preserving personal identity. On the other hand, Darwin, Seung, and Hayworth are skeptical of current protocols, for good reasons. But they are also trying to test and improve the protocols (reducing ischemic time) and expect that alternatives might work.

From my perspective you are overweighting credentials. The reason you need to pay attention to neuroscientists is because they might have knowledge of the substrates of personal identity.

kalla724 has a phd in molecular biophysics. Arguably, molecular biophysics is itself an information science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biophysics. Depending upon kalla724's research, kalla724 could have knowledge relevant to the substrates of personal identity, but the credential itself means little.

In my opinion, the more important credential is knowledge of cryobiology. There are skeptics, such as Kenneth Storey, http://www4.carleton.ca/jmc/catalyst/2004/sf/km/km-cryonics.html. There are also proponents, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Fahy. See http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/coldwar.html.

ETA:

Sebastian Seung stated plainly in his most recent book that he fully expects to die. "I feel quite confident that you, dear reader, will die, and so will I." This seems implicitly extremely skeptical of current cryonics techniques, to say the least.

Semantics are tricky because "death" is poorly defined and people use it in different ways. See the post and comments here: http://www.geripal.org/2012/05/mostly-dead-vs-completely-dead.html.

As Seung notes in his book:

Irreversibility is not a timeless concept; it depends on currently available technology. What is irreversible today might become reversible in the future. For most of human history, a person was dead when respiration and heartbeat stopped. But now such changes are sometimes reversible. It is now possible to restore breathing, restart the heartbeat, or even transplant a healthy heart to replace a defective one.

Comment author: lsparrish 16 June 2012 12:03:05AM *  6 points [-]

There are skeptics, such as Kenneth Storey, http://www4.carleton.ca/jmc/catalyst/2004/sf/km/km-cryonics.html

Wow. Now there's a data point for you. This guy's an expert in cryobiology and he still gets it completely wrong. Look at this:

Storey says the cells must cool “at 1,000 degrees a minute,” or as he describes it somewhat less scientifically, “really, really, really fast.” The rapid temperature reduction causes the water to become a glass, rather than ice.

Rapid temperature reduction? No! Cryonics patients are cooled VERY SLOWLY. Vitrification is accomplished by high concentrations of cryoprotectants, NOT rapid cooling. (Vitrification caused by rapid cooling does exist -- this isn't it!)

I'm just glad he didn't go the old "frozen strawberries" road taken by previous expert cryobiologists.

Later in the article we have this gem:

"they (claim) they will somehow overturn the laws of physics, and chemistry and evolution and molecular science because they have the way..."

This guy apparently thinks we are planning to OVERTURN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. No wonder he dismisses us as a religion!

When it comes to smart people getting something horribly wrong that is outside their field, it appears much more likely to me that biology scientists are the ones who don't understand enough information science to usefully understand this concept.

The trouble is that if matters like nanotech, artificial intelligence, and encryption-breaking algorithms are still "magic" to you, well then of course you're going to get the feeling that cryonics is a religion.

But this is no more an accurate model of reality than that of the creationist engineer who strongly feels that evolutionary biologists are waving a magic wand over the hard problem of how species with complex features could have ever possibly come into existence without careful intelligent design. And it's caused by the same underlying problem: High inferential distance.

Comment author: jaibot 16 June 2012 09:36:35AM 1 point [-]

I notice that I am confused. Kenneth Storey's credentials are formidable, but the article seems to get the basics of cryonics completely wrong. I suspect that the author, Kevin Miller, may be at fault here, failing to accurately represent Storey's case. The quotes are sparse, and the science more so. I propose looking elsewhere to confirm/clarify Storey's skepticism.

Comment author: lsparrish 16 June 2012 04:45:02PM *  3 points [-]

A Cryonic Shame from 2009 states that Storey dismisses cryonics on the basis of the temperature being too low and oxygen deprivation killing the cells due to the length of time required for cooling cryonics patients. This suggests that does know (as of 2009, at least) that cryonicists aren't flash-vitrifying patients. But it doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of cryoprotectants being used -- he suggests that we would use sugar like the wood frogs do.

For one thing, cryonics institutes cool their bodies to temperatures of –80°C, and often subsequently to –200°C. Since no known vertebrate can survive below –20°C, and few below –8°C, this looks like a bad choice. “There isn’t enough sugar in the world” to protect cells at that temperature, Storey says. Moreover, Storey adds that cryonics practitioners “freeze bodies so slowly all the cells would be dead from lack of oxygen long before they freeze”.

This is an odd step backwards from his 2004 article where he demonstrated that he knew cryonics is about vitrification, but suggested an incorrect way to do it. He also strangely does not mention that the ischemic cascade is a long and drawn out process which slows down (as do other chemical reactions) the colder you get.

Not only does he get the biology wrong again (as near as I can tell) but to add insult to injury, this article has no mention of the fact that cryonicists intend to use nanotech, bioengineering, and/or uploading to work around the damage. It starts with the conclusion and fills in the blanks with old news. (The cells being "dead" from lack of oxygen is ludicrous if you go by structural criteria. The onset of ischemic cascade is a different matter.)

Comment author: jaibot 16 June 2012 09:13:30PM 0 points [-]

The comment directly above this one (lsparrish, "A Cryonic Shane") appeared downvoted at the time of me posting this comment, though no one offered criticism or an explanation of why.

Comment author: lsparrish 16 June 2012 10:42:32PM 0 points [-]

The above is a heavily edited version of the comment. (The edit was in response to the downvote.) The original version had an apparent logical contradiction towards the beginning and also probably came off a bit more condescending than I intended.

Comment author: jaibot 16 June 2012 02:38:30AM 0 points [-]

Thank you for this reply - I endorse almost all of it, with an asterisk on "the more important credential is knowledge of cryobiology", which is not obviously true to me at this time. I'm personally much more interested in specifying what exactly needs to be preserved before evaluating whether or not it is preserved. We need neuroscientists to define the metric so cryobiologists can actually measure it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit