Is Cryogenics Possible?

[Acemcbean]

I have had doubts for a while now that we could potentially "wake someone up" from a cryogenic pod, as, understandably, one's brain would be the equivalent to a Slushee. The only problem with my doubts is that they are based purely on speculation, and have nothing to do with any kind of Science, but the idea still gives me reason to doubt it.

[lajoswinkler]

It's not cryogenics, it's cryonics. And no, it's not possible. It's ripping gullible people of their money.

The brain doesn't have to be a slush after warming. If you infuse the body with preserving antifreeze liquid, you can keep it ice crystal free in liquid nitrogen. But you'll never ever wake the guy up. He's a goner.

[KerikBalm]

I'm not so sure about that. Indivudual human cells can be frozen and thawed.... its just doing it all at the same time without killing them during the transitions...

And with extensive genetic engineering... why not... if a tardigrade can do it.... if some turtle species can lower their metabolism enough to survive months without any oxygen.... why not?

[Godot]

I'm not so sure about that. Indivudual human cells can be frozen and thawed.... its just doing it all at the same time without killing them during the transitions...

And with extensive genetic engineering... why not... if a tardigrade can do it.... if some turtle species can lower their metabolism enough to survive months without any oxygen.... why not?

Difference between them and cryonic frozen brains (or whole bodies):

Their metabolisms are just extremly slowed down .... not a NULL-Line as in case of the cryonic frozen bodies/brains.

There is still some electric and metabolic activity going omn in the animals you listed.

Dunno if a "reboot" is possible for a brain that was "laid on ice" with no brain activity whatsoever (instead of a brain whose activity was just extremly slowed down)

[ZedNova]

Difference between them and cryonic frozen brains (or whole bodies):

Their metabolisms are just extremly slowed down .... not a NULL-Line as in case of the cryonic frozen bodies/brains.

There is still some electric and metabolic activity going omn in the animals you listed.

Dunno if a "reboot" is possible for a brain that was "laid on ice" with no brain activity whatsoever (instead of a brain whose activity was just extremly slowed down)

That's basically what we should strive for because it's at least possible, a stasis chamber that doesn't stop bodily functions, but slows them down immensely.

[ZetaX]

Dunno if a "reboot" is possible for a brain that was "laid on ice" with no brain activity whatsoever (instead of a brain whose activity was just extremly slowed down)

It's likely that this is possible, and probably not even difficult. The information itself is almost entirely consrved in the neural structure, and humans survive (mostly) to even have cut parts out or things like epilepsy/migraine that cause neurons to fire randomly.

[Godot]

It's likely that this is possible, and probably not even difficult. The information itself is almost entirely consrved in the neural structure, and humans survive (mostly) to even have cut parts out or things like epilepsy/migraine that cause neurons to fire randomly.

While this is basically right, there are lots of important detail questions that have to be answered however .... for example what level of the different neurotransmitters do you put into the cerebrospinal fluid of each brain region/subregion (after all, there are not only neurotransmitters for the direct synaptic transmission, but the neurosecretory systems (in the brain, but also other body regions) also produces neurohormones that have an effect on other brain regions .... getting the eurohormonal levels in the different brain regions wrong might result in a blue screen of death due to unresolved exeptions, when you reboot the brain.

Likewise, in what order do you "restart" the bain centres?

In normal embryogenesis you don´t have this problem ... the brain slowly grows, with the neurons in the brain regions taking up activity as soon as they are grown ... and without interference of those regions of the brain that haven´t developed yet (be it due to neurhormonal levels or due to activity) .... the result of this slow development is the brain as we know it, with its consciousness and its abilities.

Something totally in contrast to the situation we have with cryonics, where not only we already have a full grown brain that has to be "restarted" but also (which also contrasts cases in which people after a few minutes in freezing water have been successfully reanimated) have a brain in which cerebrospinal fluid and blood have been replaced with an antifrezing mixture.

Therefore I wouldn´t dare to predict what comes earlier:

Mankind wiping itself from the face of the planet (by wars or wreaking havoc on the weather system) (alternatively: mankind falling back into preindustrial technology levels)

or mankind developing techniques to successfully reanimate cryonically frozen bodies and brains

Edited October 17, 2014 by Godot

[-Velocity-]

What about sectioning up or scanning in the brain with some future, very precise brain-mapping technology, and then building a software brain for the person that functions exactly the same as the old biological brain? I know we don't even have fast enough computers yet for this, let alone the knowledge of exactly how neurons work (you need to build a software equivalent that works the same), let alone the capability to scan the brain in such detail.... but if 100, 200 years such technology becomes feasible, will cryonically (thanks lajos) preserved brains be well enough preserved to be copied into software? I don't think we know that answer either, but honestly, the answer is probably going to be no.

If there is no soul, then the sense of "self" must be an illusion. Going from a biological brain to a software brain would not be dying, any more than you die when your body recycles cellular waste from your neurons and replaces old neurons with new ones (science has recently found that adults actually DO regenerate brain cells- albeit, slowly). The atoms that make up our "selves" are constantly changing, and yet we do not experience death constantly; thus we should be able to, in theory, replace our brains entirely with another substance (electronic memory storage and computer code), and as long as the new substance is exactly functionally equivalent, then it's exactly the same "self" as before. So, it's not neurons that compose our conscious minds; it is the information that our neurons store, and the way that those neurons process new and old information that makes up our conscious minds. In short, our consciousness is "composed" entirely of information and functions that operate on the information. It does not have to be tied to a biological body.

So to me, cryonics makes more sense if you look at it with the hope that people's preserved brains may one day be replicated on a computer.

[Kryten]

How do you make the scan?

[NERVAfan]

Difference between them and cryonic frozen brains (or whole bodies):

Their metabolisms are just extremly slowed down .... not a NULL-Line as in case of the cryonic frozen bodies/brains.

There is still some electric and metabolic activity going omn in the animals you listed.

Dunno if a "reboot" is possible for a brain that was "laid on ice" with no brain activity whatsoever (instead of a brain whose activity was just extremly slowed down)

No, some animals can actually revive after total freezing or near total desiccation - not "slowed down" but zero metabolism (anhydrobiosis, cryptobiosis).

However, doing this for humans is a huge, huge, huge stretch and I'm very skeptical.

[KerikBalm]

How do you make the scan?

CLARITY perhaps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLARITY

[Godot]

I somehow doubt that this would be enough to exactly recreate a brain.

Learning creates changes in the neurons ... there are some that are visible in MRI scans and the like ... like the number of synapses, or the formations of dendritic thorns.

But many changes are intracellular and wouldn´t be visible ...

for example the number of presynaptic vesicles for certain neurotransmitters ... or the number of postsynaptic neurotransmitter receptors ... all of them important for determining how much excitatory or inhibitory postsynaptic potential the postsynaptic neuron gets ... and whether it will cause the postsynaptic Neuron to fire or not.

And you would have to know informations like these for every Neuron in the brain and for all of its synaptic connections with other Neurons

[lajoswinkler]

I'm not so sure about that. Indivudual human cells can be frozen and thawed.... its just doing it all at the same time without killing them during the transitions...

And with extensive genetic engineering... why not... if a tardigrade can do it.... if some turtle species can lower their metabolism enough to survive months without any oxygen.... why not?

Human mind is few steps above basic metabolism. It is still biochemical in nature (souls do not exist), but its nature is emergent, just like a microship isn't just a bunch of silicon atoms.

Preserving such system by using crude, invasive techniques such as antifreeze embalment and freezing in liquid nitrogen is perfectly useless waste of money. It doesn't work because it can't work. It can't even save basic metabolism. No amount of genetic engineering can help with that.

What about sectioning up or scanning in the brain with some future, very precise brain-mapping technology, and then building a software brain for the person that functions exactly the same as the old biological brain? I know we don't even have fast enough computers yet for this, let alone the knowledge of exactly how neurons work (you need to build a software equivalent that works the same), let alone the capability to scan the brain in such detail.... but if 100, 200 years such technology becomes feasible, will cryonically (thanks lajos) preserved brains be well enough preserved to be copied into software? I don't think we know that answer either, but honestly, the answer is probably going to be no.

That's the same problems as with teleportation in SF. You'd create a copy of a person which then goes along its own way, slowly diverging from the original, and becoming a new person. What's with the original? It will die. Nobody will save it, therefore the problem isn't solved.

If there is no soul, then the sense of "self" must be an illusion. Going from a biological brain to a software brain would not be dying, any more than you die when your body recycles cellular waste from your neurons and replaces old neurons with new ones (science has recently found that adults actually DO regenerate brain cells- albeit, slowly). The atoms that make up our "selves" are constantly changing, and yet we do not experience death constantly; thus we should be able to, in theory, replace our brains entirely with another substance (electronic memory storage and computer code), and as long as the new substance is exactly functionally equivalent, then it's exactly the same "self" as before. So, it's not neurons that compose our conscious minds; it is the information that our neurons store, and the way that those neurons process new and old information that makes up our conscious minds. In short, our consciousness is "composed" entirely of information and functions that operate on the information. It does not have to be tied to a biological body.

So to me, cryonics makes more sense if you look at it with the hope that people's preserved brains may one day be replicated on a computer.

True, there isn't such thing as soul. Brain is responsible for who we are. It is an illusion, but a satisfactory one.

Your idea about slowly replacing one's brain organic matter with artificial one, thus gradually making an inorganic brain until it's free from typical organic degradation, would be fine. Brain does it all the time, preserving the structure along the way, but uses organic molecules. The structure is what matters.

Informations aren't just stored inside neurons. There's also the number of synapses, the way they branch and connect. Also, an active array of ionic current impulses. That's very delicate. It's who we are at this moment. There's an actual "software" in our heads which gets deleted if something goes very wrong. That's why oxygen deprivation, an impact or consumation of toxic compounds can profoundly alter the character and actually kill the "person A" by diverting it into "person B".

Edited October 18, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Everten P.]

Could conscience be carried by a large group of brain cells being transferred to a second brain and all the memories being coded in?

[KerikBalm]

For sure, it would be hard, but there is nothing to suggest it is impossible.

Whatever the freezing technique (that doesn't rupture membranes with crystal formation)... it won't be instant, and nor will the revival.

I suspect that if it ever is accomplished, it would require lowering the metablic rate significantly (some sort of induced hibernation) before the "antifreeze" is injected and the chilling takes place. Genetic modification would probably be needed as well.

But there are a number of organisms with brains (not as complex as ours, but brains none the less) that can be frozen and revived, and resume functioning.

So I wouldn't write it off as impossible.

[lajoswinkler]

Could conscience be carried by a large group of brain cells being transferred to a second brain and all the memories being coded in?

Conscience is an emergent phenomenon of a total brain work. There isn't an isolated part where it resides that could be plugged out and replaced.

It's like if you had a large museum that benefits the entire city by raising its culture. The museum itself is a pile of bricks. Things inside are piles of paper, gypsum, bronze, etc. Not even the sum of those parts are enough to describe what a museum means to the people of that city if it serves lots of purposes, such as protecting a minority's material and nonmaterial heritage for example.

Another example is a book. Pile of paper, ink and perhaps leather. If you mashed all that in a bowl, you'd get a dirty pile of paper and leather. But the book carries information and that information has a meaning. Where is the "meaning" in the book? You can't pluck it out.

Memories in a brain are a lot more local, but still written in a way we don't understand. We do know those things aren't in the form of extremely localized "files", but in the form of incredibly complex connections through which current pulses all the time.

For sure, it would be hard, but there is nothing to suggest it is impossible.

Whatever the freezing technique (that doesn't rupture membranes with crystal formation)... it won't be instant, and nor will the revival.

I suspect that if it ever is accomplished, it would require lowering the metablic rate significantly (some sort of induced hibernation) before the "antifreeze" is injected and the chilling takes place. Genetic modification would probably be needed as well.

But there are a number of organisms with brains (not as complex as ours, but brains none the less) that can be frozen and revived, and resume functioning.

So I wouldn't write it off as impossible.

There is everything suggesting it's impossible. The very nature of who we are is the pinnacle of complexity in this universe. It's a machine that can't be switched off and then back on because that action will alter it so profoundly that it will destroy its state. If would be easy if the human mind was based on a hardware that is more simple, but its complexity is uncomparable to the most advanced machines we've ever made. We do know how its base works and why, but to describe it in totality we'll probably have to wait a long, long time.

Organisms which can be frozen and then thawed all have very primitive central nervous systems. They have no self-awareness, no advanced emotions, no abstract thoughts and concepts. Some of them don't even have a brain, but ganglia.

[SargeRho]

Certain amphibians freeze in the winter and thaw afterwards with no damage what so ever. I find it hard to believe that can't somehow be applied to humans.

[lajoswinkler]

Certain amphibians freeze in the winter and thaw afterwards with no damage what so ever. I find it hard to believe that can't somehow be applied to humans.

That's not cryonics. That's suspended animation at few degrees below zero, at most. Metabolism still works, but at very slow rate. Those frogs also have a very different brain than humans. Things that make us persons is a lot more delicate than synapses that make the

and jump around.

Cryonics is complete halt of molecular movement (except weak vibration) in a cryogenic medium. Compounds that are injected into the body do not allow the preservation of those delicate things our brains produce.

[Godot]

Aye big difference ... the bodily fluids in those amphibeans aren´t replaced by an anti freezing agent (but rather, their normal body fluids already contain molecules that fulfill this function) .... neurotransmitter levels and the like that are present in the body fluids get preserved ... in addition to the Metabolism being just extremly slowed down instead of being completely halted this means, that the difference between their "awake" state and their state in deep hibernation isn´t even marginally as big, as the difference betweena living human and a cryonically frozen human

[NERVAfan]

I'm pretty sure a wood frog has no metabolism when all the water in its body is frozen.

(And soul is a philosophical concept, not subject to scientific proof or disproof.)

[TheGatesofLogic]

I personally favor the idea of intracellular manipulation via nanorobotics which alter the cellular and genetic structure of an individual such that the individual is optimized for things which normal humans cannot do. This would allow crying a to actually be feasible.

[lajoswinkler]

I'm pretty sure a wood frog has no metabolism when all the water in its body is frozen.

At the contrary, it's not frozen because its cells secrete compound(s) with antifreezing properties. It is stiff, but not frozen. Metabolism still partially works, but very slowly. Cytoplasm in the cells stays closer to gel than sol form.

(And soul is a philosophical concept, not subject to scientific proof or disproof.)

Today it's a religious subject. When it's used to explain psychological properties of a human being, it becomes a subject of investigation, rather like chakras, auras and other bollock concepts without real life basis. Human mind is electrical in nature. Not a ghouly smoke that can be "sold", "taken", "possessed", etc.

As science, philosophy has evolved. It doesn't cling to useless concepts when it tackles real world.

The sooner the humanity as a whole starts accepting this fact of human mind nature, the sooner people start being more responsible. When there's a "backup plan" in the form of a soul, people like to think their actions towards the body are a lot more forgiving.

I personally favor the idea of intracellular manipulation via nanorobotics which alter the cellular and genetic structure of an individual such that the individual is optimized for things which normal humans cannot do. This would allow crying a to actually be feasible.

Yup. One day that might be a reality. If all goes well, probably by the end of this century.

[WestAir]

Would the advent of advanced nanorobotics and artificial neurons change the outlook on the feasibility of cryonics?

[lajoswinkler]

It's a difficult question. Cryonics is indefinite and as such, very invasive to the intra- and extracellular protein machines. Those things are of unprecedented complexity, and their high order functions produce a person. If one day we're able to gradually replace matter prone to organic decay with something long lasting and indefinitively self-repairing, then it might be an option.

In the foreseeable future, advanced hibernation at non-cryogenic temperatures is the only thing we might expect.

[-Velocity-]

That's the same problems as with teleportation in SF. You'd create a copy of a person which then goes along its own way, slowly diverging from the original, and becoming a new person. What's with the original? It will die. Nobody will save it, therefore the problem isn't solved.

I think the distinction between the "original" and the "copy" is a false one.

A) The brain is slowly replacing and itself all the time, and we do not experience death. Also, every time we learn anything, the brain rewires itself and we do not experience death.

The point of the example of slowly replacing the brain with equivalent synthetic components is to show that this is effectively the same as what occurs naturally. We would end up with a fully synthetic brain, and not experience death.

C) So speed up the replacement arbitrarily, so that you effectively replaced your entire brain all at once, and that is no different than doing it slowly, and no different than what happens naturally.

D) So, why should you have to wait till the biological brain wears out? Why not replace a biological brain with a synthetic one, and pitch the biological brain in the trash?

A == B == C == D

By these arguments, then you could just wholly replace your brain with a synthetic one, literally pitching your brain in the trash, and not experience death.

Or you could keep the biological brain around. As you said, the two minds would slowly diverge as they would be subjected to different experiences.

What this points to, I think, is that we do not have an continuous, inner self. "Self" is an illusion. If replacing our brain with a synthetic brain, and throwing the biological brain in the trash is equal to death, then also,every time our brain changes its wiring or replaces a part of itself- which probably happens thousands or millions of times a second- we would also "die". Are we constantly dying, only to be "reborn" as new beings that falsely believe they have a continuous existence? The more simple explanation is that the sense of "self" as a singular existence is just an illusion.

So the distinction between the "original" and the "copy" is a false one. If the copy is an exact copy, then they are indistinguishable. The sense of self as a singular existence is an illusion; "you" are just the output of a function, and "you" exists where ever that function is run.

Edited October 20, 2014 by |Velocity|