“The advantage of chemical fixation is that it enables pristine quality of preservation, and can eliminate two types of damage that have plagued cryobiology ever since the 1950s.” But weeks of immersion fixation implies damage. It cannot be pristine. This is something that needs to be carefully addressed in a sound comparison of chemical and cryopreservation.
The image comes from a paper that says: “Additionally, we demonstrate that synaptic structures can be successfully traced across serial EM sections in some postmortem samples,” Note that it says “some,” not all. More details would be helpful. I would be encouraged if the best preservation is in areas of the brain that hold memories and other crucial personal identity relevant information. I don’t care so much about the hindbrain or spinal cord.
“If there have been any ethical discussions in statements from Alcor Foundation, Cryonics Institute, or Tomorrow Bio, I do not recall seeing them recently.” On this blog, Brian Wowk has written about ethical issues. Earlier, he also wrote about the ethics of non-ideal cases and that is just as relevant today. I think these ethical issues used to be addressed in Alcor’s FAQ but I do not see it there now.
“SBP has done something that no cryonics organization has ever achieved or even attempted.” You make a good point here and I strongly favor more research leading to published evidence of ultrastructural preservation. But you overstate your case. Greg Fahyy has STILL not published the results of his thorough study of Stephen Coles brain but he has conveyed some of the important results in two talks. Tomorrow Biostasis is planning to take brain samples and run tests. They have not done this yet because they first want to secure patient permission.
“I don’t see anything to prevent this, as I don’t know of any organization that restricts a member from having additional arrangements with another organization.” Alcor may have this restriction. I would have to check the recently revised and very long membership agreement but I certainly got the sense that Alcor does not want to have members with arrangements with other organizations. (I will check on the agreement as I work on one of my next blog essays.)
“Since chemical fixation allows perfusate to remain in a liquid state, Jordan Sparks has suggested that molecular-scale nanotechnology may not actually be necessary for revival.” The quotation that follows does not support this. It does not address how cross-links will be broken without nanotech. The “Stentrode” approach does not obviously do away with the need for nanotech.
This is a reply to the text that Max kindly took time to write.
I don't speak on behalf of Sparks Brain Preservation; these are just my personal opinions.
"weeks of immersion fixation implies damage." I'm not sure exactly what this means.
"On this blog, Brian Wowk has written about ethical issues." Yes but I referred to three cryonics organizations, and did not mention this blog.
"I think these ethical issues used to be addressed in Alcor’s FAQ" Indeed, but as you say yourself, they don't seem to be there anymore. Personally I get the impression that there has been a retreat by Alcor from critical or "controversial" issues on their site. The book that I coauthored with Aschwin de Wolf is still technically available, but has been moved to a separate domain name, cryonicsarchive.org (not the same as alcor.org/reference-archive/). Maybe there is a link between alcor.org and cryonicsarchive.org, but if so, it is not obvious, making me wonder if the most exhaustive factual source evaluating all aspects of cryonics has now been buried. Fortunately, and not coincidentally, Aschwin and I retain copyright.
"Alcor may have this restriction" (against additional membership in another organization). This is difficult to determine. I sent a message to Linda Chamberlain at Alcor asking about it. I did not get a reply, perhaps because staff at Alcor have been discouraged from direct communication with people who are not members. Anyway I chose to interpret the lack of response as meaning that no prohibition exists. I may be wrong.
"It does not address how cross-links will be broken without nanotech." My understanding of Jordan's text is that the sensors he imagines would merely compile data without requiring any disassembly. But he would be better situated to address this issue.
On the lack of materials on the organizations' websites addressing ethical issues -- you are entirely correct (so far as I have seen very recently). On this blog, we can and do address critical and controversial issues. It's too bad that, as you note, Alcor has backed away from doing the same.
On crosslinks and nano: The most commonly expected scenario among the chemical brain preservationists seems to be the destructive scanning approach.
Thanks for the article, Charles. I would first like to address the wording where I claim the cryonics is not ethical. That claim was made on a forum where I was trying to stimulate a rebuttal of some sort. Nobody responded. The wording is toned down although still present on the page on our website where I discuss this in quite a bit of detail: https://www.sparksbrain.org/cryonicsVsAldehyde.html
I would then like to reply to Max's complaint about the cross links. All brains preserved so far with cryopreservation have undergone severe molecular damage as well and will also need the exact same level of repair as a chemically fixed brain. Any scientist will tell you point blank that the quality with fixation is better than the quality with cryopreservation. I'm not sure why Max brings up immersion fixation because we perfuse if possible. If perfusion is not possible, and if you then compare the quality of immersion fixation with cryopreservation, then there is an even bigger advantage in quality when using fixation. Fixation always wins, even more so in bad cases. So if the quality is better and they both will need the same kind of repair, then which one would you rationally choose?
Jordan, thanks for the correction re: immersion vs. perfusion. I'm not sure where I got the impression that you used immersion. I'm very glad that you are using perfusion where possible.
I am not yet convinced that fixation is better, all things considered. I am very interested in the ASC combination of cryo and chemo preservation.
This may be where I got that impression, from your Services page: "For individuals anywhere in the world, local professionals (such as pathologists or pathology assistants) can perform the brain removal and preservation procedure. After enough time for adequate initial fixation (around 4 weeks)..."
You state prices based on distance from your facility, but I'm not clear on whether any standby is included. Without standby, there are bound to be significant delays before procedures can begin.
That is one of the factors aside from preservation quality (in ideal conditions) that matters. Another is long-term maintenance and the existence of absence of dedicated funding for long-term care and eventual revival. I am not willing to take the chance that revival will be free.
I see that you do have information on standby, with costs. I do not see any information on availability of staff for standbys. Could you tell us more about how that has worked and how you expect it to work going forward?
I like the fixative idea: saw Jessica Radley's (Nectome) zoom & we've talked. I'm halfway through "Cryostasis Revival", reading Andy's & Aschwin's articles, & catching up after being away (not frozen), for 50+ years.
My father & I had 2 complaints back in 1960: you had to be dead first & temperature damage.
In the plant world where I've been, in apples, controlled atmosphere storage is used to keep apples from ripening for a year. (sealed room: lower O2, raise CO2, scrub ethelene)
I kept trying to put all this stuff together...there's a great crew of people trying to figure
My limited economic means to continue scientific research has mainly been with information theory using Microsoft Software Engineering resources as an Associate in the IEEE and academic and healthcare work in the biological sciences. I can see why Dr. Sparks took the approach that he did. I signed to join Oregon Cryonics in 2015 as my first choice in my Will as coordinated with my financial advisor in the Immortalist's Society. But I will give some contributions to the others because the overall goal is what matters. I find that I'm inclined to think a lot like Charles Platt (Writer of this article) that the ideas in Nectome, and just the question of the advent eventually of a cybertechnology based kind of virtual existence of human beings does by the application of certain concepts seem to be profoundly more secure and durable of a mode toward keeping an intelligently cohesive mindful awareness in an existence even if only derivative from the previous life as a member of the species of Homo sapiens.
As soon as my business administration means made it possible, I revisited my failed 1994 US patent application and two years later secured patent 10404370. This permitted my prior art copyrights starting in 1976 and 79 through 1987 to bring also further communication of my research theory and work with patent 12107632, and then design patent D1076911S. So finally, the communication of ideas in information theory around cybertechnology and bioinformatics applied to greatly extend human being lifespan as described in my sci-fi novels brand, "Allon Science Fiction" finally is at least a footnote in this general field of science application theory.
When I lost funding in the fall of 1981 due to allegations of being Gay, my career progress relied upon my years of field training and work in military emergency services and maritime law enforcement using methods of social science in behavioral analysis with criminology.
The study of what Freud refers to as "Civilization and Its Discontents" has meant being strategically engaged among scientific peers who usually are far more enfranchised and credentialled than I will be by comparison, but in a science where behavior is behavior, there will always be possibilities to make some progress somehow.
My working hypothesis is that it was trigram information in RNA from space that originally began the start-up that eventually advanced into life forms evolving on our planet. My patents on a radio-silent lightspeed trigram data streaming artificial intelligence networking evolution of cybertechnology pan-biological research and development, is for use of AI tools first to do as Dr. Sparks has perceived and "fixative" technology move to stop the problem of chaotic degeneration in death of neuroconnectomes. Second, is support AI advancement of test run in virtual rebuilds of employable human neuroconnectomes virtual AI entity nodes to teamwork resolution of problems in reanimation of full human neuro-cognitive entities as controlled test runs. In theory, at that point, bifrication will occur with one field being fully restored AI augmented reality living human beings that are almost perfect identical gnomic neuroconnectomes of a former person, and then the other are semi-automomous AI entities integrating close to complete emulation formats of a previous human living neuroconnectome.
These two have separate existential modes systematically. Because AI entities can not really function fully resolving the quest of continued living existence of a biological human being.
And also, in this system, the biological human beings will know by the augmentation AI made immediately available to them, that they can not by themselves keep the Immortalist mode going without fully working in a teamwork with their AI entity partners. My work in information theory based on the working hypothesis of where life on Earth came from in the first place, implies the purpose is in the longer term, we humans of Earth are part of further deployment of something like the RNA trigrams sent through space 4.2 billion years ago that eventually succeeded in seeding new life on our own planet. So, this is all part of a cosmic cycle.
“The advantage of chemical fixation is that it enables pristine quality of preservation, and can eliminate two types of damage that have plagued cryobiology ever since the 1950s.” But weeks of immersion fixation implies damage. It cannot be pristine. This is something that needs to be carefully addressed in a sound comparison of chemical and cryopreservation.
The image comes from a paper that says: “Additionally, we demonstrate that synaptic structures can be successfully traced across serial EM sections in some postmortem samples,” Note that it says “some,” not all. More details would be helpful. I would be encouraged if the best preservation is in areas of the brain that hold memories and other crucial personal identity relevant information. I don’t care so much about the hindbrain or spinal cord.
“If there have been any ethical discussions in statements from Alcor Foundation, Cryonics Institute, or Tomorrow Bio, I do not recall seeing them recently.” On this blog, Brian Wowk has written about ethical issues. Earlier, he also wrote about the ethics of non-ideal cases and that is just as relevant today. I think these ethical issues used to be addressed in Alcor’s FAQ but I do not see it there now.
“SBP has done something that no cryonics organization has ever achieved or even attempted.” You make a good point here and I strongly favor more research leading to published evidence of ultrastructural preservation. But you overstate your case. Greg Fahyy has STILL not published the results of his thorough study of Stephen Coles brain but he has conveyed some of the important results in two talks. Tomorrow Biostasis is planning to take brain samples and run tests. They have not done this yet because they first want to secure patient permission.
“I don’t see anything to prevent this, as I don’t know of any organization that restricts a member from having additional arrangements with another organization.” Alcor may have this restriction. I would have to check the recently revised and very long membership agreement but I certainly got the sense that Alcor does not want to have members with arrangements with other organizations. (I will check on the agreement as I work on one of my next blog essays.)
“Since chemical fixation allows perfusate to remain in a liquid state, Jordan Sparks has suggested that molecular-scale nanotechnology may not actually be necessary for revival.” The quotation that follows does not support this. It does not address how cross-links will be broken without nanotech. The “Stentrode” approach does not obviously do away with the need for nanotech.
This is a reply to the text that Max kindly took time to write.
I don't speak on behalf of Sparks Brain Preservation; these are just my personal opinions.
"weeks of immersion fixation implies damage." I'm not sure exactly what this means.
"On this blog, Brian Wowk has written about ethical issues." Yes but I referred to three cryonics organizations, and did not mention this blog.
"I think these ethical issues used to be addressed in Alcor’s FAQ" Indeed, but as you say yourself, they don't seem to be there anymore. Personally I get the impression that there has been a retreat by Alcor from critical or "controversial" issues on their site. The book that I coauthored with Aschwin de Wolf is still technically available, but has been moved to a separate domain name, cryonicsarchive.org (not the same as alcor.org/reference-archive/). Maybe there is a link between alcor.org and cryonicsarchive.org, but if so, it is not obvious, making me wonder if the most exhaustive factual source evaluating all aspects of cryonics has now been buried. Fortunately, and not coincidentally, Aschwin and I retain copyright.
"Alcor may have this restriction" (against additional membership in another organization). This is difficult to determine. I sent a message to Linda Chamberlain at Alcor asking about it. I did not get a reply, perhaps because staff at Alcor have been discouraged from direct communication with people who are not members. Anyway I chose to interpret the lack of response as meaning that no prohibition exists. I may be wrong.
"It does not address how cross-links will be broken without nanotech." My understanding of Jordan's text is that the sensors he imagines would merely compile data without requiring any disassembly. But he would be better situated to address this issue.
Thanks for your reply, Charles.
On the lack of materials on the organizations' websites addressing ethical issues -- you are entirely correct (so far as I have seen very recently). On this blog, we can and do address critical and controversial issues. It's too bad that, as you note, Alcor has backed away from doing the same.
On crosslinks and nano: The most commonly expected scenario among the chemical brain preservationists seems to be the destructive scanning approach.
Thanks for the article, Charles. I would first like to address the wording where I claim the cryonics is not ethical. That claim was made on a forum where I was trying to stimulate a rebuttal of some sort. Nobody responded. The wording is toned down although still present on the page on our website where I discuss this in quite a bit of detail: https://www.sparksbrain.org/cryonicsVsAldehyde.html
I would then like to reply to Max's complaint about the cross links. All brains preserved so far with cryopreservation have undergone severe molecular damage as well and will also need the exact same level of repair as a chemically fixed brain. Any scientist will tell you point blank that the quality with fixation is better than the quality with cryopreservation. I'm not sure why Max brings up immersion fixation because we perfuse if possible. If perfusion is not possible, and if you then compare the quality of immersion fixation with cryopreservation, then there is an even bigger advantage in quality when using fixation. Fixation always wins, even more so in bad cases. So if the quality is better and they both will need the same kind of repair, then which one would you rationally choose?
Jordan, thanks for the correction re: immersion vs. perfusion. I'm not sure where I got the impression that you used immersion. I'm very glad that you are using perfusion where possible.
I am not yet convinced that fixation is better, all things considered. I am very interested in the ASC combination of cryo and chemo preservation.
This may be where I got that impression, from your Services page: "For individuals anywhere in the world, local professionals (such as pathologists or pathology assistants) can perform the brain removal and preservation procedure. After enough time for adequate initial fixation (around 4 weeks)..."
You state prices based on distance from your facility, but I'm not clear on whether any standby is included. Without standby, there are bound to be significant delays before procedures can begin.
That is one of the factors aside from preservation quality (in ideal conditions) that matters. Another is long-term maintenance and the existence of absence of dedicated funding for long-term care and eventual revival. I am not willing to take the chance that revival will be free.
I see that you do have information on standby, with costs. I do not see any information on availability of staff for standbys. Could you tell us more about how that has worked and how you expect it to work going forward?
Thankyou Charles,
I like the fixative idea: saw Jessica Radley's (Nectome) zoom & we've talked. I'm halfway through "Cryostasis Revival", reading Andy's & Aschwin's articles, & catching up after being away (not frozen), for 50+ years.
My father & I had 2 complaints back in 1960: you had to be dead first & temperature damage.
In the plant world where I've been, in apples, controlled atmosphere storage is used to keep apples from ripening for a year. (sealed room: lower O2, raise CO2, scrub ethelene)
I kept trying to put all this stuff together...there's a great crew of people trying to figure
things out. Thanls to all!
My limited economic means to continue scientific research has mainly been with information theory using Microsoft Software Engineering resources as an Associate in the IEEE and academic and healthcare work in the biological sciences. I can see why Dr. Sparks took the approach that he did. I signed to join Oregon Cryonics in 2015 as my first choice in my Will as coordinated with my financial advisor in the Immortalist's Society. But I will give some contributions to the others because the overall goal is what matters. I find that I'm inclined to think a lot like Charles Platt (Writer of this article) that the ideas in Nectome, and just the question of the advent eventually of a cybertechnology based kind of virtual existence of human beings does by the application of certain concepts seem to be profoundly more secure and durable of a mode toward keeping an intelligently cohesive mindful awareness in an existence even if only derivative from the previous life as a member of the species of Homo sapiens.
As soon as my business administration means made it possible, I revisited my failed 1994 US patent application and two years later secured patent 10404370. This permitted my prior art copyrights starting in 1976 and 79 through 1987 to bring also further communication of my research theory and work with patent 12107632, and then design patent D1076911S. So finally, the communication of ideas in information theory around cybertechnology and bioinformatics applied to greatly extend human being lifespan as described in my sci-fi novels brand, "Allon Science Fiction" finally is at least a footnote in this general field of science application theory.
When I lost funding in the fall of 1981 due to allegations of being Gay, my career progress relied upon my years of field training and work in military emergency services and maritime law enforcement using methods of social science in behavioral analysis with criminology.
The study of what Freud refers to as "Civilization and Its Discontents" has meant being strategically engaged among scientific peers who usually are far more enfranchised and credentialled than I will be by comparison, but in a science where behavior is behavior, there will always be possibilities to make some progress somehow.
My working hypothesis is that it was trigram information in RNA from space that originally began the start-up that eventually advanced into life forms evolving on our planet. My patents on a radio-silent lightspeed trigram data streaming artificial intelligence networking evolution of cybertechnology pan-biological research and development, is for use of AI tools first to do as Dr. Sparks has perceived and "fixative" technology move to stop the problem of chaotic degeneration in death of neuroconnectomes. Second, is support AI advancement of test run in virtual rebuilds of employable human neuroconnectomes virtual AI entity nodes to teamwork resolution of problems in reanimation of full human neuro-cognitive entities as controlled test runs. In theory, at that point, bifrication will occur with one field being fully restored AI augmented reality living human beings that are almost perfect identical gnomic neuroconnectomes of a former person, and then the other are semi-automomous AI entities integrating close to complete emulation formats of a previous human living neuroconnectome.
These two have separate existential modes systematically. Because AI entities can not really function fully resolving the quest of continued living existence of a biological human being.
And also, in this system, the biological human beings will know by the augmentation AI made immediately available to them, that they can not by themselves keep the Immortalist mode going without fully working in a teamwork with their AI entity partners. My work in information theory based on the working hypothesis of where life on Earth came from in the first place, implies the purpose is in the longer term, we humans of Earth are part of further deployment of something like the RNA trigrams sent through space 4.2 billion years ago that eventually succeeded in seeding new life on our own planet. So, this is all part of a cosmic cycle.