Neuros

Neuros

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

October 23rd, 2009, 1:20 pm #1

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 9th, 2006, 2:07 am

October 23rd, 2009, 1:23 pm #2

....because CI members seem to be secretive themselves. Witness their closed yahoo groups forums. Why haven't they been more vocal about Alcor's total neuro? I think it's because they don't view cryonics as a whole... they feel that they run a separate organization.. which is true on the face of it.. but they ought to try to speak for cryonics as a whole-- not just be so insular.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

October 23rd, 2009, 3:02 pm #3

While I disagree with the first statement (we live in a society with enough tolerance to deal with "mutilation" -- e.g. body worlds -- when there is consent prior to death, at least) I would like to see a response to the second. I can see how it could potentially be true. And more to the point it is something that should be objectively measurable using animal or cadaver studies -- and may be documented already.

It would be ironic if CI provided better stabilization despite having no formal plan to do so.

From a storage standpoint, you are paying for ten times as much space -- so you need ten times the amount of money to get enough interest to keep you going indefinitely. But there could be useful information stored in the frozen remains below the neck -- and storage is the cheaper aspect of cryonics (if done carefully, as CI does).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 6th, 2004, 6:46 pm

October 23rd, 2009, 3:08 pm #4

the head stays with the body AND they do a better job in freezing it?

That sounds like a massive sales pitch over Alcor's decapitations.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2007, 2:45 pm

October 23rd, 2009, 4:55 pm #5

I'm not an expert on decapitation or anything (I'm not sure who is), but I have to confess that the case pictured on the Frozen book website did not look like it was severed cleanly at all. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to suggest that these sorts of procedures could be characterized by a large amount of unnecessary vascular damage.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

October 23rd, 2009, 8:08 pm #6

While I disagree with the first statement (we live in a society with enough tolerance to deal with "mutilation" -- e.g. body worlds -- when there is consent prior to death, at least) I would like to see a response to the second. I can see how it could potentially be true. And more to the point it is something that should be objectively measurable using animal or cadaver studies -- and may be documented already.

It would be ironic if CI provided better stabilization despite having no formal plan to do so.

From a storage standpoint, you are paying for ten times as much space -- so you need ten times the amount of money to get enough interest to keep you going indefinitely. But there could be useful information stored in the frozen remains below the neck -- and storage is the cheaper aspect of cryonics (if done carefully, as CI does).
Luke: "And more to the point it is something that should be objectively measurable using animal or cadaver studies -- and may be documented already."

Yeah, I'm sure that's just your "garden-variety" lab experiment, probably been done hundreds of times.

I can imagine a simplified version of a proposal:

We would like permission to use these animals to see if we can perfuse heads better, when:

a) A bunch of people with no real medical training chop them off with whatever tools are available, or
b) Laymen who learned everything they know from books, and who have had little-to-no actual surgical experience, attempt the cannulations, with the head attached, or
c) Medical professionals with surgical experience chop them off, using standardized surgical equipment, or
d) Medical professionals, (may include embalmers), who have mountains of clinical experience cannulate via the neck, using standardized equipment with which they are familiar.


In my opinion, it shouldn't take much more than common sense, to figure out that having amateurs performing decapitations is a REALLY bad idea, (and Vanguard Press has the pictures to prove it). Actually, I would strongly advise against Luke, (or anyone else), suggesting such experiments, when there are probably not too many people who would see the value of it, (myself included).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

October 24th, 2009, 12:23 am #7

I would only be curious to know whether neurovitrification is better performed given a comparable set of circumstances. For example, if two amateurs set out to vitrify someone's brain, would they be able to do a better job by first removing the body? Similarly, would two highly experienced professionals with ideal tools and circumstances be able to do better with a severed head or a connected body?

The answer to the two questions is not necessarily the same. But both are relavent. It might be that I can get a higher quality vitrification at the moment without neuroseperation, but the theoretical maximum for neuroseperation-based vitrification is still higher. In that case I would want the former arrangement, but would be interested in switching when a really good team becomes available to do the latter.

Attempts to brand neuroseperation as "bad" are not productive, and smack of black-and-white mystical thinking. It could be (or not be) that there are more technical advantages to the CI approach, but deciding which way to do it based purely on PR is silly.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

October 24th, 2009, 2:12 pm #8

a) Not doing things, or doing things differently, in consideration of how those activities might be perceived by the public, is EXTREMELY important, unless you want your activities to be over-regulated, or banned.

b) Amatuers/laymen shouldn't be doing surgical procedures of any kind, and the highly-acclaimed dog experiments have been crap, in my opinion. (I'd try to say it politely, with detailed explanations of my opinions, but it would take too long and fall on deaf ears/blind eyes.)

c) There was an obvious answer, to Luke's decapitation/storage dilemma, but he, nor anyone else, came back with it. Many times, I've posted, leaving out what I've considered to be glaringly obvious options, but no one ever sees them. So many people, in cryonics, are consumed with playing "doctor" or "mad scientist," they often fail to see the "common sense obvious":

A better cerebral perfusion can be achieved by leaving as much of the vasculature intact, as possible. If Alcor must chop off the damn heads, chop them off AFTER they perfuse them. NO...I am not advocating decapitations...I'm being "nasty." Personally, I think cryonics has more than their fair share of megalomaniacs and narcissists, who want to "play God," but couldn't be bothered to go to medical school. I think they get a perverse pleasure out of ATTEMPTING to perform surgical procedures, especially those bloody (meant in the British sense, but works literally, too) decapitations. It's easy to read between the lines of most of what has been published, in cryonics. If nothing else, they have met their goal of being "transparent."

In my opinion, so many cryonicists have been fooled with experiments that are basically meaningless and the ramblings of people who appear to be intelligent on the surface, but who have serious rationality deficits, (either that, or they are just plain corrupt and bleeding people like Kent dry). The common sense deficiency, amongst most "cryonics experts," is truly mind-boggling, to me.

I am truly weary of trying to present what, in my opinion, should be "the obvious," to people who often seem "delusional," to me. From my point of view, only a thorough "house-cleaning" is going to result in the changes needed to improve cryonics. For so long as people continue to buy into the well-funded BS of Alcor and LEF, and the same people remain at the helm, nothing is going to change.

My apologies to the moderator, Mr. Ettinger, and any of my cryo-friends, (yes, I still have some), who may be concerned by my recent remarks, (and my remarks about don't apply to them).
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 17th, 2009, 5:13 pm

October 24th, 2009, 7:08 pm #9

a. Not transplanting hearts because it is ghoulish would be silly. People can learn to live with things that save lives.

b. When amateurs are all that's available and you are dead otherwise, there would be an exception to your rule. Otherwise yes, qualified surgeons should be used. I thought we've been over this.

c. If the scientific claim that "better cerebral perfusion can be achieved by leaving as much of the vasculature intact, as possible" is correct, then I agree that the head should be severed afterwards if at all. Alcor seems to think otherwise though. Essentially what we need here is independent verification of your claim. Perhaps you have some peers who could weigh in here, or some sources you could cite. Or lacking that, you could do an experiment.

Appeal to "common sense" simply doesn't cut it for scientific questions. If we relied on that the earth would be flat and lightspeed would be infinite.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 30th, 2006, 1:38 am

October 25th, 2009, 2:29 pm #10

...where Platt steps out of the shadows and says, "Luke, I am your father"?

Luke once wrote that he "likes Platt," and I'm happy for him, because he is "like Platt." To me, they both often appear intelligent, yet somewhat foolish, at the same time. (They probably think something similar, about me.) Hell, for all we know, "Luke" IS Platt, or one of Platt's friends. The fact that he's the only person who has ever bothered to post a photo looks like a "smoke screen," to me.
Quote
Like
Share