Cryonics Symposium International is being held at the Church of Perpetual Life in Florida on Saturday, July 27, 2019. I'm not going. They are good people, and I'm sure they mean well, but this meeting does not increase my chance of survival for the following reasons:
-Its association with a "church" that regularly gives a forum to pseudoscientists makes me want to run screaming in the opposite direction.
-Distance between patient and provider must be less than 100 miles, and preferably less than 20 miles. Anything more than that is a complete waste of time. So these people on the other side of the country are not helping me survive at all, and I have nothing to offer them, either. But isn't something better than nothing? Well, no. If the provider is not immediately available upon death, then any procedure is most likely a meaningless ritual that does not preserve the mind.
-Their technology is bad. I would not want to be preserved by any of these organizations. They are all obsessed with the impossible goals of viability and suspended animation instead of scientifically rigorous ultrastructural preservation. Mike Perry is the exception, but his largely theoretical views have not had any effect on available services.
-I have a very clear path forward, which involves facilities, equipment, and staff. But my strategy does not involve any outreach, members, sponsors, or other cryonics organizations. I've given up on all of that as unworkable and distracting.
Cryonics Symposium International
-
jordansparks
- Site Admin
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm
-
PCmorphy72
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun May 26, 2019 12:39 pm
Re: Cryonics Symposium International
“Anything more than that is a complete waste of time … is most likely a meaningless ritual”
According to the pages suspendedAnimation.html and futureTechnology.html , I would add the word "currently" in this way:
“Anything more than that is currently mostly a waste of time … currently is very likely a meaningless ritual”
OK, I agree with viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51 , where you say “ASC is not something that anyone can perform without years of experience and proper equipment”, but there’s not much in your pages about the "future technology" of stabilization/preservation (apart “We are not adding SDBS to our VM-1 protocol at this time because the effect is too strong” in electronMicrographsVM1.html ), and perhaps you might explain what you are saying now in instructFdPath.html in this way:
“Ship the body as quickly as possible to Oregon Cryonics at the Portland Oregon airport via airline cargo, in order to have the shortest possible ritual and saving your wasted time”
Maybe it’s the same "conflicting future" raised from the same reasons that made you so "negatively" surprised of the nanoparticles development (in viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21 you said “This kills me, because I detest how suspended animation is always getting confused with cryonics”).
Take as example Egyptians 5000 years ago: they developed embalming methods that were so sophisticated (not saying the engineering of huge buildings while they were searching immortality) that they could have brought the knowledge of the formaldehyde well before 1859, and perhaps the synthesis of other aldehydes (and why not ASC) even before the use of micrographs and CT scans. So, I would say things like “Let's quit conflating embalming with ASC just because they both happen to use aldehydes” to the general public (of course) or to them (the ancient Egyptians), but not to the whole "community of partial communities" with some serious developers of modern technology.
Being open-minded, have you never heard of the costly low-toxicity of the xenon as cryoprotectant?
According to the pages suspendedAnimation.html and futureTechnology.html , I would add the word "currently" in this way:
“Anything more than that is currently mostly a waste of time … currently is very likely a meaningless ritual”
OK, I agree with viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51 , where you say “ASC is not something that anyone can perform without years of experience and proper equipment”, but there’s not much in your pages about the "future technology" of stabilization/preservation (apart “We are not adding SDBS to our VM-1 protocol at this time because the effect is too strong” in electronMicrographsVM1.html ), and perhaps you might explain what you are saying now in instructFdPath.html in this way:
“Ship the body as quickly as possible to Oregon Cryonics at the Portland Oregon airport via airline cargo, in order to have the shortest possible ritual and saving your wasted time”
Maybe it’s the same "conflicting future" raised from the same reasons that made you so "negatively" surprised of the nanoparticles development (in viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21 you said “This kills me, because I detest how suspended animation is always getting confused with cryonics”).
Take as example Egyptians 5000 years ago: they developed embalming methods that were so sophisticated (not saying the engineering of huge buildings while they were searching immortality) that they could have brought the knowledge of the formaldehyde well before 1859, and perhaps the synthesis of other aldehydes (and why not ASC) even before the use of micrographs and CT scans. So, I would say things like “Let's quit conflating embalming with ASC just because they both happen to use aldehydes” to the general public (of course) or to them (the ancient Egyptians), but not to the whole "community of partial communities" with some serious developers of modern technology.
Being open-minded, have you never heard of the costly low-toxicity of the xenon as cryoprotectant?
Last edited by PCmorphy72 on Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
jordansparks
- Site Admin
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm
Re: Cryonics Symposium International
I agree that we aren't doing any better than them. That's kind of my point. All the services from all the organizations are terrible useless rituals almost all the time. I will make some changes to the website to make that more clear. There is a fair amount of outdated info on there which shows historical "utopian" influence from Alcor and CI.
Biochemistry is a fairly specialized and complex topic. The vast majority of the public don't understand it, and the same is true for those signed up for cryonics. Because of this, nobody can make intelligent decisions about which kind of preservation is better. And since essentially no scientists think that preservation is worthwhile, people also cannot get any useful scientific consensus on this issue. So I think I'm safe addressing cryonicists with the exact same basic arguments as the general public.
Yes, I've heard of xenon, but let's just stick with simply implementing well-known and widely-used technologies instead of pursuing these more exotic possibilities. Nobody's even done the basics yet.
Biochemistry is a fairly specialized and complex topic. The vast majority of the public don't understand it, and the same is true for those signed up for cryonics. Because of this, nobody can make intelligent decisions about which kind of preservation is better. And since essentially no scientists think that preservation is worthwhile, people also cannot get any useful scientific consensus on this issue. So I think I'm safe addressing cryonicists with the exact same basic arguments as the general public.
Yes, I've heard of xenon, but let's just stick with simply implementing well-known and widely-used technologies instead of pursuing these more exotic possibilities. Nobody's even done the basics yet.
Re: Cryonics Symposium International
I appreciate that you took the time to explain your reasoning.