Brain Preservation prize for large mammal

Welcome to the Oregon Cryonics forum
jordansparks
Site Admin
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Brain Preservation prize for large mammal

Postby jordansparks » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:51 am

The Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF) has awarded the Large Mammal Brain Preservation Prize to 21CM, Robert McIntyre, and Greg Fahy.
http://www.brainpreservation.org/large-mammal-announcement/
There are also a slew of related news articles. For example:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610456/a-startup-is-pitching-a-mind-uploading-service-that-is-100-percent-fatal/
Also, here is Alcor's position statement:
http://www.alcor.org/blog/http-www-alcor-org-blog-alcor-position-statement-on-large-brain-preservation-foundation-prize/

Let me get right to the point. Nectome will not be providing any brain preservation services. I challenge the extraordinary claim that 25 people have deposited $10,000 in advance. People simply won't pay for services that don't yet exist, Musk being the seeming exception. I feel that collecting advance deposits for a non-existent service or product that is still years away falls under the category of charlatanism, Musk included. Step one is to build a facility and build the capability to provide service. Step two is to offer said service. Nectome is not doing that. They are trying to build the second story without any foundation. One proof of concept does not in any way equate to the required proficiency. I've performed carotid cannulation on over 50 cadavers, and it wasn't until the last few that I felt the technique was refined enough. It required custom fabrication of cannulae and other equipment. Even hiring a pathologist to perform the cannulation would not address the many unique issues with this procedure. Their learning curve might be a little shorter, but it would not just magically go away.

So, while I'm certain McIntyre will fail to provide adequate services, I'm still a huge fan of what he's doing. We are in absolute agreement on the fundamental concept that fixation is a very useful approach to brain preservation, and that it must be part of the standard protocol. All current cryonics cases are so damaged that simple biological revival will never be possible. So aldehyde is certainly not making the situation any worse, and is demonstrably making it better.

jordansparks
Site Admin
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Brain Preservation prize for large mammal

Postby jordansparks » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:41 am

An article was posted stating that Dr. Boyden is distancing himself from Nectome.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610743/mit-severs-ties-to-company-promoting-fatal-brain-uploading/
He gave two reasons.
1. It's not known whether the biomolecules are being preserved. This is absolute rubbish. You can see them on the electron micrographs. I suppose there is a slight chance that some very small critical molecules are being washed out, or that the cross-linking is causing just enough distortion to make reconstruction ambiguous. But these issues are clearly minor. The vast bulk of evidence strongly supports the fact that essentially all biomolecules are being preserved near their original positions.
2. It's not known whether it's possible to recreate consciousness. This is also absolute rubbish. The mind is a computational machine, and the hardware is simply not relevant. Any Turing-computable algorithm can be run on any other hardware that possesses enough memory. The use of the word "consciousness" instead of the more scientifically accurate word "computation" is a red herring.
Nectome then posted a response.
https://nectome.com/
"the techniques, like all new surgical techniques, need be reviewed by both the medical and scientific community."
and
"We believe that rushing to apply vitrification today would be extremely irresponsible and hurt eventual adoption of a validated protocol."
NO. Those are such BS placating responses. Minds are at stake, and waiting guarantees destruction. We need to do the best we can with a reasonably minimal standard of care. This is not medicine, and this does not need to meet any medical standards whatsoever. I hope that McIntyre reconsiders his weak response and returns to his previous refreshing aggressive stance. There is a very big middle ground between these two extremes:
1. Rushing to provide services with no facility or staff whatsoever.
2. Waiting to gain acceptance from the scientific community.
The middle ground between these extremes probably represents a window of about 100 years. This middle ground is where quality services must be provided in spite of the inevitable resistance from nearly all mainstream scientists. We will simply not change their opinions, but we must work to save minds in spite of them.


Return to “Forum”