1) In general I’m very conservative about preserving things and wouldn’t want to throw the body away without a really compelling argument for why it’s going to be fine for the person being preserved. I don’t currently have that argument.
2) Now you could certainly argue that with just a brain it’s possible to fully reconstruct someone. I think that’s probably true because the task of reconstructing a body ultimately is about satisfying the expectations of the person’s mind and enabling all their capabilities, and you should be able to “read off” what the brain was expecting from the models of the body contained in the brain. Especially if it’s an interactive process with the person actively participating and saying what feels more or less right. I think it’s probably true that you can reconstruct a person from just a brain with no losses that we’d deem clinically relevant today. But I don’t believe that at 95% confidence so I don’t want to, in my ignorance, throw away something that ended up really mattering.
2.5) Note this line of reasoning applies to the brain itself! Do you really need to conserve the brainstem? How about the cerebellum? Optic nerve? In principal it’s probably possible to infer these structures. I estimate it’s more than 50% likely that this can be done with future technology. But in my ignorance and humility I say that we should just preserve as much as we can and let the future sort it out.
I didn’t appreciate starting out how complicated the spinal cord is, it’s got grey matter, white matter, synapses, it’s part of the central nervous system after all. But starting out I thought it was more of a bunch of cables and not that interesting. When I actually looked at the structure I became much less comfortable throwing it away.
4) I also like to consider the experience of someone being revived. Suppose it is possible to reconstruct from a brain only but it requires an active search process with the person participating. That might feel like years of physical therapy from that person’s perspective. And they might have dysphoria while they’re trying to make their body feel right. If I can spare my clients that inconvenience by retaining their bodies I’d love to do that.
5) Because we’re storing at −32°C the relative cost of head-only vs whole body is minor compared to traditional cryonics. It’s just not as much of a concern compared to conserving precious space in a dewar.
I was somewhat skeptical of the importance of the spinal cord for general cognition, but I did find a few articles that have me reconsider and become somewhat agnostic:
>The impact of the anatomic level of injury in the spinal cord on cognitive function has also been investigated. In a study carried out by Wecht et al. (2018), it was shown that patients with SCI at or above the T1 level have a lower performance on cognitive tasks (Wecht et al., 2018). On the other hand, given the fundamental role of the spinal cord in the functions of the autonomic nervous system, it has been suggested that hemodynamic events after SCI (chronic hypotension and orthostatic hypotension), particularly in individuals with high spinal cord lesions (i.e., above T6), may contribute to the development of distinct patterns of cognitive impairment (Chiaravalloti et al., 2020a). In line with these findings, Chiaravalloti et al. (2020a, b) also identified a relationship between some cognitive functions and hemodynamic changes, concluding that, an increase in cerebral vascular resistance leads to the worsened performance of the individual in tasks that involve cognitive activity.
It’s far from cut and dry. After all, serious spinal cord injuries can ruin QOL, and are usually due to some form of trauma. But I do find this to be surprising and suggestive.
It definitely goes over well with normies. Plus, since aldehyde preservation is stable at room temperature, it opens up the possibility of a completely standard open-casket funeral, which is really nice for people whose families aren’t necessarily sold on the whole preservation thing.
Ten years ago, it was. There’s obviously still some people who aren’t comfortable with it, but I’ve been surprised how rarely people register any kind of discomfort; they’re way more likely to express concern about, say, overpopulation, or whether the future would want them.
Nectome definitely goes over well with normies? I’m somewhat surprised. I’d expect most people would think it’s weird/creepy/cheating death (derogatory), even if you don’t chop off your customer’s heads.
It was absolutely a huge surprise. Obviously not everyone is into it, but I’d say that the median reaction I get when I chat with random people is closer to “huh, I didn’t realize the science was that good yet” than “how dare you defy the natural order.”
People who’ve been in the business longer than I have tell me that this is a big change over the last ten years. I think those of us who’ve been into preservation for a long time may have some cached views on the popular attitude which aren’t as accurate as they used to be.
Why only whole-body?
I have a couple thoughts on this!
1) In general I’m very conservative about preserving things and wouldn’t want to throw the body away without a really compelling argument for why it’s going to be fine for the person being preserved. I don’t currently have that argument.
2) Now you could certainly argue that with just a brain it’s possible to fully reconstruct someone. I think that’s probably true because the task of reconstructing a body ultimately is about satisfying the expectations of the person’s mind and enabling all their capabilities, and you should be able to “read off” what the brain was expecting from the models of the body contained in the brain. Especially if it’s an interactive process with the person actively participating and saying what feels more or less right. I think it’s probably true that you can reconstruct a person from just a brain with no losses that we’d deem clinically relevant today. But I don’t believe that at 95% confidence so I don’t want to, in my ignorance, throw away something that ended up really mattering.
2.5) Note this line of reasoning applies to the brain itself! Do you really need to conserve the brainstem? How about the cerebellum? Optic nerve? In principal it’s probably possible to infer these structures. I estimate it’s more than 50% likely that this can be done with future technology. But in my ignorance and humility I say that we should just preserve as much as we can and let the future sort it out.
3) Spinal cord has a lot going on! Take a look at grey matter in the spinal cord. This is from the anterior horn of the spinal cord and the image is from https://synapseweb.clm.utexas.edu/atlas/1-neuron/13-perikaryon/1304 :
I didn’t appreciate starting out how complicated the spinal cord is, it’s got grey matter, white matter, synapses, it’s part of the central nervous system after all. But starting out I thought it was more of a bunch of cables and not that interesting. When I actually looked at the structure I became much less comfortable throwing it away.
4) I also like to consider the experience of someone being revived. Suppose it is possible to reconstruct from a brain only but it requires an active search process with the person participating. That might feel like years of physical therapy from that person’s perspective. And they might have dysphoria while they’re trying to make their body feel right. If I can spare my clients that inconvenience by retaining their bodies I’d love to do that.
5) Because we’re storing at −32°C the relative cost of head-only vs whole body is minor compared to traditional cryonics. It’s just not as much of a concern compared to conserving precious space in a dewar.
I was somewhat skeptical of the importance of the spinal cord for general cognition, but I did find a few articles that have me reconsider and become somewhat agnostic:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9165403/
>The impact of the anatomic level of injury in the spinal cord on cognitive function has also been investigated. In a study carried out by Wecht et al. (2018), it was shown that patients with SCI at or above the T1 level have a lower performance on cognitive tasks (Wecht et al., 2018). On the other hand, given the fundamental role of the spinal cord in the functions of the autonomic nervous system, it has been suggested that hemodynamic events after SCI (chronic hypotension and orthostatic hypotension), particularly in individuals with high spinal cord lesions (i.e., above T6), may contribute to the development of distinct patterns of cognitive impairment (Chiaravalloti et al., 2020a). In line with these findings, Chiaravalloti et al. (2020a, b) also identified a relationship between some cognitive functions and hemodynamic changes, concluding that, an increase in cerebral vascular resistance leads to the worsened performance of the individual in tasks that involve cognitive activity.
It’s far from cut and dry. After all, serious spinal cord injuries can ruin QOL, and are usually due to some form of trauma. But I do find this to be surprising and suggestive.
IMO, it is worth it from a pure PR perspective. Chopping heads off gives people the ick.
It definitely goes over well with normies. Plus, since aldehyde preservation is stable at room temperature, it opens up the possibility of a completely standard open-casket funeral, which is really nice for people whose families aren’t necessarily sold on the whole preservation thing.
I would’ve expected the MAiD to be a serious PR issue.
Ten years ago, it was. There’s obviously still some people who aren’t comfortable with it, but I’ve been surprised how rarely people register any kind of discomfort; they’re way more likely to express concern about, say, overpopulation, or whether the future would want them.
Nectome definitely goes over well with normies? I’m somewhat surprised. I’d expect most people would think it’s weird/creepy/cheating death (derogatory), even if you don’t chop off your customer’s heads.
It was absolutely a huge surprise. Obviously not everyone is into it, but I’d say that the median reaction I get when I chat with random people is closer to “huh, I didn’t realize the science was that good yet” than “how dare you defy the natural order.”
People who’ve been in the business longer than I have tell me that this is a big change over the last ten years. I think those of us who’ve been into preservation for a long time may have some cached views on the popular attitude which aren’t as accurate as they used to be.