ASC vs. O.C. $1K aldehyde bath + molecular brain scan

[Rib Jig]

In layman's terms, how do the two differ?
Does assisted death in OR allow for immediate $1K aldehyde bath?
Will O.C. be embracinig & offering ASC ???
Thanks in advance.

[jordansparks]

Here it is in layman's terms:
ASC is pumping aldehyde through the arteries so that it reaches every single cell. This is done immediately, before the cells have time to degrade. The $1K aldehyde bath is when aldehyde is applied from the outside of the brain rather than through the arteries. In this case, there is a delay of hours caused by removing the brain from the skull, and it also takes hours/days for the aldehyde to soak through the tissue. So ASC and aldehyde bath are really completely different things with completely different results. I'm skeptical that we are preserving any memories with aldehyde bath, but maybe.

The standard protocol at OC is essentially ASC. We have a protocol that we think will work well, but it remains untested. We couldn't just use the exact ASC protocol from the paper, because we wanted it to be better in certain technical areas. For example, our CT scanner requires the presence of sulfur atoms, so we added sulfur atoms. Incidentally, both Alcor and CI have changed their protocols slightly from what was developed in the lab, and they haven't validated those changes, either.

Our protocol is very similar to ASC, and it's very likely to produce the same results in an ideal situation.

[Rib Jig]

Thanks!

Any prediction on when molecular-level WBE scan will be available to paying customers?
2040? 2060? 2100? Other?
Am assuming scan upload to computer-avatar will come many decades later than scan service...?
Any reason such a customer will not fully feel their life-existence is continuing after revival?
(except for time gap between scan & death -- which could be "learned about" at least...)

[jordansparks]

I think molecular-level is overkill, but I'm guessing around 130 years from now, or 2150. While it wouldn't violate any laws of physics, there are a LOT of intermediate engineering stages that I can envision, each taking a number of years to develop. Since the scan would be destructive, I don't think anyone would do it without already having perfected the emulation side of things. If you scan too early, the risk would be that you wouldn't do a high enough quality scan. Why not wait, if the emulation wouldn't even run yet? One reason they might not feel full continuation is because of some level of amnesia from damage done during the dying and preservation process. There will be damage -- maybe a little or, quite possibly, a lot. This is simply our least-worst option.

[Rib Jig]

a. Since the scan would be destructive
b. If you scan too early, the risk would be that you wouldn't do a high enough quality scan.
c. Why not wait...?
d. One reason they might not feel full continuation is because of some level of amnesia from damage done during the dying and preservation process.
e. This is simply our least-worst option.

Thanks for response.

a. don't people get PET-MRI-CT all the time now with no noticeable destructive side effects?
Why would future molecular level scan be any different, especially if non-destruction is a requirement?

b. once molecular level scans are reality, why not annually? And once someone reaches, say, 80, then monthly?

c. if MolecLevelScan are reality before upload to computer-avatar possible, anyone wanting revival will absolutely want
their brain scanned for future revival, even if into a new "vessel", right???

d. IMO, a reason for "gap" would be time between last MLScan & death -- reason for monthly scans in final years.
(perhaps some kind of constant AI-monitored diary of person would allow one to "catch up" on one's gap,
the idea being learning about the gap is next best to remembering it...?)

e. only option, current cryonics, is better-than-nothing longshot from what I've read of clearly destructive shrinkage, etc.
Your 2150 prediction for MLScan, wow, was hoping optimistically by 2045 as I may still be around...
Certainly hoping for advances in cryonics, like non-destructive ASC perfusion becoming a choice.
That could be followed later by MLScan upload to new vessel...?

[jordansparks]

When I say "scan" I mean slicing up the brain into millions of physical slices. Yes, chopping up the brain. I've been trained in radiology. I don't think a non-destructive scan like you envision would ever be possible. The thicker the sample, the blurrier the image. There are limits to physics that engineering cannot overcome, and a non-destructive scan is very likely far beyond those limits. You have to take the brain apart to see what's inside. Physics says that's really easy with enough engineering.
An external scan that can capture the wiring of the mind is fake sci-fi technology, just like antigravity, warp speed, and transporter beams. None of these has any known basis in physics. They all seem to violate the laws of physics. So it must be a destructive scan, which means to you get one shot at it, and it's irreversible.

[Rib Jig]

Ah. So molecular scan destructive, macro PET-MRI-CT nondestructive.
Somewhere in-between is nondestructive limit.
Go too small, get blurriness.
What about multiple blurry nondestructive scans stacked into one ?nonblurry? molecular scan???
Physics limits scanning but not future computer ability to interpret blurred scans correctly...?
Imagine millions of interpretations, one so good that when uploaded it is "you" confirming
that you are cognizant of your past, your memories, & your revival wishes...?
All the inferior interpretations are deleted...

[DetnPx]

Although I'm not a supporter of the ASC and/or uploading approaches, I can imagine that "scanning tissue on the molecular scale" in ~50 years would simply mean an injection of nanoscale robots which work their way through tissue and independantly transmit what structure they come across, to a nearby receiver. The receiver reconstructs all this molecular data into a full scale computer model. Scanning the full brain then probably takes ~1 hour or less and would be non-destructive.

The only problem may be, that this technology would generally be developed for living tissue, not cryopreserved tissue (with or without ASC). This may demand different nanorobots, which do not float around between cells, but crawl around in a mechanical fashion.

[jordansparks]

If we have nanorobots in 50 years, they might be in the bloodstream. That's somewhat reasonable. But they wouldn't be small enough to leave the bloodstream. That's really complicated and would take another 50 years. If those robots are just operating by feel, then they would not be able to "see" the structure of the insides of cells or the synapses without physically taking apart those structures to some degree, and repair would be very difficult. I think you might be saying they could also see the xrays to enhance the scan. I guess so, but not in 50 years. If you are going to imagine a technology that advanced, you have to take the time to imagine all the intermediate steps. There are a lot of intermediate engineering steps. I think domestic robots would need to happen many decades prior to robots in the bloodstream, for example.

[Rib Jig]

> I'm not a supporter of the ASC and/or uploading approaches...


Isn't what one now supports influenced by what one expects
to be available towards end of one's current life?
(assuming one wants to be revived in future...)
80 yr olds now MUST support current cryonics,
30 yr olds can reject current cryonics...

[lomb]

It could be 500 years before anyone can scan a brain and upload it and 1000 before nanorobots appear.
No one has answered the question as to who will pay to revive these brains and create a body for them and the costs to society of reviving old people who can't or won't work and will pay no taxes. Also you get brain damage from ischaemia after a few minutes neurons start dying so why would anyone revive someone who is retarded.
Then you could die in your sleep and be ischaemic for many hours.
It is more realistic I think to freeze a copy of your dna /sperm and give 100000 dollar reward invested in the s&p 500 or Berkshire to duplicate that in the future . Should be around 5 million in 1-200 years.I'm 100% certain that will come to fruition. You can even leave the kid a letter when they turn 18-this is your dad, these are my main memories and some tips wishing them good luck.

[jordansparks]

>who will pay
Many possibilities: Children, grandchildren, spouses, friends, social safety net, researchers, entrepreneurs, historians. As technology improves, the cost also comes down, and at some point, the cost could become trivial.
>get brain damage from ischemia after a few minutes
No, this is false. In a living person, the damage actually happens the next day. But if we cool and preserve, then it never gets to that point.
>Then you could die in your sleep and be ischemic for many hours.
Huh? By your logic, hospitals shouldn't help anyone, because sometimes they are too late.

[Mati_Roy]

Re. aldehyde bath

While I've mostly only read the abstract, and don't understand everything, this seems relevant: "Based on the diffusion model, the brain is not completely saturated in formalin until after 14.8 weeks of formalin immersion and, based on the observed changes in T1, T2, and PD, fixation is not complete until after 5.4 weeks." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16032673) (h/t to Mike Darwin)

Ben Best says chemical reaction rate is about 18 times lower at ~0 °C (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733321/); Jordan Sparks says about 21.8 ( 1/((2.3 ^ ((0-37)/10))) ; see: http://oregoncryo.com/qualityScores.html). So 5.4 weeks at ~0 °C would be the equivalent of 42 hours (5.4*7*24/21.8) at 37 °C. The above experiment was done at 20°C; I don't know how temperature influences fixation speed.

Mike Darwin explains in this article (http://chronopause.com/chronopause.com/ ... index.html) why ze thinks that "sometime between 2 and 12 hours of warm ischemia it is very likely that true (information theoretic) death has occurred".

I would personally still favor an aldehyde bath to fire, even if it's unlikely to preserve a substantial fraction of the brain, but I would say the expected value per dollar of ASC is higher, so that if you're ready to save for the former, you should probably be ready to save for the latter.

Valuing going from 0% chance of being preserved to 1% much more than going from 1% to 2% seems mostly irrational to me; for me, having "hope" is of little value in comparison to actually living.

[DetnPx]

The success of any field in general, I think, depends mainly on the amount of minds focussed on it in parallel.

To take a situation to it's extreme: Which of these do you think aids cryonics R&D towards eventual fully reversible human suspended animation the quickest?

.- 1,000 cryonicists working full time on improving and promoting cell/tissue/organ/wholebody viability preservation; or
.- 1,000 cryonicists working full time on improving and promoting Aldehyde Stabilized Cryonics

[jordansparks]

DetnPx, you are assuming that reversible suspended animation is a real possibility. I'm pretty sure it's not. I think the only way to reverse it is going to be to take the whole brain apart molecule by molecule until it's completely disassembled -- in other words, a destructive scan. I hardly think that qualifies as "suspended animation". So if it's not even possible, then it really doesn't matter how much effort is devoted to it. All the effort is a waste of time.

Which of these do you think aids antigravity R&D towards eventual fully functional antigravity the quickest?
.- 1,000 scientists working full time on improving and promoting antigravity science; or
.- 1,000 scientists working full time on improving and promoting aerospace engineering

It's a logical fallacy of "begging the question" because the question itself is loaded with unfounded assumptions. Here's another example: "How did you feel when you killed your wife?"

[orecryoname]

jordan, that is an excellent point!
I have very serious doubts that brains preserved via cryopreservation can be restored without basically going into the cryopreserved brain, and rebuilding each cell or more likely copying each cell.

And if that is indeed the case, then why even bother with all the expense of cryopreservation? Why not just chemically fix the brain?

[jordansparks]

No, high quality chemical fixation alone is not good enough. Damage over time is very significant due to molecular motion. There is no sharp deadline on how fast fixation must be followed by cryopreservation, but it's in the range of hours, not years.

[DetnPx]

Which of these do you think aids antigravity R&D towards eventual fully functional antigravity the quickest?
.- 1,000 scientists working full time on improving and promoting antigravity science; or
.- 1,000 scientists working full time on improving and promoting aerospace engineering

The winner in my estimate would be the answer where the group of 1,000 attracts the most organic interest from the next 1,000 scientists, without a need for dragging them on their hairs to come and work in this field.

Because 1,000 scientists is never enough.

This was the point of my comparison.