The limits on cryonic storage are much less than those discussed
(quoted below). Robert Freitas has done a paper on this and
the draft version placed limits of 500-1000 years cryonic
suspension before endoradiation would become a significant
factor. Currently the paper is being reworked to take into
account radiation from the carbon in the histones, so those
limits may be revised downward. Counter to that is the
possibility of syn-genome replacement based on the methods
of genome fragment reassembly (pioneered by TIGR).
As I've stated before, and I'll state again, the limits on
cryonic reanimation would appear to be fundamentally based
on the question of whether or not the freezing process causes
loss of positional information that could prevent 3D-reassembly.
Given the size of synaptic and cellular structures, I strongly
doubt that to be the case. These are hundreds of thousands to
tens-of-millions of atoms in size. They are only going to match
up in unique places. Only if you unfreeze the brain and let it
decay away into a molecular soup have you lost that information.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Michael LaTorra wrote:
> In a conversation about self-delusion and real possibilities, I (Mike)
> > That being said, I must confess that we, too, can fool ourselves into
> > believing that uploading, or resuscitation from cryonic storage, or the
> > singularity, etc. will happen soon enough for us all.
> Spike Jones replied:
> I dont understand. Resuscitation from cryonic storage stage has
> no time limit that I know of, and the tech to freeze and store is with
> us already.
> In principle, the time limit for storage in liquid nitrogen is virtually
> unlimited (meaning in the range of millions of years before quantum flux has
> any discernible effects). But I am not so sure that current suspension
> techniques provide adequate protection against cellular damage due to ice
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:54 MDT