Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
brainpreservation.org
Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#2This is the third aspect I post on the subject and I'm surprised that there's zero engagement regarding such a great scientific achievement!
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#3This is the third aspect I post on the subject and I'm surprised that there's zero engagement regarding such a great scientific achievement!
We gotta chase the latest photo-sharing apps bro.
Also check what time it is when you post.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#4This is the third aspect I post on the subject and I'm surprised that there's zero engagement regarding such a great scientific achievement!
I'll give you some engagement. I really think it is sad that you see this as a 'great scientific achievement' when in actual fact nothing of note has been achieved.
The whole article reads like a puff-piece pretending this is a major breakthrough when in fact as far as I can see it not much of note has been achieved, yes, it's a mammal but certain types of frogs have been known to be able to freeze and thaw and their neurological systems are working just fine afterwards. In this case all we have is some visual inspection which makes the claim that the brain has been recovered a bit doubtful, it's not as if a rabbit using that previously frozen brain is hopping around. (That probably would be a breakthrough.)
Cryopreservation, uploading, life extension technology and related fields are for the most quack science taking money from the gullible (or their estates) and spending it on un-productive areas of research. I sincerely wished that HN would stick to discussing things with a bit more solidity, if we afford these subjects the amount of space their proponents would like then HN would go the same way as renewable energy fora that allowed 'zero point energy' enthusiasts to run unchecked. I'm happy for you that you wish to live for ever (who doesn't?) and that you believe that in your lifetime we'll see a major change in this respect but I'm a bit tougher to convince and I've seen enough bs during my lifetime to solidly vote against giving this stuff more airtime than it already has. Historically, anybody that tried to peddle life eternal turned out to have been lying.
FWIW you're going to die, get used to it and make the most of the time that you have. If and when the future dictates otherwise you'll be able to adjust with grace and on the off chance that it does not you'll be happy you followed my advice.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#5What I find confusing is that (from a quick skim) there's no mention on how easy it would be to actually bring back the brain in, say, 50 years. Does this method make reviving brain tissue easier?
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#6What I find confusing is that (from a quick skim) there's no mention on how easy it would be to actually bring back the brain in, say, 50 years. Does this method make reviving brain tissue easier?
No. This method is used to micro-image the brain cells, not to revive it.
Essentially it kills it (and kills it fast), then binds all proteins so they remain intact.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#7What I find confusing is that (from a quick skim) there's no mention on how easy it would be to actually bring back the brain in, say, 50 years. Does this method make reviving brain tissue easier?
The breakthrough here was injecting a poison that makes revival impossible but allows freezing with synaptic structure intact. Then hypothetically you can slice and scan the brain and simulate it later when computers are powerful enough.
Personally that seems more likely tha figuring out a new reversible freezing process.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#8This is the third aspect I post on the subject and I'm surprised that there's zero engagement regarding such a great scientific achievement!
I'll give you some engagement. I really think it is sad that you see this as a 'great scientific achievement' when in actual fact nothing of note has been achieved. The whole article reads like a puff-piece pretending this is a major breakthrough when in fact as far as I can see it not much of note has been achieved, yes, it's a mammal but certain types of frogs have been known to be able to freeze and thaw and their…
That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever", and not to be taken seriously.
The essence of your argument is circular: it doesn't work because it's quack science, and it's quack science because it doesn't work - but it doesn't matter, because you're going to die anyway.
What a cop out. One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator"
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll give you some engagement. I really think it is sad that you see this as a 'great scientific achievement' when in actual fact nothing of note has been achieved. The whole article reads like a puff-piece pretending this is a major breakthrough when in fact as far as I can see it not much of note has been achieved, yes, it's a mammal but certain types of frogs have been known to be able to freeze and thaw and their…
That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever", and not to be taken seriously. The essence of your argument is circular: it doesn't work because it's quack science, and it's quack science because it doesn't work - but it doesn't matter, because you're going to die anyway. What a cop out. One would think you got…
> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator"
That's a bit insulting of you.
And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it.
I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actually delivering on their promises. And just like those religious groups they always need a little bit more money.
It's quack science because none of it works. It will be science once someone can freeze a very small mammal (say a tiny rodent), keep it frozen for a while and then thaw that creature again and it will live a long and healthy life.
It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original.
Until then it's all just purposefully soft-balled problems that pretend to solve some crucial aspect of the whole chain without actually addressing the main problems head on, just enough 'progress' to keep the funding coming.
I make my living debunking bs and this stuff is - to me - a very high grade of it, all I see here is a cynical attempt at getting funding by for instance linking Alzheimer research to this group (which they have absolutely nothing to do with).
Feel free to have a different opinion.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#10jacquesm is right, there's no actual scientific breakthrough here. We already know glutaraldehyde does a good job of preserving synaptic structure, that's why we have used it to fix brains for electron microscopy analysis for roughly a century. I guess it's cool that you can freeze a glut-fixed brain and then unfreeze it and that won't have a dramatic effect on the structure. I'd be interested to know how quantitative their analysis was. Absence of evidence (of deformed synapses) is not evidence of absence. But anyways the synaptic ultrastructure probably isn't everything. It's necessary but not sufficient.