Diche Bach

Members
  • Content Count

    1,146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

301 Excellent

5 Followers

About Diche Bach

  • Rank
    Kerbthropologist

Profile Information

  • Location Beyond the vast public, static, void . . .
  • Interests C++, game design, anthropology, history, military science, psychology, psycho-biology, epigenetics, mathematics, astronomy.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,773 profile views
  1. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Agree. But you don't need to freeze a body to put a body in stasis! Medicine and physics say YES to putting people into various types of stasis routinely.
  2. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    I've been studying the broad interdisciplinary area of human biopsychology since the late 1970s. I've been studying computer science since early 2016. In my opinion, we are CENTURIES from having even the most basic necessary understandings of human psyches to be able to "upload" people. We are in contrast, already placing people (routinely) into a variety of altered states of metabolism and consciousness, as well as restoring normal states to people who have for reasons of disease or trauma been plunged into degenerative states (e.g., "death"). The problems of regulating metabolic state so as to induce a kind of "stasis" are already being solved, though still in elementary degrees. These problems have immediate real world benefits with real economic value (e.g., saving people from disease and trauma) and short of ethical constraints, budgetary limitations are always going to be minimal. The central problems are ones with molecular biology which are readily approached through both in vitro studies and in vivo nonhuman studies and where there will always be populations of near-death humans with whom to gain "last-ditch" advances in knowledge. As such, we may only be decades from having sufficient technology to gain functional benefits from placing humans into prolonged metabolic stasis (aka, "cyro-stasis") for various purposes. Have I attacked YOU? Could you point out to me where I have engaged in an ad hominem against YOU? From my standpoint, I have reacted to your egregiously rude, dismissive, and frankly ill-informed and pedantic commentary, which, as I said, is perhaps a consequence of English not being your native language?
  3. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    You should be respectful and restrained in your claims to only those you actually have reasonable knowledge basis to make, if you do not want the quality and veracity of your arguments to undergo attacks. You do not know what you are talking about and you are not okay with just admitting that and saying "Ah my bad. I didn't know about that."
  4. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    If you are not looking for a fight then why did you start one? Perhaps the fact English is not your first language is what accounts for your rudeness and lack of comprehension? Same with every technology that has ever gone from imagined to real . . . your efforts to stand firm with whatever position you've taken have the appearance of diminishing good will and increasing defensiveness from my standpoint. . . . what does this even mean? Are you suggesting to me that you are fully versed in the sciences of senescence and caloric restriction, else that you read that entire article in the time lapse between my pointing it out to you and you responding? ADDIT: no need to read the whole thing, nor to spend 20 years of your life reading such things broadly, just read this: and now tell me again about how we understand "perfectly" that induced low-metabolic or "hibernation" states will have no effect on aging and subjects will suffer degeneration all the same.
  5. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    You are aware of what happens to frogs, bats, etc. when they hibernate? Your level of knowledge of biology is sufficient for you to conclude that those processes cannot be modeled for application in humans? LOL, slowing aging is no problemo! The fact that you obviously have zero knowledge of this well-established empirical generalization (which has existed for decades) and yet seem to feel that you are sufficiently well-informed to dismiss science fiction which would leverage these sorts of natural phenomena is what I find remarkable. Like I said: I always thought you were a pretty cool, pretty knowledgeable and likeable person, but for some reason you are feeling particularly pedantic, argumentative and dismissive today
  6. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    And I said "Yeah, 'freezing and thawing a human body alive is not hard scifi'. So what?" Like I said, try to understand There are now several posts since your first one including some by me where I provide more detail. I'll leave it at that, except to repeat what I already said several posts back. Not necessary to achieve functional benefits of cryo-stasis (which in truth should be called "Cryo-Chemo Stasis" because most legit models involve perfusion of specific drugs if not artificial blood into the organism to mediate non-destructive effects of the cooling). https://www.nursing.virginia.edu/news/alumnus-mark-adams/
  7. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Yes, like I said: you are being too dismissive, and also too pedantic. You seem to be suggesting that: because it is not possible to freeze a human solid and leave them that way for 10 years then thaw them out and have them return to fully normal functioning RIGHT NOW, that it will never be possible for ANY sort of cryo/chemo/energetic stasis to have functional benefit for long-term space flight. You should try to understand things before you dismiss them under the guise of "being helpful" ADDIT: it is also perhaps prudent to remind you that: what scientists are attempting to achieve in these respects are not to achieve things which defy nature, but rather to REPLICATE or create analogs of processes which already EXIST in nature. The fact that frogs can sink into the mud below a lake and experience very low body temperatures, including freezing of certain portions of their bodies, then when spring comes "wake up" and go back to being living, fully functioning frogs, certainly doesn't prove that it will ever be possible for human beings to experience the analogous process. But it does demonstrate that the principles involved do not defy reality as you seem to think. In sum: putting people into a state of torpor (including but not limited to reduced body temperature) is, as far as I know already a thing for certain traumatic injury interventions, and is likely to be even more of a thing as time goes on.
  8. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Yes, 800 years is a long time isn't it! But there are other known exoplanets that are not so far away too . . . some of which may stay in the "possibly possible to be 'habitable'" echelon long enough for me to get my thing packaged and selling units and still claim "I'm a HARD Sci Fi Creator!" even though they will probably, eventually be found to be highly unlikely to be 'habitable.' I'd say 200 years is doable, and off the top of my head, that puts a dozen or more possibly possible habitable exoplanets on the drawing board I think? It isn't actually necessary to FREEZE a human being into a chunk of ice for the benefits of "cryo-stasis" to be partially realized. True, Humanscicles would be the ideal and if that degree of cryogenic stasis could ever be achieved then we really WILL prove to be the "Precursors" because nothing will stop us from eventually sending colony ships everywhere . . . But simply slowing metabolism and inducing a torpor state (medically induced coma as you put it) should be able to work wonders for making long-distance manned spaceflight tenable. In the first place, a person who is unconscious will not be psychologically burdened by a 200 year long journey. Assuming that the effects on cell senescence and organ senescence are also reduced, "aging" should also be markedly reduced by prolonged maintenance in a low-metabolism state. I have to admit, this is probably the "most speculative" part of the whole spaghetti bowl, but I do believe there is at least anecdotal evidence suggesting that aging is slowed by such conditions. Perhaps most importantly: rate of consumption of organic resources (food, water, air) would obviously be dramatically reduced. While the actual rate of reduction might not be sufficient to allow the departure of the craft with the full store of all necessary resources for the entire journey, the rate of reduction might well be sufficient for a high-efficiency arcological system to achieve a positive resource balance for the necessary duration of the journey. In sum: if there small-scale onboard "ecosystems" and the human and animal wastes are all channeled back into these systems, then the total quantity of organics at launch could be a significantly reduced fraction of the total that would be consumed during the journey.
  9. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    My past forays have apparently resulted in different results than yours . . . Like I said, not currently a client of a Universities search function and I'm not in any hurry to contact the alma mater to set it up. So my capacity to bury you in a deluge of citations as you seem to feel would be "compelling" is limited. You are PERFECTLY correct to state that "currently there is no possibility to freeze and revive a human body" but then I don't believe anyone in this thread has claimed as much. If I adopt the same pedantic stance you seem intent on maintaining, then I could easily point out to you that "currently it is not possible to propel a space craft at any speed faster than about 70km/s" or to point out that "currently nuclear pulse propulsion is not possible." Nor is laser sail technology of the sort which can achieve 0.3 c, nor are the nano-techs necessary to send a starshot probe. Indeed, until the thing is actually OUT THERE, functioning, it is necessary to point out that "currently it is not possible to build and launch a functioning cryogenic infrared telescope positioned at the L_0 position where it can benefit from being eclipsed by the Earth . . ." even though that is EXACTLY what thousands of scientists and technicians working on the James Webb Space Telescope have spent billions of dollar and many years striving to achieve. All this to say: until it is achieved it is science fiction, and at one point myriad technologies which are now common everyday technologies WERE science fiction. There is however, a big difference between technologies which DEFY established empirical generalizations or well-ordained theories (so-called "Natural Laws") and those which depend on possibilities which have yet to be firmly proven or disproven, much less those which simply rely on exploration of dynamics which have yet to be explored. We might rank order these as: (1) Probably impossible given current science; (2) Possibly impossible given current science; (3) Possibly possible given current science. We could also add one more layer to that cake (4) Probably possible given current science. Neither you, nor I have the actual expertise to say with great authority, of that much I can be confident. You are an archaeologist, and I am a retired evolutionary psychologist. However, in my opinion, based on what I know about current research into topics of hypothermia, organ preservation and therapeutic hypothermia for amelioration of post-resuscitation syndromes, cryo-stasis sufficient to reduce required organic resource consumption by pasengers and to moreover, reduce the psychological burden of prolonged space flight would lie in layer (3) Possibly possible given current science.s There, you now have some keywords to plug in to your Galileo account or whichever search engine you have at hand! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30315552 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30309417 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26433095
  10. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    You guys are just being argumentative cheeks wipes. Wanna help? Give me links. Additional arguments to the effect you have already made will result in me just plain blocking both your accounts, because I simply don't have time to argue with twits on ANY website at any time.
  11. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    No, you are not helping. Helping would be doing like you seem to think is the "gold standard" and finding me some links
  12. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Haven't had access to a Uni search engine for several years now, so if you seriously want to contribute, why don't you go find it? Normally you come across as a nice guy, but for some reason today it seems someone liquided in your cheerios? "Youtube does not count?" Seriously? What does that even mean? Like, some garble on a password protected peer-reviewed journal publishers server is somehow inherently BETTER information than a Youtube video!? I guess that means NASA, etc., should all stop posting on Youtube cause it "DOESN'T COUNT!"
  13. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Too dismissive, and apparently not very well informed.
  14. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Wow. Literally tear invoking. Who could guess that the accreted space wreckage of a 4.5 billion year old celestial planet crash could be so beautiful to the improbable big-brained bipedal hominids that sprang up on the bigger half of the wreckage only some 23 million years ago . . .
  15. Diche Bach

    For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

    Well . . . my training is in human biopsychology, so . . . I feel a little less "uncomfortable" about engaging with some "speculative" biological tech. As such, cyrogenic stasis is the method I intend to invoke: remember cost, human rights, and ethics are NOT constraints! Not that I have kept up with developments but . . . a few years back (perhaps ten years now?) a Russian research group managed to put a dog into complete cyrogenic stasis for a long period of time (48 hours or something). The dog was effectively DEAD. Its body temperature was near the freezing point of water, and it had zero vital signs. They achieved this by sedating it, draining most or all of its blood and replacing this with a special substance that would allow the tissues to allow the process. I'm not sure what permanent or long-term neurological or other physiological deficits the poor dog suffered, but yeah . . . I'd say we are less than a century from having functioning cyrostasis. If enormous sums of money were thrown at it, maybe only 20 years. ADDIT: actually that Russian dog story may well have been a hoax! Even so, we know there are vertebrates who have natural adaptations which allow them to enter long-term dormancy, so cryostasis is "tenable" and the methods for achieving it are a matter of research, not a matter of "imaginary biology," imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryobiology#Vertebrates Even bats and bears enter prolonged torpor, which, while not as dramatic as examples in the quote above, at least demonstrate that neurologically advanced vertebrates can get very "close" to something like a cryostasis and conceivably all the way there.