= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
V_V comments on MIT Technology Review - Michael Hendricks opinion on Cryonics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (20)
Straw man. Connectonomics is relevant to trying to explain the concept of uploading to the lay-man. Few cryonics proponents actually believe it's all you need to know to reconstruct the brain.
The fact that someone can be dead for several hours and then be resuscitated, or have their brain substantially heated or cooled without dying, puts a theoretical limit on how sensitive your long-term brain state can possibly be to these sorts of transient details of brain structure. It seem very likely that long-term identity-related brain state is stored almost entirely in relatively stable neurological structures. I don't think this is particularly controversial, neurobiologically.
This is not, to the best of my knowledge, true, and he offers no evidence for this claim. Cryonics does a very good job of preserving a lot of features of brain tissue. There is some damage done by the cryoprotectants and thermal shearing, but it's specific and well-characterized damage, not total structural disruption. Although I will say that ice crystal formation in the deep brain caused by the no-reflow problem is a serious concern. Whether that's a showstopper depends on how important you think the fine-grained structure of white matter is.
Bad philosophy on top of bad neuroscience!
I don't think so, Cryonics is predicated upon the hypothesis that the fine structural details which probably can't be preserved with current methods are not important to reconstruct personal identity.
I don't think that substantial heating is survivable. Where did you get that information?
Anyway, the type of disruptions that occur to brain tissue during cryopreservation (hours-long warm ischemia, cryoprotectant damage and ice crystal formation and thermal shearing) are very different than those which occur in all known survivable events. Warm ischemia can be reduced with prompt cryopreservation (but even in the highly publicized case of Kim Suozzi, where death was expected and a lot of preparation took place, they still couldn't avoid it), it's unclear how much ice crystal formation can be reduced (it's believed to also depend on cryopreservation promptness, but that's more speculative) and cryoprotectant damage and thermal shearing are currently unavoidable.
You are reversing the burden of evidence. It's the cryonics supporters that have to provide evidence that cryonics preserves relevant brain tissue features. To my knowledge, this evidence seems to be scarce or absent. AFAIK, no cryopreserved human brain, or a brain of comparable size, was ever analyzed. There were some studies done by ALCOR on dog brains, but these were never replicated by independent researchers. Dog brains, anyway, are smaller and hence easier to vitrify than human brains.
I feel like the dog brain studies are at least fairly strong evidence that quite a bit of information is preserved. The absence of an independent validation is largely down to the poor mainstream perception of cryonics. It's not that Alcor is campaigning to cover up contrary studies - it's that nobody cares enough to do them. Vis-a-vis the use of dogs, there actually aren't that many animals with comparable brain volume to humans. I mean, if you want to find an IRB that'll let you decorticate a giraffe, be my guest. Dogs are a decent analog, under the circumstances. They're not so much smaller you'd expect drastically different results.
In any case, if this guy wants to claim that cryonics doesn't preserve fine-grained brain detail, he can do the experiment and prove it. You can't just point at a study you don't like and shout 'the authors might be biased' and thus refute its claim. You need to be able to provide either serious methodological flaws, or an actual failure to replicate.
Dog brains are 20 times smaller than human brains: 70 g vs 1,300 - 1,400 g. Given the square-cube law, this means that dog brains have a much higher surface to mass ratio, therefore they can be cooled faster without cracking and using a lower concentration of cryoprotectant. (Cow brains, on the other hand, are just 3 times smaller than human brains and about the same size of chimp brains, hence you don't need to experiment on an exotic animal to get more comparable results).
And we don't know how much information was preserved anyway.
And the only studies being made by an organization that has ideological and financial stakes in the outcome is a big problem. As far as we know, they could have selected the best micrographs, hiding under the rug those that showed substantial damage.
Cryonics organization should encourage independent replication instead or playing the victim.
The default position is that cryonics doesn't work. It's the proponents that have the burden of providing evidence that it works. ALCOR dog brain studies are weak for the aforementioned reasons.
Independent would mean research for which they aren't paying. How should Alcor go about encouraging such research in your opinion?
Doing PR, essentially. I think that if ALCOR acted more as a research organization and less as McImmortality it would have an easier time getting external researchers interested, instead of the current hostile relationship it has with professional cryobiologists.