h a l f b a k e r yYou gonna finish that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The linked story (see link) made me think - these cryogenic freezing outfits get away with making completely unrealistic promises to vulnerable and desperate people because they're allowed to say that, while there's no way at all that a person can be frozen and then unfrozen and come back to life now,
there's a slim possibility that at some unspecified point in the future this will be possible. In fact, it's almost certain that any unfreezing process will result in a sort of mushy cellular soup. Therefore consumer protection law should be extended to prohibit selling services on the basis of impossible future scientific breakthroughs.
http://www.bbc.co.u...world-asia-34311502
[hippo, Nov 18 2015]
Cellular soup could be avoided
Suspended_20Animation
I think we have the technology, but nobody has put enough $ into it to try it. [Vernon, Nov 18 2015]
[link]
|
| |
The problem is that they're not "impossible", just implausible ... |
|
| |
In 50 years, it will almost certainly be possible to freeze a
brain, or a person, in such a way that they can be revived.
(This is already done routinely for human and other embryos;
human-sized organisms are probably 3-5 orders of magnitude
harder.) |
|
| |
In 100 years, it will almost certainly be possible to reconstruct
and revive a brain which has been frozen using today's rather
primitive technology. |
|
| |
If someone gets frozen today in the hopes of being alive at
some point in the future, the greatest risks are the continuity
of storage and the decisions of people in that future to revive
them (or not). |
|
| |
I wonder what Walt will think of owning Star Wars? |
|
| |
[Max] //it will almost certainly be possible to reconstruct and revive a brain which has been frozen using today's rather primitive technology// - really? I thought that processes used for freezing human bodies today were likely to irreparably damage cells. On the other hand I don't even have 'O' Level Biology and so might not be able to justifiably claim to be an authority on this. |
|
| |
//processes used for freezing human bodies today were likely to
irreparably damage cells// |
|
| |
It depends on your repair technology. I presume they've made some
advances in the freezing technology but, even if not, we're looking at
two types of damage: |
|
| |
(a) Local (subcellular) damage caused by ice crystals and other effects
and |
|
| |
(b) Large-scale damage (large fractures). |
|
| |
In each case, we know *how* to repair the damage, in principle. What I
mean is, if we could examine the structure in sufficient (near-atomic)
resolution, and if we could move atoms around at will, we could repair
the damage perfectly. So, all that's needed is the technology to do
that. |
|
| |
There are other ways to do it - possibly easier in practice - but atom-by-
atom repair is conceptually simpler. |
|
| |
Or, if you prefer, just ablate the frozen brain atom-by-atom, noting the
position of each atom as you go. Once you're done, apply some nifty
algorithms to detect freezing damage and edit the file, then use the
edited file to build a new brain atom by atom. |
|
| |
If you went back 100 years, and told someone that you would be able to
engineer purified sand to the point where a few square millimetres had
one billion memory devices on it, they'd have been doubtful too. |
|
| |
// I wonder what Walt will think of owning Star Wars? |
|
| |
Would he own it? Are there any legal precedents for people being revived from death? Do they get their stuff back? What about any new stuff their estates and holdings have acquired since they died? These are important issues. |
|
| |
Walt would have never heard of Star Wars but he'd be delighted to know that kids love it, there's a princess, and it makes shitloads of dollars. |
|
| |
Is this an "idea" within the guidelines of the help file ? |
|
| |
[norm] yes, I wondered that too - it's an idea for a new law, and there is a "Public: Law" category, so I think OK, but probably on the boundary of what's permissible. |
|
| |
//and it makes shitloads of dollars// |
|
| |
and would marvel that it cost less than Candy chuffing
Crush. |
|
| |
anyhow, a frozen brain might prove unwakeuppable,
however it will certainly be possible to image it well enough
to build a fairly comprehensive map of the neuronal
interactions. You wouldn't have to do all of it, just the non-
standard bits. Then a new brain could be built with fancy
scaffold technology. |
|
| |
[Max] Point taken - our ability to do atomic-scale
construction and repair will in the future be beyond
what we can imagine now. The problem might be
more complicated than you make out though - you
have to repair molecules and cells where you might
not be sure what was there originally, and also, all
the chemical processes would have to be
kick-started. |
|
| |
//you have to repair molecules and cells where you might
not be sure what was there originally, and also, all the
chemical processes would have to be kick-started// |
|
| |
Cells do that very well, provided the damage isn't above a
certain threshold. |
|
| |
//you might not be sure what was there
originally// |
|
| |
You'll be sure enough. Your brain doesn't care if a
protein diffuses across a cell, or if there are 50
molecules of ATP instead of 40. Your brain (and
any living thing) is in a constant state of turmoil.
You'll want to keep the right cell-to-cell
connections, and proof-read the DNA, and stuff
like that - but a few wrong molecules won't make a
difference. |
|
| |
//all the chemical processes would have to be
kick-started// cellular chemical process restart
quite happily, which is why you can freeze and
revive sperm, embryos and all kinds of tiny things.
It's possible that, in the brain, there is something
like "dynamic ram" that requires constant neuronal
firing to keep it up and running, but I doubt it. At
least very deep anaesthesia has no major long-
term impact, so the mechanisms at least aren't
_that_ delicate. |
|
| |
My guess is that if you could defrost a brain to just
below freezing, having repaired all the damage,
and then instantaneously (that's the hard part) get
it up to temperature with a good blood supply, the
result would be very much like coming round from
deep anaesthesia. (And yes, I know anaesthesia
doesn't stop all the brain's processes, but still.) |
|
| |
Interesting stuff - thanks. You're making this sound almost
plausible; I had always assumed cryogenics was a massive
scam, preying on the vulnerable. |
|
| |
I'll wager sanitizer liquids and antibiotics were looked at from the same viewpoint when they first materialized. |
|
| |
//I had always assumed cryogenics was a massive
scam, preying on the vulnerable// |
|
| |
That's not to say it's not - after all, Alcor doesn't have
to deliver the resuscitation. But if you're going to
die, your chances of coming back from cryogenesis
are infinitely better than your chances of coming
back from a cremation. |
|
| |
How about you want to return a product just because you just don't like it? |
|
| |
You lost me at "impossible". |
|
| |
//// I wonder what Walt will think of owning Star Wars?//// |
|
| |
//Would he own it? Are there any legal precedents for people being revived from death? Do they get their stuff back? What about any new stuff their estates and holdings have acquired since they died? These are important issues.// |
|
| |
I totally agree!
These decisions will have a large impact on whether the first revival attempts are made public knowledge. |
|
| |
Every time I see a new Disney project I can't help but wonder what Walt would or would not have changed or allowed. I have nothing to base these suppositions on other than the films made while he was alive and his brief tv appearances, but I wonder anyhoo. |
|
| |
[Voice's standard anti-destructive-copy rant] |
|
| |