Download PDF - Alcor Life Extension Foundation

2 ND QUARTER 2007 • VOLUME 28:2IS YOUR BRAIN YOUR “SELF”?SECURINGVIABILITY OFTHE BRAIN ATALCORpage 12Member Profile:Chana de Wolfpage 8ISSN 1054-4305Survival ThroughInferencepage 10$9.95What is A Self thatIt Might be Revived?page 16

INSIDECRYONICSIS YOUR BRAIN YOUR “SELF”?ISSN 1054-4305$9.951 st quarter 2007 • Volume 28:12 ND QUARTER 2007 • VOLUME 28:2IS YOUR BRAIN YOUR “SELF”?SECURINGVIABILITY OFTHE BRAIN ATALCORpage 12Member Profile:Chana de Wolfpage 8Survival ThroughInferencepage 10What is A Self thatIt Might be Revived?page 168 Member Profile: Chana de Wolf: A memberof the organization since February 2007, Chana deWolf, will use her master of science in cognitionand neuroscience to run experiments in Alcor’sresearch lab. Her academic background in thesciences make her the right person at the righttime for elevating Alcor’s profile as a credible scientificorganization.2 ND QUARTER 2007 • VOLUME 28:2COVER STORY: PAGES 12-15Securing Viability of the Brain atAlcor: Maintaining the viability and theultrastructure of the brain is a primeobjective at the Alcor Foundation.Learn how a typical cryopreservationcase protects the brain, an organextremely vulnerable to injury.10 Survival Through Inference: Dr. More, writer of the popular“Immortalist Philosophy” columns of the early 1990’s, explores the“psychological connectedness” of a person before and after cryopreservation.But if one’s memories – the primary indicator of connectedness– are lost, could survival be assured through inferred memories?16 What is a Self that it Might be Revived? The goal of cryonics isto restore you to health, but will it be “you” that emerges from cryopreservation?Ben Goertzel, an artificial intelligence specialist, offershis definition of the “self” and what it will take to incorporate his conceptinto an intelligent computer program.2 From the Editor3 Book Review: Decoding theUniverse by Charles SeifeA “many-worlds” realitywhere civilization will ultimatelybe destroyed offerslittle hope to those who seekto avoid permanent death.Seife’s view of the universe,grounded in non-controversialscience but extending farinto speculative territory, isfascinating.4 Executive Director’sReport: Learn about Alcor’sAdvanced CryoprotectivePerfusion System, a new wayto “Meetup” with Alcormembers, and the currentstatus of membershipgrowth.6 Advances in Cryopreservation:The biggest challenge of vitrificationis cryoprotectanttoxicity. Vitrificationreplaces the problem ofstructural damage caused byice with the biochemicaldamage caused by cryoprotectants.Dr. Fahy explainshow his research has resultedin a better tradeoff.21 Tech News: Is it possible tosee into the future? Can aHIV protein wipe out cancercells? Will intelligent robotsdemand rights similar tohumans? Find out.www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 20071

FROM THE EDITOREditorJennifer ChapmanArt DirectorJill GrasseContributing WritersAschwin de Wolf,Gregory M. Fahy, Ph.D.,Benjamin Goertzel, Ph.D.,Deborah Johnson, Max More, Ph.D.,R. Michael Perry, Ph.D.,Stephen Van SickleContributing PhotographersMurray BallardMichael Darwin________________________________Copyright 2007by Alcor Life Extension FoundationAll rights reserved.Reproduction, in whole or part, withoutpermission is prohibited.Cryonics Magazine is published quarterly.After weeks of writing, a proposal for Alcor’s research laboratory is carefullyproofread, then sent for consideration by the research committee. Months ofphone calls and emails culminate in half a dozen newly approved Alcor members.Fifty organization-wide projects on a central list are prioritized during a meeting ofthe management team. All of this, and more, occur in a typical day at the AlcorFoundation.With no shortage of directions the organization is growing – of areasrequiring the staff ’s attention – seldom is there an opportunity to outwardlyacknowledge the existence of the innate understanding amongst the Alcor staff andleaders as to why our daily efforts matter so much.It is better cryopreservations for our members that we seek, right? Trueenough. Alcor’s relentless emphasis on better brain cryopreservation continues withthis issue (“Securing Viability of the Brain at Alcor”, pg. 12). And central to Alcor’ssuccess at this is the skill of its employees. So we invite you to learn a little moreabout Alcor’s research associate, Chana de Wolf, who also recently joined as a memberof the organization (pg. 8).But what is it about a better brain cryopreservation that is so very important?The Alcor philosophy holds that the brain is the center of the person, harboringall the individual’s memories and essential personhood. But does that personhood– that “self ” – continue to exist after cryonics? Beginning on page 16, BenGoertzel, Ph.D. questions the affair at the core of so many decades of effort by theAlcor Foundation (“What is a Self that it Might be Revived?”) with further introspectionoffered by Max More, Ph.D. (“Survival through Inference”, pg. 10).This issue of Cryonics only touches on the deeper importance of Alcor’smission, as seen from just a few perspectives. As always we invite our readers tosend letters to the editor on this topic or others of interest.To subscribe: call 480.905.1906 x101________________________________Address correspondence to:Cryonics Magazine7895 East Acoma Drive, Suite 110Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Phone: 480.905.1906Toll free: 877.462.5267Fax: 480.922.9027Letters to the Editor welcome:jennifer@alcor.orgAdvertising inquiries:480.905.1906 x113advertise@alcor.orgISSN: 1054-4305Visit us on the web at www.alcor.orgAlcor News Blogwww.alcornews.org/weblogRegister for the 7th Alcor Conference: www.alcor.org2 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

DECODING THE UNIVERSE:HOW THE NEW SCIENCE OF INFORMATION IS EXPLAININGEVERYTHING IN THE COSMOS, FROM OUR BRAINS TO BLACKHOLESBy Charles Seife, New York: Viking, 2006book review by r. michael perry, ph.d.As transhumanists and immortalists we lookto the time when advancing technologygrants us major new options, including, we think,maybe even an end to death. As the centuries rollforward, if all goes well, we will naturally be concernedabout where it’s all heading. Many of usare actually interested now, and many recentbooks have addressed this rather daunting subject.Physics, astronomy, and other scientific pursuitsare providing fresh and startling insights, asthese writings inform us. Though we still have toadmit that really solidanswers are lacking andmay be for some time,there is no denying thatthese books are arrestingand thought-provoking.Among other things theyoften delve into what it isthat makes us what andwho we are, that is to say,issues of personal identityand survival, which are ofspecial interest to immortalists.Decoding the Universe byCharles Seife is a recentoffering in this “cosmological”genre and it championsa view of reality inwhich information is dominant.The book is written for a general audienceand offers an easy introduction to informationtheory and what can be seen as its subsidiary,thermodynamics, along with essential rudimentsof quantum theory and the special theory of relativity.No math or physics beyond a limited highschool level is assumed. Concepts are explainedthrough entertaining historical anecdotes andother pleasant and interesting routes.Overall, we are treated to a view of realitythat is grounded in non-controversial science butextends far into speculative, but fascinating, territory.The universe—our “Hubble bubble”—isin effect one vast quantum computation—and itis not alone. We, in turn, are software entitieswithin this one computation, though in fact weare replicated elsewhere too, in other Hubblebubbles. These, in turn, exist in infinite profusionand come in all possible varieties, a tiny but stillinfinitely numerous fraction of which matchours exactly, others in varying degrees. Themany-worlds view of reality is defended ongrounds of it being necessary to harmonizequantum mechanics with special relativity, whichforbids faster-than-light transmission of information.Life, including ourselves, is a “complexdance to duplicate and preserve information”;our brains and thus our minds and our selves areinformation-processingsystems of a certain typeand nothing more.In approaching such awriting as this, it is importantto keep in mind thespeculative character ofthe more interesting conclusions.Some wiggleroom is provided if, onsome issue, you have reasonto doubt; it is notdenied that the picturecould change significantlywith new discoveries, as inthe recent finding of anaccelerating universe.Another consideration isthat, like most popularauthors, Seife is not transhumanistor immortalist and seems indifferentto the prospects of greatly increasing the quantityor quality of the individual’s life throughadvancing technology. In a way that is a plus,however, because his generally hopeful view ofreality and our present situation is untainted by abias toward the conclusions we would especiallywant to see.What about the really big picture, then?Where are we headed overall; what is our ultimatefate? Though Seife resists being dogmatic,in fact he is fairly firm on this one issue, and also,for once, not hopeful. Thermodynamics andmore general informational considerations suggestthat ultimately every living thing in our universemust die a permanent death and all that wemay have accomplished by way of civilizationCharles SeifeBesides Decoding the Universe, CHARLESSEIFE is the author of Alpha & Omega,and Zero. The latter won the PEN/MarthaAlbrand Award for First Nonfiction andwas named a New York Times notablebook. Formerly a journalist with Sciencemagazine, Seife has also written for NewScientist, Scientific American, The Economist,Science, Wired UK, The Sciences,and numerous other publications. Heholds an M.S. in probability theory andartificial intelligence from Yale University,and is an associate professor of journalismat New York University. He lives in NewYork City.(Source: Decoding the Universe dust jacket.)will be destroyed, including every record of anythingwe have ever seen or done. True, this willrequire a cosmological time scale, billions or trillionsof years or more, but ultimately it seemsthat all must be lost and that life overall is pointless.At least this would be the conclusion forthose who adhere to the viewpoint that materialessence is what is truly important. With a broaderview, however, the picture interestinglychanges when you allow a multiplicity of sometimes-identicaluniverses—though the authordoes not develop this theme. Nor does he spenda great deal of time on his ultimate-doom scenario,for which we should at least have a longtime to work at finding ways to address. Mindfulof that (for it is important to me, if not foreveryone), I was able to focus on the maincontents of the book, which I found rewarding.■www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 20073

Executive Director’s ReportProgramming Alcor’s ACPSPeople are the cornerstone of any successfulorganization, and Alcor is no exception.It is the people here, everyday striving toAlcor’s contract programmer, JoelAndersen, is in the final phases of programmingthe Advanced CryoprotectivePerfusion System. He has a BS inPhysics and many years of experiencewith LabVIEW, including working forNational Instruments and authoringtheir introductory manual.Alcor’s ACPS will enable unprecedentedcomputer-control of vital aspects ofthe cryopreservation process:• Perfusion pressure and flow rate• Perfusion and environmentaltemperatures• Perfusate concentrationAnd a few other tricks up our sleeve thatwe will discuss more fully followingsuccessful testing.brighten our future, who keep my confidencesurging forward, even on difficult days. Butnobody is perfect, people make mistakes.Human error cannot be avoided, andmachines can often improve upon our limitations.If there’s one area that undeniably warrantsthe pursuit of perfection, the eliminationof all detectable sources of error, it is thecryopreservation process.As this goes to press, we are entering thefinal phase of programming an automatedperfusion system, the ACPS (Advanced CryoprotectivePerfusion System). Cryoprotectiveperfusion is necessary for an ice-freepreservation, and with the ACPS, Alcor willgain unprecedented capabilities and flexibilityin its operating room. The system featuresfull data collection capabilities and completeprogrammable control of vital aspects of thecryopreservation process. The ACPS is beingprogrammed in LabVIEW, a high level languagefor data collection and instrument controlsold by National Instruments. Bothwhole body and neuropreservation cases willbenefit from use of this system, which willgrow with us as new technologies are implemented.Annual Financial StatementsSome unfortunate circumstances haveprecluded Alcor’s Certified Public Accountingfirm from finishing their review of Alcor’sbooks for 2005. The review is nearly a yearlate, due to turnover within the accountingfirm. The unexpected resignation of theaccountant assigned to Alcor thrust us backto square one in the middle of the review.Because changing accountants in the middleof a review is like changing lawyers in themiddle of a trial, expensive and to be avoidedif at all possible, we opted to restart thereview process from the beginning. After thelengthy delay, we are now nearing completionof the review.Point and Click…and BeyondIn every issue of Cryonics magazine,members and supporters are urged to visitsites frequented by other Alcor members.This is important. It is a prime source ofinsight into the issues affecting the membership.Not long ago, members in Canada madean impassioned plea on the AlcorUnitedforum for Alcor to establish toll-free phoneaccess from Canada, a request that has nowbeen resolved. I want to thank those membersfor using this communication tool for thebetterment of themselves and Alcor.While the ease of information flow is adefinite perk of sites like AlcorUnited and theAlcor News blog, only so much interaction ispossible in a point and click environment. Wewant to get you talking, in person. An onlinesocial networking product called Meetup.commakes that possible, and easy. Simply click on“Start a Meetup Group.” Then ask D’BoraTarrant at Alcor (dbora@alcor.org) toannounce your group page to members inyour area. They can then register for yourgroup and receive regular bulletins.Of course, one of the best events formeeting people – including the Alcor staff –is at the 7th Alcor Conference starting October5th (see inside front cover for details).Registration is now open at the early bird rateof $295 through July 31 st . This programbrings even more life extension news youwon’t get at any other conference, includingpresentations by Dr. Michael West of4 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

Advanced Cell Technology who explores thepotential of regenerative medicine and ChrisHeward of the Kronos Science Laboratory,with information about the Kronos study of“anti-aging” interventions. This all-new programoffers behind the scenes demonstrationsof Alcor equipment. Visit our websitetoday for descriptions of speaker presentations,sponsorship opportunities, and a limited-timeoffer for a special group room rate atthe Hilton Scottsdale Resort, where the conferencewill be held.Check it out for yourself:AlcorUnited: www.alcorunited.orgAlcor News blog: www.alcornews/weblogPhoenix Cryonics Meetup: http://cryonics.meetup.com/45/?gj=sj27th Alcor Conference: www.alcor.orgAnd don’t miss the newly released Alcor conferenceDVD: www.shop.alcor.orgStrength in NumbersIn June 2006, Alcor achieved an impressivemilestone: over 800 members worldwide.Fast-forward to June 2007. With only 823members, it is apparent that membershipgrowth has slowed over the past year.Looking at it from a bigger perspective,even after over three decades of operation,the organization’s membership roster still representsa drop in the bucket considering thevast growth that is possible. Lengthy, sometimesheated, conversations result in speculationover the reasons why so few have optedto participate in the cryonics experiment. Yetour strategy is simple: keep educating thepublic about our mission, while continuallyimproving our ability to achieve that mission.Sincerely,Stephen J. Van Sicklewww.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 20075

Advances inCryopreservationBy Gregory M. Fahy, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer, 21 st Century Medicine, Inc.Overcoming Cryoprotectant ToxicityThe biggest problem of vitrification of mostcells, tissues, and organs under laboratoryconditions is surely cryoprotectant toxicity. Vitrificationreplaces the structural damage causedby ice with the biochemical damage caused bycryoprotectants. The more the toxicity of vitrificationsolutions can be controlled, the betterthis tradeoff will be.Toxicity has implications for more thanwhether a given cell is likely to function aftercryoprotectant exposure or vitrification andrewarming. The toxic effects of cryoprotectantsalso seem to be manifested by increasedcapillary permeability during the introductionof cryoprotectants by perfusion. At 21st CenturyMedicine, we have seen large differences indamage to the microcirculation between moretoxic and less toxic cryoprotectant solutions(unpublished results). Leaky blood vesselscause tissue swelling which, in turn, reduces tissueperfusion rates and therefore slows downcryoprotectant distribution into the tissues.The latter, in turn, requires longer perfusiontimes, which then allows more time for toxicityto become worse, and more time for the vascularsystem to become even more damaged. Inshort, a vicious cycle is set up that is much betterto avoid if at all possible. This would bedoubly important for vascular beds that mightalready be weakened or damaged by disease orwarm and/or cold ischemia prior to perfusionwith cryoprotectants.There are significant differences betweenthe toxicities of different common cryoprotectiveagents, and it matters very much which onesare chosen. One example will illustrate the point.For many years, I used propylene glycol(also known as PG, or 1,2-propanediol) as anagent that has a remarkably strong glass-formingtendency when mixed with water in concentrationsas low as 30 or 40 percent by weight 1 .Thanks to PG, I was able to develop a vitrificationsolution that I called VS41A 2 (and that otherslater renamed VS55 3 ). VS41A containedjust 2.21 molar PG 4 (or about 16.2% by volume)and, for that reason, had a reasonablygood vitrification tendency and was used inattempts to vitrify rabbit kidneys 5 . However,this solution was lethal when perfused at -3°C 5-7 ,and when kidneys were perfused with it even at20°C and then transplanted, only half to twothirdsof them would survive 7 , and all of themwould show substantial damage to surfaceblood vessels visible after the kidneys weretransplanted and reperfused with blood 5 .In 1998, I noticed that the glass-formingtendencies of vitrification solutions wereinversely correlated with their toxicities. Inother words, the lower the concentration neededto vitrify, the more toxic the solution was atthat concentration. Based on that, I replacedthe strongly glass-forming PG with the weaklyglass-forming ethylene glycol in VS41A and theresult was a dramatic reduction in toxicity 8 .When kidneys were perfused at -3°C with avariation of this solution that had the same totalconcentration as VS41A (over 8.4 molar), theysuffered no damage whatsoever 8 !There was another trick that also made thenew solution (VMP) so successful, and that wasthe inclusion of formamide. Not to be confusedwith formaldehyde, formamide is a verylow-viscosity and very poor glass-formingagent (again, ironically, the latter is good!) andpenetrates cells extremely rapidly compared toall other reasonably non-toxic cryoprotectants 9 .But an even more important advantage of formamideis that it has the miraculous property ofhaving its toxicity “neutralized” by dimethyl sulfoxide4 (DMSO; Figure 1), so that increasingthe total concentration of the solution can actuallydramatically REDUCE total toxicity. Otheragents such as ethylene glycol do not have thistoxicity-neutralizing effect (unpublished results).Although toxicity neutralization is notpowerful enough by itself to allow DMSO andformamide to be used as the only two agentsfor vitrifying living tissues, it does allow thecombination of formamide and dimethyl sul-6 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

foxide to contribute little or no toxicity to thecomplete vitrification solution.The discovery that DMSO blocks the toxicityof formamide was ironic, because formamidewas used initially due to the belief thatit could neutralize the toxicity of DMSO 10, 11 ,which turned out not to be the case 11 . Remarkably,formamide by itself is one of the mosttoxic cryoprotectants around (Figure 1). It isnot, however, carcinogenic despite inaccuratestatements to the contrary that have crept intothe literature in some places.We have found at 21st Century Medicinethat other amides such as urea can also havetheir toxicity blocked by DMSO 12 (Figure 2).This was also seen by a Russian lab 13 , whichfound that urea-induced denaturation of a vitalmolecular pump that is found in all cell membranesand transports sodium out of cells andalso transports potassium into cells (the socalledNa+,K+-ATPase) could be prevented byDMSO. However, a thorough and thus-farunpublished examination of all possible candidateamides by 21st Century Medicine indicatesthat formamide is the optimal agent for bothtoxicity neutralization and the other favorableproperties of viscosity and permeability.21st Century Medicine continues to investigateopportunities for developing even lesstoxic vitrification solutions and has uncovered anumber of intriguing new leads that remainunpublished.Next time, we’ll have a closer look at otherobstacles to successful vitrification, and howthey are slowly but surely being overcome. References1. Boutron, P., Stability of the amorphous state inthe system water-1,2-propanediol. Cryobiology,1979. 16: p. 557-568.2. Mehl, P., Nucleation and crystal growth in a vitrificationsolution tested for organ cryopreservation byvitrification. Cryobiology, 1993. 30: p. 509-518.3. Song, Y.C., B.S. Khirabadi, F. Lightfoot, K.G.Brockbank and M.J. Taylor, Vitreous cryopreservationmaintains the function of vascular grafts.Nature biotechnology, 2000. 18: p. 296-299.4. Fahy, G.M., C. da Mouta, L. Tsonev, B.S.Khirabadi, P. Mehl and H.T. Meryman, Cellularinjury associated with organ cryopreservation: chemicaltoxicity and cooling injury, in Cell Biology of Trauma,J.J. Lemasters and C. Oliver, Editors. 1995,CRC Press: Boca Raton.5. Arnaud, F.G., B. Khirabadi and G.M. Fahy,Physiological evaluation of a rabbit kidney perfusedFigure 1Figure 2with VS41A. Cryobiology, 2003. 46: p. 289-294.6. Khirabadi, B.S., G.M. Fahy, J. Saur and H.T.Meryman, Perfusion of rabbit kidneys with 8molar cryoprotectant (V52). Cryobiology, 1993.30: p. 611-612.7. Khirabadi, B.S., G.M. Fahy and L.S. Ewing,Survival of rabbit kidneys perfused with 8.4 M cryoprotectant.Cryobiology, 1995. 32: p. 543-544.8. Fahy, G.M., B. Wowk, J. Wu and S. Paynter,Improved vitrification solutions based on predictabilityof vitrification solution toxicity. Cryobiology,2004. 48: p. 22-35.9. Fahy, G.M., D.I. Levy and S.E. Ali, Someemerging principles underlying the physical properties,biological actions, and utility of vitrification solutions.Cryobiology, 1987. 24: p. 196-213.Figures 1 & 2: The findingthat the toxicity of amideslike formamide and ureacan be ‘neutralized’ bydimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)to form non-toxic solutionsof very high total solute concentrationsis very advantageousfor the creation ofsuperior vitrification solutions.Figure 1 shows thetoxicity of formamide in rabbitrenal cortical slices(orange points) and thereversal of this injury byadding DMSO to the statedconcentrations of formamide(indicated by arrows leadingto the green points), therebyincreasing the total concentrationof the solution to theconcentrations indicated forthe green points. Toxicitywas measured by the abilityof kidney slices to accumulatepotassium (K+) and toextrude sodium (Na+) andthereby increase the ratio ofK+ to Na+ in the slices (theK+/Na+ ratio). The abilityto maintain a normalK+/Na+ ratio is fundamentalto the viability of virtuallyevery living cell. Figure modifiedfrom [4]. Figure 2shows the toxicity of urea inrabbit renal cortical slices(orange points) and thereversal of this injury by theaddition of DMSO as in Figure1 (green points). Figuremodified from [12].10. Baxter, S. and G. Lathe, Biochemical effects onkidney of exposure to high concentrations ofdimethyl sulphoxide. Biochemical Pharmacology,1971. 30: p. 1079-1091.11. Fahy, G.M., T.H. Lilley, H. Linsdell, M. St.John Douglas and H.T. Meryman, Cryoprotectanttoxicity and cryoprotectant toxicity reduction: insearch of molecular mechanisms. Cryobiology,1990. 27: p. 247-268.12. Fahy, G.M. and B. Wowk, Cryoprotectant solutioncontaining dimethyl sulfoxide, an amide and ethyleneglycol. 2002: United States Patent6,395,467 B1.13. Mirsalikhova, N.M., Stabilizatsiia Na+,K+-adenozintrifosfatazydimetilsulfoxsidom pri inaktivatsiimochevinoi. Biokhimiia, 1978. 43: p. 34-39.www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 20077

Member Profile: Chana de WolfBy Deborah JohnsonPhoto by Murray Ballard.t all comes down to providing patients“Iwith the best cryopreservation possible,”says Chana de Wolf, Alcor’s researchassociate since September 2006, who joinedas a member of the organization in February2007. Chana is responsible for creating thenew cardiopulmonary bypass lab at Alcor, andshe appears to be the right person at the righttime. Her undergraduate, graduate and doctoralwork has honed her research skills.Her journey from the small East Texastown of Athens to Alcor was an interestingspiral, to say the least. In 1994, as young asage 14, her love of science was apparent.After her family moved from Athens to Waco,she was placed into her high school’s giftedand talented science program. Chana speaksof it fondly and says she relished the experience.“My teacher encouraged my explorationof neuroscience in particular,” sherecalls. At only 14-years-old, she already hada burgeoning interest in the brain, which wasnurtured through a long-term research projectfor class.The challenges of the project led her tothe then-neophyte Internet. That’s whereChana managed to find a primitive bulletinboard system and connect with a scientistwho would become her mentor over the followingyears. “He was working on a new clinicalconcept; penetrating the blood-brain barriervia the olfactory route with agents thatcould help prevent neurodegeneration,” commentsChana. “He” turned out to be WilliamH. Frey II, the co-founder and director of theSt. Paul-Ramsey Alzheimer’s Research Center.Not surprisingly, Chana’s 10th grade scienceproject – on monitoring the effectiveness ofintranasal administration of horseradish peroxidase(HRP) – won first prize.8 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

Chana with her poster presentation at the Society for Neuroscienceconference in 2005.The following year Chana was admittedto the Texas Academy of Mathematics andScience (TAMS), a prestigious early-entranceresidential college program for advancedmath and science students. There, she wasable to connect with other students like herselfand earn college credit for her advancedstudies.But her experience at TAMS was shortlived.After only a year, Chana left Texas andwas able to use her college credit to gainadmittance to Temple University in Philadelphia.Upon completion of her junior year atTemple, she returned to Texas to finish up herbachelor of science at the University ofNorth Texas, in Denton.“In the late 1990s universities knewabout neuroscience – it was the ‘Decade ofthe Brain’ – but there weren’t many programsfocused on it yet,” Chana comments. So shecreated her own curriculum. In 2001, shereceived her bachelor of science in experimentalpsychology with a minor in biologyand honors thesis in cognitive neuroscience(“Detection of symmetry in depth: Effects ofincreasing skew angle”). “Experimental psychologywas fascinating and really gave me agood background in experimental design, butultimately I found the focus on cognition,with little regard for biology or neuroanatomy,too abstract for my tastes,” Chanaexplains. “Fortunately, by the time I was readyfor graduate school, neuroscience programswere becoming commonplace.”By 2003 she had earned her master ofscience in cognition and neuroscience fromthe University of Texas at Dallas, where sheworked in the Neurophysiology of Aging andMemory laboratory. There, she performedsingle-cell electrophysiology of brain slices,with a specific interest in determining howinsulin receptors affect neuronal excitability inthe hippocampus, a structure important forthe consolidation of memories. Chanaremarks, “I’m glad I took a sort of circuitousroute. I have learned a lot and feel that I havea good background to pursue my interestsand to work here at Alcor.”Chana balances her keen interest in sciencewith lighter endeavors, like flying kites.She especially enjoys power-kiting and lovesvisiting windy beaches and flying out over thewater. And she’s also quite enamored of herdogs – Darwin and Monkey. Darwin is a 5-year-old Boston terrier and Monkey is a 3-year-old pit bull.Chana will now be sharingher time with her new husband,Aschwin de Wolf. Theywere married on April 7,2007. Aschwin, previously anemployee of Suspended Animation,Inc., pulled up stakesin Florida and has joinedChana, Darwin and Monkeyin their home in Phoenix.“Since we share a love of cryonicsand met at the Alcorconference, it’s only fittingthat we brought an element ofthat to our wedding,” Chanasays. “David Pizer served asour officiant and Steve VanSickle made liquid nitrogenice cream for all our guests atthe ceremony.”Chana first discovered cryonics andAlcor through her long-standing dedication toprotecting the right to control one’s ownbody. While she has an interest in body modificationin general, her academic bent leadher to study the capabilities of technology toimprove the quality of human life.“Then I looked up Alcor,” Chanaremarks. “And I became interested in Alcorright away.” It didn’t take long for her to pursuemembership with Alcor. “I think it isimportant for a researcher in the field to be asChana and Aschwin de Wolf wed in an outdoorceremony on April 7, 2007.involved in cryonics as possible,” she says.“Being a member is the best way to remindmyself of the personal aspect of cryonics –that every other member and patient is a personwho wants the same thing I do – and toconvey that involvement to others.”Today, she is working toward creating asustainable research lab at Alcor. ”I want toestablish a framework where basic, cryonicsrelevantresearch is performed at Alcor,”Chana comments. Alcor’s research and developmentdepartment is striving to increase visibilityand credibility. Chana knows from heracademic background that it’s imperative topublish research findings in peer-reviewedpublications. She hopes that after the cardiopulmonarybypass lab is established, it willyield publishable results.“I am so excited to be able to bring myexpertise in different fields to the research labat Alcor,” she says. “There’s always room forimprovement.” You can reach Chana at: chana@alcor.org___________________________________Email us if you’re interested in being profiledfor Cryonics magazine: info@alcor.orgwww.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 20079

Will it be you who emerges fromcryopreservation?Survival Through InferenceBy Max More, Ph.D.IntroductionThis article is a lightly edited version of apiece that appeared in Cryonics magazine in1992. It was the eighth of twelve “ImmortalistPhilosophy” columns that I wrote for Cr y-onics magazine, starting in December 1990 andconcluding—appropriately enough—with“The Terminus of the Self (Part 2)” in 1995.In an earlier installment, “The Third State,” Iargued that we need a term that denotes thecondition of someone in the space betweenthe “first state” of normal conscious functionand the “second state” of (permanent andirreversible) death. We can understand cryonicsuspension patients as being in this ThirdState.My last two columns on “The Terminus ofthe Self ” asked the question: At what point, orunder what conditions, do you cease to exist?The installment you are about to read falls inbetween those two columns. It considers someof the factors that determine whether or notthe person who emerges from (imperfect) cryopreservationwould count as you.If you are the kind of individual whoderives a perverse intellectual pleasure frompondering these issues—and let’s face it, youwouldn’t have read this far if you weren’t—youmight like to explore this account of personalidentity and survival at more length. All the Cr y-onics columns came out while I was working onmy dissertation, The Diachronic Self: Identity, Continuity,Transformation. If you find yourself comfortablereading this article, you will find thefull, formal dissertation no less readable. Ifyou’re so inclined, you can find the full text at:Persistence of PsychologicalConnectionsAttempts to defeat the inevitability ofdeath through cryonics or other, theoreticallypossible forms of biostasis will be frustrated ifthe process fails to preserve enough of whatmakes us who we are. According to the psychologicalcriterion for personal continuity (oridentity), the person who is revived from cryopreservationis the same person as the one whowent into cryopreservation if and only if theyare psychologically continuous. A and B are psychologicallycontinuous if they are connected byoverlapping chains of strong psychological connectedness.Strong connectedness means that thereare enough direct psychological connections.How many is enough is fairly arbitrary; wemight say that continuity requires earlier andlater stages of a person to share at least 50% ofthe number of psychological connections thatwould normally exist over the course of a day.(A lower limit will also be set by empirical factors,such as the minimum degree of continuityneeded for the continuation of a coherent personalityat all.)Direct psychological connections includememories (from the “inside”) of the earlier person’sexperiences persisting in the later person.Direct psychological connections include morethan memory, though memory had been themost prominent factor in most discussions ofpersonal identity; another form psychologicalconnections take is the persistence of a disposition.If the person revived from cryopreservationexhibits the same dispositions as the earlierindividual, then we have grounds for believingthem to be distinct temporal stages of the verysame person.A third type of connection exists betweenan earlier intention and the later execution of the intention.For example, the resuscitated person goeson a hike up Mons Olympus on Mars on theanniversary of her first mountain climb, anddoes this because she had decided to do thisyears before being cryopreserved. This wouldbe evidence for the persistence of the verysame person.Inferred PsychologicalConnectionsSo, for us to survive cryopreservation, ourmemories, dispositions, and intentions mustpersist. Damage or destruction to these psychologicalconnections resulting from the cryopreservationprocedure must be repaired orreversed whenever possible. Now, suppose thatall neural traces of memories (dispositions,intentions) have been lost. Perhaps too muchtime elapsed between declaration of (legal andclinical) death and cryopreservation. The purposeof this article is to pose the question: Ifthere are no existing neural traces to repair, isour survival assured just as well through inferred10 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

and reimplanted memories? I will suggest thatthe answer should be: Yes, they are as good.There are two reasons why someonemight fear that implanted memories mightnot be as good as “real” memories. First, theconcern might be about the etiology of thememories—where they came from and whatcaused them. Assume we replace your lost ordamaged memories by gathering informationfrom various sources external to your brainand then altering your neural weightings sothat you will have access to the implantedmemories.This is obviously a very different processthan the one which normally causes us to laydown memories. In the typical case, senseimpressions or internal neural processes lead tothe formation ofinternal representationsof experience.But, whenmemories areimplanted, someoneis gatheringinformationabout what yourmemories probablywere aboutfrom sources likeyour friends andassociates, yourdiaries, knownactivities, lists ofthe books youread, and copiesof your dailyschedules and todo lists. Informationgatheredfrom these sources might then be fedinto an algorithm that tells the memory engineerwhat adjustments to make to thepatient’s brain.Though these typical and extraordinarysources of memory are very different, theirresults might be qualitatively indistinguishable.If the memory engineer successfully recreatesyour missing memories (or gets close enough),why should you be concerned about theircausal history? In wanting to survive as thesame person, what matters is the persistence ofpsychological continuity and connectedness,but not its cause. In the future, perhaps just adecade or two from now, we might use neuralcomputerinterfaces and microelectronic ornano-mechanical devices attached to our brainsto store memories. If these devices were integratedinto our cognitive functioning, then thememories stored in the mechanisms would bejust as much ours as those stored in the usualfleshy mechanisms of the brain.Second, someone might believe thatimplanted memories are inferior to “the realthing” because they believe that the two typesof memory would be qualitatively different. It isoften thought that memories are much likeinternal photographs. It might seem thatinferred and implanted memories would not beexperienced as internal pictures and so couldnot be the same.This way of thinking about memory isundermined by evidence that our internal representationsarenot like picturesat all. Cognitivepsychologistshave devisedclever tests todetermine what isreally happeningin the case ofindividuals witheidetic (“photographic”)memories.The subjectsare convincedthat when theyaccess a memoryof somethingthey have seen,such as a page ofa book, they arelooking at adeterminateimage. However, it took the subjects muchlonger to access the words at the end of thepage than near the beginning, suggesting thatthey had to sequentially process the informationrather than scan across an internal page.Another hint that our memories are not picture-like,but are reconstructions of what weexpect to remember, is the evidence demonstratinghow expectation influences recall. Inone experiment, subjects were shown a briefflash of a struggle between a white and a blackman, one of whom was brandishing a knife.Most subjects “remembered” the black manholding the knife, though in fact it was held bythe white. Their memory was not a sharp picturein their head but an internal reconstructionThe persistence of psychological connections indicateswhether a person is the same before and after cryopreservation.A revived person who hikes on MonsOlympus on the anniversary of her first mountain climbis showing persistence of intentions. This is just one ofthe indicators of whether a cryopreservation was successfulor not.Max More, Ph.D.Dr. Max More is an internationallyacclaimed strategic philosopherwidely recognized for his thinkingon the philosophical and culturalimplications of emerging technologies.His contributions includefounding the philosophy oftranshumanism, authoring the transhumanistphilosophy of extropy,and co-founding Extropy Institute.“We have a dreadful shortageof people who know somuch, can both think so boldlyand clearly, and can expressthemselves so articulately. CarlSagan managed to capture thepublic eye but Sagan is goneand has not been replaced. Isee Max as my candidate forthat post.”(Marvin Minsky)of what they thought they had seen. You mayhave come across many cases of false memories—instanceswhere you seem to rememberevents from a viewpoint that you couldn’t havehad (such as outside your body) or events thatnever happened.If our typical memories are reconstructedor inferred rather than pictorial representations,then memories inferred from unusualsources and implanted in the brain should bejust as good. This is good news for cryonicists,allowing us another degree of freedomwhen considering possibilities for restorationof personality. Contact the author: max@maxmore.comwww.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200711

Securing Viability of theBrain at AlcorBy Aschwin de WolfThe main objective that guides care atAlcor is to maintain viability and preservethe ultrastructure of the brain during all procedures.Because of its high metabolicdemand and low capacity for energy storage,the brain is extremely vulnerable to injurycaused by lack of blood flow (cerebralischemia). The ability to secure viability andgood ultrastructural preservation of the brainis therefore an excellent measure of the currentstate of the art in cryonics. Because identityand memory are assumed to reside primarilyin the brain, both whole body and neuropreservationmembers would agree that thisorgan should be given preferential treatment.This article will briefly describe all thesteps involved in a typical cryopreservationcase and discuss how far we have come inachieving this objective at Alcor.Structure versus ViabilityOne distinction that is often made in cryonicsis that between ultrastructure and viability.In this context viability means that thebrain is able to resume function upon reversalof some, or all, of the procedures employedin cryonics. Preservation of ultrastructurerefers to preservation of the detailed structureof a cell, tissue, or organ that can beobserved by electron microscopy. Naturally,these two concepts are related. For example, ifan organ were straight frozen (placed into liquidnitrogen without cryoprotectant perfusion)after a long period of warm ischemia, we wouldexpect to find poor ultrastructure and, therefore,poor viability. But there can also be exampleswhere good preservation of ultrastructuredoes not necessarily guarantee a good outcomein terms of viability. Examples of this would beprocedures that result in good preservation ofultrastructure but which cause mitochondrialfailure, denatured proteins, or massive activationof apoptosis (programmed cell death).Terminal PatientsOne aspect often neglected by cryonicswriters is that many patients who present forcryonics go through a prolonged terminal periodbefore cryonics stabilization procedures areinitiated. During this period the patient mayexperience a number of pathological conditionssuch as shock, respiratory distress, dehydration,electrolyte imbalances, systematicinflammation, upregulation of coagulation factors,multiple organ failure, intracranial pressure,and activation of apoptosis. Consequently,the objective of stabilization, explained furtherbelow, is much more difficult to achieve ormay even be defeated before the cryonics teamgains access to the patient.Because Alcor will not treat the patientbefore legal pronouncement of death, it islargely the patient's responsibility to executethe proper paperwork to ensure that medicaltreatment during the agonal phase will not bedetrimental to achieving a good cryopreservation.Examples that come to mind are to havea Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order in place toavoid multiple resuscitation attempts (withassociated cycles of ischemia-reperfusioninjury) and to express a desire for certain supplementsduring palliative care. Where the cryonicsorganization can make a difference duringthis period is in being guided by the “premortem”condition of the patient when startingstabilization procedures such as promptlyrestoring fluid volume and vascular tone after apatient has been pronounced dead.StabilizationStabilization procedures at Alcor consistof three different interventions: cardiopulmonarysupport, induction of hypothermia,multi-modal medications treatment, and inremote cases, blood washout and substitutionwith an organ preservation solution. Stabilizationof the patient is one part of Alcor’s protocolwhere a number of cryonics authorshave explicitly stated that cerebral viability bycontemporary medical criteria should be theobjective 1 . In this vein, Alcor and associatedresearch companies have done research todemonstrate that securing cerebral viabilityduring stabilization is a realistic objective.Two groundbreaking experiments provideevidence that securing viability duringstabilization might be achieved with currenttechnologies. In the late 80s and early 90sDarwin, Leaf et al. demonstrated that inductionof ultra-profound hypothermia (temperatureslower than 5°C) in conjunction with12 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

Mike Darwin sits with Enkidu as the caninegains strength the day following completeblood washout and cooling to ~ 5°C.Photo courtesy of Michael Darwin.blood washout and substitution with anorgan preservation solution is reversible in acanine model. Dogs were revived from up to5 hours of low flow perfusion with an organpreservation solution called MHP-2 2 . In themid 90s Darwin, Harris et al. successfullyresuscitated dogs from up to 17 minutes ofnormothermic cardiac arrest using a largenumber of medications and tight postresuscitationregulation of hemodynamics 3 .Impressive as these results are, a numberof caveats need to be taken intoaccount. First, as mentioned previously, thetypical patient who presents for cryonics hasgone through a prolonged terminal period.How realistic is it to expect a similar outcomeunder such conditions? Second, currentAlcor procedures are not identical tothe protocol that was investigated duringthese experiments. For example, in remotecases the organ preservation solution is usedin a static (no flow) fashion instead of constantlyperfusing the patient at low flow duringtransport to Alcor. In the case of thenormothermic cerebral resuscitation experimentsit is also important to note that thedogs were pre-heparinized prior to cardiacarrest (heparin is administered after cardiacarrest in cryonics cases) and that resuscitationdoesn’t involve a long period of externalchest compressions as is the case in cryonicsstabilization. Finally, some techniquesthat are possible during experimental workin a laboratory – such as rigorous medicationsadministration, tight control overhemodynamics and sophisticated monitoring– are currently not available to cryonicsorganizations.Cryoprotectant PerfusionThe objective of securing viability duringcryoprotective perfusion can be broken downinto two stages. During the initial phase, followingsurgery to obtain vascular access, thepatient’s blood (or the organ preservationsolution in a remote case) is flushed out.Because this phase is not fundamentally differentfrom remote blood washout, securingcerebral viability should be possible in principle,provided that the transition from stabilizationto initiation of OR procedures isstructured in such a fashion that that there is(1) no major interruption in circulation or (2)no marked rise in temperature. Unlike the firstcondition, the latter condition is not only apractical challenge but a clinical challenge aswell. Effective washout is a function of temperatureand this presents a delicate trade-offbetween the risk of ischemic injury producedby elevated temperatures and the benefit ofreduced washout times.A related problem is encountered in thesecond phase of perfusion during which a cryoprotectiveagent is gradually introduced to thepatient. Classical cryoprotective agents like glyceroldo not penetrate cell membranes very well atlower temperatures (close to 0°C). To compensatefor this fact, a deliberate elevation of temperaturewas required during glycerol-based cryoprotection.Although this was a rational choice(considering the alternative of extremely longperfusion times), the introduction of a very concentratedcryoprotective agent at relatively hightemperatures likely compromised cerebral viabilityas a result of increased ischemic exposureand cryoprotectant toxicity. Alcor’s current cryoprotectiveagent is no longer based on glyceroland includes components such as DMSO, whichhave improved permeability at lower temperatures.The real limiting factor for maintainingviability of the brain is that all currentlyknowncryoprotectants have toxic effectswhen whole brains are exposed to them longenough to prevent ice formation and achievevitrification during cooling. At the time ofwriting, the M22 cryoprotectant mixture usedby Alcor is the least toxic vitrification solutionever published for use in large organs 4 .However,it is still not sufficiently non-toxic to permitreversible cryopreservation of the wholebrain. Another reason why cerebral viabilitymight be compromised during introductionof cryoprotectants is that, under “ideal” circumstances,the cryoprotectant induces anextreme degree of brain shrinking which maycompromise vascular and cellular integrityand even set the stage for apoptosis uponresuscitation. Overcoming these problemswill require further advances in basic research.Cryogenic Cooldown and Long-Term CareBecause we can deduce that cerebral viabilityis lost during the later stages of cryoprotectiveperfusion, we know that cerebral viabilitycan no longer be maintained during cryogeniccooldown and long-term care of the patient. Ingeneral, if cerebral viability is lost at some earlierphase, it cannot be restored during any laterphase of cryonics procedures. Consequently,the emphasis from that point will be on preservingultrastructure as best as possible. Duringcryogenic cooldown this means cooling atleast fast enough to inhibit any ice formation,which is currently 0.1°C/minute for the cryoprotectantM22. A cooling rate of ~ 0.4°C/minute can be achieved for an organ as large asthe human brain. Since an adequate coolingrate can be achieved to prevent ice formation inthe brain, the remaining issues of immediateconcern include cryopreservation-inducedinjuries independent from ice formation likechilling injury and thermal stress at lower temperatures.Chilling injury involves injury caused byexposure to low temperatures and includescell membrane phase transitions and proteindenaturation. Although M22 was designed toprevent chilling injury in large organs, thisproblem has not been investigated in cryonicspatients. Aside from the practical problems inidentifying chilling injury during cryoprotectiveperfusion and cooldown, it may be hardto distinguish the effects of chilling injuryfrom the injury caused by warm ischemia, cryoprotectanttoxicity, and osmotic shock.Moreover, chilling injury may be relativelybenign compared to other problems duringcryopreservation, such as the risk of ice formationand thermal stress.Below the glass transition temperature(-123.3°C for M22) the vitrification solutionturns into a glass and is limited in its ability tofurther contract as the temperature is furtherlowered, causing tissues to fracture as a result.Thermal stress not only presents an obviousobstacle to maintaining viability, but fracturingalso compromises the objective of securinguniform ultrastructure of the brain. Inlight of the expectation that recent vitrificationsolutions will inhibit ice formation in cryonicspatients, eliminating fracturing hasbecome a more urgent priority for Alcor. Onealternative would be to provide long-term carefor patients at higher temperatures, just belowthe glass transition point. Another alternativewww.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200713

Graph indicates tissue fracturing that occurred below the glass transition temperature (-123.3°Cfor M22) during the cryogenic cooldown of a recent Alcor patient (2006).would be to develop an “annealing” protocol thatwill inhibit or minimize thermal stress by keepinga firm control over temperature descent 5 .Leaving social, political, and legal threats toAlcor patients aside, the final challenge tosecuring cerebral viability for cryonics patientsis the effect of long-term care on the patient.Although viability and ultrastructure havealready been compromised by current proceduresat this point, there is no reason to believethat long-term care at liquid nitrogen temperature(-196°C) would produce adverse effectsover very long periods of time (exceeding thousandsof years) 6 . At the temperature that Alcor’spatients are currently maintained, time haseffectively been halted. Open to more debate isthe long-term risk of maintaining patients atintermediate temperatures (slightly under theglass transition temperature) because, at temperaturesdown to 20°C below the glass transitiontemperature, ice nucleation may still be arisk for cryopreservation. These nanoscalenucleators may not present a direct threat topatients during long-term care, but they maypresent a bigger challenge during rewarming ofthe patient in the future.Assessing ViabilityHow do we know if cerebral viability isbeing maintained during a cryonics case? Atthis point most evidence for what is possiblewith current technologies has come fromexperiments on healthy animals under controlledlaboratory conditions. In light of thefact that cryonics procedures do not occurunder such tightly controlled circumstances,claims that viability can be secured up untilthe later stages of cryoprotective perfusionare highly theoretical.Currently the only means available to cryonicsorganizations to get an idea about howThe CO2SMO enables Alcor to obtain continuousquantitative data on the efficacy ofcardiopulmonary support.well cerebral viability is being maintained duringstabilization and cryoprotective perfusionare confined to physiological observation,temperature data, qualitative end tidal CO2and peripheral oxygen saturation readingsand, in rare cases, pre-pronouncement andpost-pronouncement blood gases and electrolytes.For example, a case where cerebralviability is maintained would typically have allor most of the following characteristics:prompt start of stabilization procedures afterlegal pronouncement of death, adequate cerebralperfusion generated by mechanical chestcompression (or extracorporeal perfusion)and administration of vasoactive medications,and rapid induction of hypothermia.During a number of landmark cases atAlcor and CryoCare blood gases and temperaturedata have been collected that seem to indicatethat viability may have been maintained duringstabilization 7 . However, when reading thesecase reports it should be kept in mind that moresubtle ischemic changes may have occurred thatstill present a threat to viability such as mitochondrialdamage, excessive free radical damage,activation of apoptosis, or neurological pathologiesassociated with induction of ultra-profoundhypothermia and extracorporeal perfusion.Consequently, blood plasma should be examinedto look for more specific biomarkers ofbrain injury.From initiation of cryogenic cooldownto long-term patient care, measurements ofviability are no longer possible and Alcor confinesitself to optimizing preservation ofultrastructure. During cooldown Alcor usesan acoustic monitoring device to monitor thepresence of fracturing in the brain. Thisdevice uses an electronic sensor that registersvibrations that are assumed to correspondwith fracturing events. After cryogeniccooldown the only available method to determinewhether any ice has formed is directobservation of the surface of the brain. Naturally,during long-term care at liquid nitrogentemperatures neither measurements of viabilityor ultrastructure can be taken in real time.DiscussionOne may wonder why Alcor makes suchan effort to maintain cerebral viability duringstabilization if it is invariably lost during cryoprotectiveperfusion and cryogeniccooldown. The straightforward answer is thatby securing viability at an early stage, betterpreservation of ultrastructure can be achievedat a later stage. Cardiac arrest sets the stage fora number of pathophysiological events thatmay interfere with optimal circulation of thecryoprotective solution during the later stagesof cryonics procedures including, but not limitedto, intravascular blood clotting, productionof inflammatory vascular adhesion molecules,free radical formation and capillary- andcell membrane leakage. Notable differences incryoprotective perfusion have been observedbetween patients that experienced a long periodof warm and/or cold ischemia andpatients who received prompt stabilizationand minimal transport times.A related but more subtle issue iswhether Alcor’s stabilization protocol couldbenefit by changing the objective of stabilizationfrom securing cerebral viability to optimizingcryoprotective perfusion. Typicallyone would expect that interventions that areadequate to secure viability will also conferbenefits during cryoprotective perfusion, butthere at least three caveats to this perspectivethat need to be considered.First, there are interventions that cansecure viability if executed promptly and correctlybut that can frustrate cryoprotective14 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3Figures 1-3: In the 1980s Mike Darwin et al. performed a number of feline experiments to investigate the effects of Alcor's cryopreservation procedures under different conditions.Figure 1 shows a control brain (cerebral cortex) that was washed out and perfused with Karnofsky's fixative. Figure 2 shows a brain after cryopreservation with 3.0 M glycerol at-196°C and rewarming. Figure 3 shows a brain after 30 minutes of normothermic ischemia, 24 hours packing in ice, cryopreservation with 3.0 M glycerol at -196°C and rewarming.Figure 2 shows typical results after cryoprotection and freezing: dehydration of cell structures but reasonably good preservation of cell membranes and intracellular architecture. Bycontrast, after ischemia, glycerolization, freezing and thawing, Figure 3 shows massive disruption of cell ultrastructure, and all that is visible in this photo (which is representative) isdisorganized cellular debris. Images courtesy of Michael Darwin.perfusion at a later stage in the absence ofsuch a careful approach. Ventilating a patientwith 100% oxygen is an example of an interventionthat might be moderately beneficial interms of viability but can also seriously frustrateadequate distribution of the cryoprotectiveagent in the brain as a result of injury tothe circulatory system and cell membranes (acondition known as “reperfusion injury”).Second, there are only a finite number ofpharmacological interventions that a cryonicsorganization can be expected to do and achoice needs to be made between interventionsthat increase the probability of short-termrecovery and a protocol that is specificallydesigned to preserve ultrastructure through allphases of cryonics procedures. This choice isespecially important in light of the fact thatAlcor’s medications protocol reflects a normothermicrecovery model to mitigate a numberof pathophysiological events that shouldalso be inhibited by rapid induction ofhypothermia. Third, Alcor’s organ preservationsolution, MHP-2, has never been investigatedfor prolonged static use or in the presenceof serious ischemic and reperfusioninjury. In general, results obtained in a recoverymodel need to be validated in a model thatreflects the typical patient pathologies andpractical limitations of a cryonics standbyteam.Should viability of the brain be the goldenstandard for cryonics care anyway? We canimagine a scenario where a cryonics patientcan be successfully resuscitated but withimpaired personality and memories. Forexample, it is a well established fact that theCA1 region of the hippocampus in the brainis highly vulnerable to even the shortest interruptionsof cerebral blood flow. This region ofthe brain is often associated with encoding andstoring memories. Cryonics would benefit froma deeper understanding why certain regions ofthe brain are so vulnerable to oxygen deprivationto guide research into procedures that minimizeinjury to vulnerable cells in the brain.Getting a better understanding of theefficacy of current procedures, and improvingupon them, is one of the objectives for revivingthe ambitious research agenda that cryonicspioneers Jerry Leaf and Mike Darwin pursuedat Alcor. Alcor is also investigating anumber of technologies that will improve cardiopulmonarysupport, rapid induction ofhypothermia, optimize control and data collectionduring cryoprotective perfusion, andreduce fracturing during cryogenic cooldown.Despite the renewed focus on evidencebasedcryonics and new technologies, one ofthe major limiting factors in securing viabilityand good ultrastructure is the quality of standbyand stabilization procedures. This objectiverequires a concerted effort between Alcor andits members ranging from forming new localcryonics groups to making substantial investmentsto distribute good stabilization equipmentin many parts of the country. Contact the author: aschwin.de.wolf@gmail.comReferences1. Wowk Brian, “Cardiopulmonary Supportin Cryonics”, Alcor Life ExtensionFoundation. http://www.alcor.org/ Library/html/CardiopulmonarySupport.html2. Leaf Jerry D, Darwin Michael G, andHixon Hugh, “A mannitol-based perfusatefor reversible 5-hour asanguineousultraprofound hypothermia in canines.”Cryovita Laboratories, Inc. and AlcorLife Extension Foundation, unpublishedpaper 1987. Online at: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/tbwcanine.html3. This work has been done by Critical CareResearch. Unpublished research results.4. “New Preservation Technology”, AlcorLife Extension Foundation. http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/newtechnology. html5. “Cryopreservation and Fracturing”,Alcor Life Extension Foundation.http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CryopreservationAndFracturing.html6. Hixon Hugh, “How Cold is ColdEnough”, Cryonics Magazine, January1985. http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/HowColdIsColdEnough.html[Note that this article presents a rather optimisticsource for the time that we can expect a human to beresuscitated from cardiac arrest.]7. Darwin Michael G, “CryopreservationPatient Case Report: Arlene FrancesFried, A-1049”, Alcor Life ExtensionFoundation. http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/fried.htmlDarwin Michael G, “Cryopreservation ofCryoCare Patient #C-2150”, BiopreservationTech Briefs (1996, no. 18)www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200715

What is a Self that ItMight Be Revived?By Ben Goertzel, Ph.D.The simplest cryonicrevival scenarios don’tpose any philosophicalconundrums. You get yourwhole body cryopreserved,you get repaired with nanotechnologyand revived --and then, to quote the classicpop tune, “Whoomp, there itis!” You’re back again, aliveand awake just like youalways were – albeit wokenup from a particularly longand cold sleep.Other plausible revival scenariosare more problematic, however. Whatif only your brain is preserved, and is thenrevived and placed in a different body: Howmuch of your self is really in the brain versusthe body? What if the brain and/or body aredamaged during the cryopreservation orrevival process, so that full informationregarding the-person-you-used-to-be isn’tpreserved ... and the gaps need to be filled inusing one or another mechanism? What if,rather than reviving your physical brainand/or body, a decision is made to scan theinformation out of your brain and/or bodyand read it into an abstract data representation– which can then be used to incarnateyou in a robot body, or a piece of computersoftware, etc.? All these alternate scenariosraise conceptual problems regarding thenature of self and mind. Most centrally:Under which circumstances is the revivedbeing “really you”?What is this “you” that I’m talking about?Or, putting it more personally, what is this “I”that “I” think “I” am? It’s not the particularcells in my body right now, of course – thesecells are continually dying and gettingreplaced by other cells (though at age 40, andlacking advanced life extension technologies,I’m unfortunately at the stage where moredying than replacement is going on.) Obviouslyit’s something to do with the pattern ofarrangement of these cells. But what, specifically?What is this pattern that is the self?What is the self that it might be revived?Pushing the point even further, there isthe possibility that future scientists may beable to revive present people solely from datasuch as diary entries, questionnaire answers,and videos of real-life behaviors. With this inmind, Martine Rothblatt 1 , William Sims Bainbridge2 and others are working on convenientmethods for capturing and storing this sort ofdata. The idea is that, from all this information,an AI program may eventually be able tosolve the “inverse problem” of figuring out:What sort of person would be most likely togive rise to this set of data? Supposing youwere recreated from this data – in software, ina robot body, or even in a cell-by-cell simulacrumof your current biological body, builtwith advanced future nanotechnology. Wouldthis recreation be you? Or would it be a cleverlyconstructed copy of you?It’s worth noting that “continuity ofself ” is different from “continuity of consciousness.”We do after all lose consciousnessevery night when we sleep – and thenawaken a “new person,” yet convinced thatwe’re a continuation of the old person whooccupied our body the previous day, then sorudely aborted its consciousness and succumbedto the desire to sleep.So we humans, in our everyday lives,already lack continuity of consciousness. Butwe have continuity of self. My goal in thisessay is to enlarge upon the latter concept alittle bit. What is “continuity of self ”? Howdoes the human brain/mind achieve it?Under what conditions is it likely to be pre-16 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

served through the revival process followingcryopreservation? Under what conditions is itlikely to be preserved through other posthumantransitions such as uploading? What isthe self that it might be revived and persistwith continuity even through an interruptionin the stream of consciousness associatedwith it?Continuity versus ConstancyA different way to pose the same questionis to focus on the distinction between continuityof self and constancy of self.To reinforce this distinction, in a prioressay 3 I have envisioned a future version ofmyself called FutureBen, who lives ten billionyears and increases his intelligence by a factorof ninety-seven quintillion. (Occasionally Iconsult him for advice in difficult moments,but he’s never answered me yet!) His humanbody was shed after a few thousand years oflife – and he’s placed the episodic memoriesof his first century of life in a very-rarelyaccessedportion of his memory, since it’sreally not very interesting compared to someof the things that have happened to himsince.FutureBen may be contrasted with hisbest mate FutureBush, an analogous beingwho evolved out of current US PresidentGeorge W. Bush – and who, after ten billionyears of existence, has diverged similarly farfrom his early human roots.My contention is that, after ten billionyears of growth and change on the part ofboth of these minds, 2007 Ben may be nomore similar to FutureBen than to Future-Bush (and of course, 2007 Bush may be nomore similar to FutureBush than toFutureBen). Perhaps these two future hyperbeingswill even exchange ancient episodicmemories, so that each of them will havecomplete first-person memories of the otherone’s life. So what difference does it makethat FutureBen happened to evolve out ofBen Goertzel instead of George W. Bush,PeeWee Herman, or for that matter, one ofthe roaches in 2007 Ben Goertzel’s kitchen?And yet, intuitively, it does feel to me(2007 Ben) like FutureBen still retains someessential Ben-ness about him. He may bevery different from me, but he’s still a futureversion of me. But in what does this “essentialBen-ness” consist? The key to the Bennessof FutureBen can’t lie in the state ofFutureBen ten billion years hence – it must liein the path by which he evolved.The key question to ask in evaluatingFutureBen’s Ben-ness is, I suggest: Was therecontinuity of self on the pathway from 2007Ben to FutureBen? Was there a commonthread of perceiving-oneself-as-being-Ben-Goertzel, or not? If there was continuity ofself along the evolutionary path, thenFutureBen really is a future Ben, and not justsome other mind who is (for whateverhumanly incomprehensible hyperbeing reason!)laying false claim to Ben-ness.But, what does “continuity of self ” reallymean?To understand this notion in a seriousway, we need to plunge a little deeper into psychologicalsystems theory, and ask ourselves:What is this thing called the self?What is This Thing Called Self?I have long been fascinated by the natureof the self, and for reasons beyond the transhumanistissues raised above. Purely from aneveryday-human-life perspective, I can think offew more critical topics: Which of our behaviorsare not governed to some extent by thoseportions of the psyche that we label “self ”?Human psychological theory 4 teaches us thatself is a complex organic construct that arises ina mind out of the combination of various simplerstructures and dynamics and their interactionwith each other and the world.The neurobiology of self is as yet poorlyunderstood and provides limited guidance intrying to understand the “self ” phenomenon.Yet, it does have some powerful lessons.Many of these have been synthesized byThomas Metzinger in his masterful work BeingNo One 5 which marshalls diverse neuropsychologicaldata and speculations with a goal ofunderstanding how the brain creates whatMetzinger calls the “phenomenal self.” Putsimply, the phenomenal self is not “what themind is” but rather “what the mind thinks itis.” Metzinger makes strong arguments thatthe human brain contains various specializedsub-units that, combined together, enable theconstruction of a coherent self-model, usefulfor guiding the thoughts and actions of thehuman organism.The phenomenal self – the “I” that Iconceive when thinking about myself – is not“what I really am”; it’s a model constructedwithin my mind, for practical purposes, with aloose, though essential, connection to theactual underlying psychological reality.Steven Mithen 6 has argued that the criticalstep in the evolution of humanity was theemergence of a “general-intelligence” modulecapable of synthesizing the inputs and outputsof the already existing specialized-intelligencemodules focused on areas such asvision, sociality, tool-building and music. Isuspect that one key aspect of the emergenceof this general-intelligence module was a massivelyexpanded and deepened capability forself-modeling.“The phenomenal self is not‘what the mind is’ but rather‘what the mind thinks it is.’It’s a model constructedwithin my mind with a loose,though essential, connectionto the actual underlyingpsychological reality.”In computer science terms, the fusion ofthese previously separated, cognitive modulesin the early human mind incurred a dramatic“combinatorial explosion” – a flowering ofpossible combinations between ideas, habitsand patterns corresponding to different, previouslyseparate modalities. In order to paredown this combinatorial explosion, the earlyhuman mind must have needed to “knowwhat it was doing” to a previously unprecedentedextent.Before the integrative transition Mithenidentifies, self-modeling may have beenrestricted mainly to the social module of thebrain, hence concerned mainly with theimmediate relationship of self to other. Thetransition to the modern, integrative mindmay have largely consisted of a transition to amore modern and comprehensive self, integratinga model of the organism’s reasoning,perceiving, tool-building and socializingbehaviors. Modeling all these sorts of behav-www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200717

iors together is essentially a corequisite forenacting these sorts of behaviors together ina purposeful and coordinated manner.The Self-Creation of the SelfAll of this leads up to the main point Iwant to make about the self. The way I havecome to conceptualize self, in the course ofmy study of human cognition and my workon designing and building AGI systems, is asan attractor of two key high-level cognitivedynamics that I call “forward synthesis” and“backward synthesis,” which together perpetuatethe creation of the self. These are subtleideas in the theory of mind that can’t be comprehensivelyreviewed in a summary articlelike this one, but I’ll try my best to get acrossthe gist of them, before turning back to issuesof revival and self-continuity.Forward synthesis is basically the process ofbuilding up new ideas, concepts and relationshipsout of existing ones. It’s the “lego block”aspect of intelligence – which often results inmental content that appears wildly new, in spiteof actually being grounded in unexpected combinationsof prior mental content.In the human brain, this is related to theprocess of “cell assembly formation,” 7 inwhich connections between neurons get reinforced,resulting in the formation of groupsof neurons that “act as wholes,” representingvarious forms of knowledge and habitualbehavior. Groups may merge together toform new groups-of-groups, culminating incomplex dynamic neural structures that Edelman8 has called “maps.”Backward synthesis on the other hand isthe process of taking an idea, concept or relationshipand figuring out how it might be produced.A simple example of this is parsing asentence: In the parsing process, one is figuringout what combination of grammaticalrules might produce the target sentence.Whereas sentence generation is forward synthesis:one is putting together a number ofpieces to form a novel composite.In general, beyond the domain of vision,we don’t have a good idea of how the humanbrain carries out backward synthesis processes.Formal neural networks utilize an algorithmcalled “backpropagation” 10 for this purpose,but it’s clear the brain doesn’t work thisway. Edelman 11 has proposed that the braincarries out backward synthesis using a variantof evolutionary learning, a hypothesis thatrelates brain function to AI algorithms suchas genetic programming 12 .Put simply: forward synthesis combines,and backward synthesis explains (explains howsomething can be produced via combination).My hypothesis is that these are the basic actionpatternsof intelligence. The structures of themind are then defined as “attractors” of theforward and backward synthesis processes 13 .That is, the mind consists of a set of ideas andrelationships that mutually produce each otherin interconnecting networks of combinationand explanation.This notion that the ideas in a mind mutuallyproduce each other is a “cognitive-systemstheory”version of Maturana and Varela’snotion of “autopoiesis” 14 or self-creation. Amind is a self-creating system, not physicallybut on the level of mental forms and patterns.Each mental pattern is built up by combinationand/or explanation from other mental patterns,in a continual flow of circular activity.And one of the things created within thisprocess of self-creation is the self.Continuity of SelfSo, if “self ” is an attractor of cognitiveforward and backward synthesis processes ...what then is “continuity of self ”? What doesit mean for FutureBen ten billion years fromnow – or the Ben who will wake up tomorrowmorning – to be a continuation of the Benwho exists right now, today, writing thesewords?The truth, I propose, is a simple one.Suppose we have two minds existing at differenttimes – for total generality, let’s call themBeforeMind and AfterMind. SupposeBeforeMind and AfterMind both have active,effective phenomenal selves, based on intelligentself-modeling. And suppose Before-Mind’s self-model includes a model of After-Mind; and AfterMind’s self-model includes aself-model of BeforeMind.What I suggest is that, if• BeforeMind and AfterMind have reasonablysimilar self-models, and• BeforeMind and AfterMind’s self-modelsboth include the idea that AfterMind is acontinuation of BeforeMindthen, in a pragmatic sense, we do have continuityof self in the transition from Before-Mind to AfterMind. There’s nothing more toit than that.Revival and BeyondBut what does this tell us in practice,about various forms of revival? Not thatmuch – but it gives us a framework for askingthe right questions.One interesting question is how much ofthe self depends on the body beyond thebrain. If you transition to being a brain in avat – or a simulated brain in a file directory –how much continuity of self is there? Thebest guide we have to understanding this issueis the experience of quadriplegics. Quiteclearly, when someone becomes paralyzedand loses feeling in their body, they do experiencecontinuity of self. This doesn’t provean uploaded mind, lacking a body, would alsoForward andBackward Synthesisin VisionIn vision processing, forward synthesisis related to the neural connectionsdirected from the retina to theconceptual cortex, which combine elementarypatterns recognized in the visualscene into more and more complexpatterns, then matching the ultimateresult against memory. It appears thismay be the only sort of process involvedwhen we recognize objects in rapidlypresented images 9 .On the other hand when we havemore leisure to study an image we seemto also use backward synthesis – once weget a crude idea of what objects may bein the image, we then make a guess forwhat the object might be (a cat! a shovel!etc.) and look for low-level visual clues inthe picture that might validate thathypothesis, i.e., we try to figure out howto build compounds out of the data thatmight validate our hypothesis.18 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

The PhenomenalSelf: Is It Real?The phenomenal self of an organismis an attractor of the followingdynamic:1. Use backward synthesis processesto explain what the organism mustbe, in order to display the behaviorsobserved2. Embody these explanations asmental content3. Use forward synthesis to combinethis mental content to form newmental content, comprising newideas about the organism’s nature4. These new ideas affect the organism’sbehavior, which is observed,leading us back to Step 1The mind tries to explain itself,incorporates these explanations intoitself, and then behaves differentlybased on its new understanding of itself... then tries to explain itself again ...and so on. In this process, it neverunderstands itself completely (neverexplains itself to itself fully exactly oraccurately), but it builds a better andbetter understanding, eternally playinga game of catch-up because as itsunderstanding changes, its behaviorinevitably changes as a result.Phenomenal self, by its very nature,is a biased approximation model, not anunderlying reality. The phenomenal selfis a model that approximates reality,and continually seeks to modify realityso as to make itself into a better approximationof reality. So the question ofcontinuity of self must be addressed onthe level of models, not on the level ofunderlying realities.experience continuity of self – but it makes itseem quite likely. This line of thinking ispromising for “neuro only” cryonics patients.Regarding the prospect of being successfullyrevived in spite of brain damage incurredduring cryopreservation or revival, the story isa bit more ambiguous. It all depends on howmuch damage there is to what regions of thebrain. Metzinger, in Being No One, surveys multipleinstances of self-model malfunctionsensuing from damage to various parts of thebrain. We would need to understand thehuman brain far better to understand exactlywhich sorts of brain damage pose exactly howmuch risk of destroying continuity of self.Most interesting to me is thinking aboutthe possibility of rapid evolution beyond thehuman condition, after uploading one’s mindinto a computer or some other more flexiblesubstrate. Theoretically, it seems quite possiblefor a mind to preserve continuity of selfthrough a series of very radical transitions,thus beginning as a human and winding up anincomprehensibly advanced hyperbeing likeFutureBen and FutureBush.Those who have read Ray Kurzweil’sbook The Singularity is Near or otherwiseencountered Vernor Vinge’s notion of a technologicalSingularity, may be wondering howthe notion of self-continuity fits in. The Singularityis a predicted period in human evolution– maybe occurring in the middle of thiscentury, if Kurzweil is correct – at whichtechnological change occurs so fast that thehuman mind can’t keep up with it: in the timeThe “Self” in theNovamente AI SystemDr. Goertzel has over 20 years experience inArtificial Intelligence (AI) R&D and commercialization.He holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from TempleUniversity, is the former CTO of a thinking machinecompany, Webmind, and has held several universitypositions in mathematics, computer science, andpsychology in the U.S., New Zealand and Australia.He has written of over 70 research papers and journalisticarticles and is the author of 8 scholarly booksdealing with topics in cognitive sciences and futurism.Goertzel is the principle architect of the Novamente Cognition Engine, a softwareproduct and development firm aimed at bridging the gap between narrowand general purpose Artificial Intelligence. Ongoing research brings the company’sNovamente Cognition Engine closer each month to powerful Artificial GeneralIntelligence (AGI). So will he be able to create an AI that has a self?“The ‘self’ concept is critical to my work on AGI technology: If one wants tomake AI software programs that are more than just specialized problem-solvers –that are capable of entering new situations and flexibly figuring out how to achievetheir goals – then one needs these programs to understand who and what they are,and how they relate to the world around them. That is, the programs need to have‘selves’. And, how to supply an AI program with a self is not at all obvious.The emulation of the process in software can proceed by building an AI systemcapable of powerful forward and backward synthesis-based cognition, and setit the task of explaining and creatively understanding its own self and acting basedon this understanding. In the Novamente AI system 15 , there are a number of differentforward synthesis processes, including ‘forward chaining probabilistic inference’16 , conceptual blending 17 , and map formation (which creates new mentalcontent representing mental items that have frequently been utilized together, thusroughly emulating the neural process of cell assembly formation). Backward synthesisis carried out by a number of algorithms, including backward-chaining probabilisticinference and a probabilistic evolutionary learning system calledMOSES 18 .”www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200719

it takes for a human to breathe, some fastermovingAI comes up with yet another revolutionaryscientific or technical innovation. TheSingularity, if it happens, has amazing potentialto transform human life and to carry mindbeyond the confines of humanity. As theSingularity dawns, we may each be faced witha choice: to remain human, or to allow ourselvesto grow and change into somethingfundamentally more intelligent and powerful,and fundamentally different.It seems to me, however, that there maybe limits on the rate of change possible for amind that wants to preserve continuity of self.Continuity of self may rule out full subjectiveparticipation in Singularity. If BeforeMind issupposed to be able to model AfterMindeffectively, before AfterMind exists, this takesa certain amount of time and effort onBeforeMind’s part – and the speed with whichthis modeling will be possible will depend onhow intelligent BeforeMind is. In otherwords, it might be faster for me to transformmyself into something I don’t intuitivelyunderstand, than to first understand somethingwell enough to incorporate it into myself-model, and then transform myself intothat thing. So, potentially, post-Singularity theintelligence of wholly newly created beingsmay surpass that of beings that advance slowlyenough to preserve continuity of self.This brings up another sort of question:Who really cares about continuity of self?The importance of continuity of self is, ofcourse, an issue of ethical and aesthetic valuesrather than scientific facts or theories. Perhapspost-Singularity, “self ” itself will cometo seem unimportant, and the evolution ofintelligence will consist of the iterativelaunching of a series of minds unconnectedby any self-continuity.But right now, speaking as a mere humanbeing, I find myself feeling that where thecontinuation of my life is concerned, continuityof self is both valuable and sufficient. It isa critical and essential aspect of the kind ofimmortality I would like to see available tomyself and my loved ones – and anyone elsewho wants it. Contact the author: bengoertzel@gmail.comReferences1. http://www.cyberev.org/2. http://mysite.verizon.net/wsbainbridge/system/software.htm3. The Illusion of Immortality and the Immortalityof Illusions, see http://www.goertzel.org/new_essays/IllusionOfImmortality.htm4. Epstein, Seymour (1980). The Self-Concept: A Review and the Proposal ofan Integrated Theory of Personality, inStaub, Ed., Personality: Basic Issues andCurrent Research, Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall5. 2004, MIT Press6. Mithen, Steven (1996). The Prehistoryof Mind. Cambridge University Press.7. Hebb, Donald (1949). The Organizationof Behavior. Wiley.8. Edelman, Gerald (1989). Neural Darwinism.Basic Books.9. Serre, T., A. Oliva and T. Poggio. AFeedforward Architecture Accounts forRapid Categorization, Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), Vol. 104, No. 15, 6424-6429,2007.10. Rumelhart and McLelland (1986). ParallelDistributed Processing. MITPress.11. Edelman, Gerald (1988). Neural Darwinism,Basic Books12. Koza, John (1992). Genetic Programming.MIT Press13. Technically speaking, they are notattractors in the sense of moderndynamical systems theory (see Devaney,Warren (1986) Chaotic Dynamical Systems,Addison-Wesley); they might bebetter described as “persistently attractingstrange transients.” This awkwardphrase means a pattern in a dynamicalsystem that acts like a strange attractor,but only for a while. But for the purposeof this essay, I will stick with thesimpler term “attractor.”14. Maturana, Humberto and FranciscoVarela (1992). The Tree of Knowledge,Shambhala. For the cognitivesystems theory version, see Goertzel,Ben (1994). Chaotic Logic. PlenumPress.15. The Novamente AI system is describedbriefly in a chapter of The HiddenPattern (Ben Goertzel, BrownWalker,2006), in a chapter in Artificial GeneralIntelligence (Goertzel and Pennachin,2006) and also in a number of academicconference papers, several of whichare linked at www.novamente.net16. This is a standard concept in AI theory,see e.e. Russell and Norvig (1995), ArtificialIntelligence: A ModernApproach, Prentice-Hall. The Novamenteversion is unique due to its integrationof probability theory into thestandard logical forward chainingdynamic, which will be described in theforthcoming book Probabilistic LogicNetworks (Goertzel et al, 2008).17. Faulconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner(2003). The Way We Think. BasicBooks.18. Looks, Moshe (2006). Competent ProgramEvolution, PhD Thesis, WashingtonUniversity at St. Louis. Seewww.metacog.org20 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

Tech News R. Michael Perry, Ph.D.Imaging Pinpoints Brain RegionsThat “See The Future”Until recently there’s been little research intocognitive processes underlying a form ofmental time travel—the ability to clearly imagineor “see” oneself participating in a futureevent. Now that is changing, thanks to effortsof Karl Szpunar and colleagues at WashingtonUniversity in St. Louis. Comparing imagesof brain activity in response to the “selfremember”and “self-future” event cues, theresearchers found a surprisingly completeoverlap among regions of the brain used forremembering the past and those used forenvisioning the future. “In our daily lives, weprobably spend more time envisioning whatwe're going to do tomorrow or later on in theday than we do remembering, but not much isknown about how we go about forming thesemental images of the future,” says Szpunar.“Our findings provide compelling support forthe idea that memory and future thought arehighly interrelated and help explain whyfuture thought may be impossible withoutmemories.” Findings of Szpunar’s group werescheduled to appear online Jan. 1 in Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences.Science Daily1/7/07http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070102092224.htmCarbon Monoxide Protects LungCells against Oxygen-inducedDamageResearchers at the University of Pittsburghhave demonstrated that low-dose carbonmonoxide administered in conjunction withoxygen therapy markedly inhibits oxygeninduceddamage to lung cells. These findings,being reported in the Jan. 19 issue of the Journalof Biological Chemistry, have significant implicationsfor the treatment of acute respiratory distresssyndrome, or ARDS, according to thestudy’s authors. ARDS is a life-threatening medicalcondition in which patients experiencesevere shortness of breath and oxygen starvation.Although ARDS often occurs in peoplewho have lung disease, even people with normallungs can develop the condition as theresult of severe trauma or an infection. In fact,it is the number one killer of patients in intensivecare unit facilities in the United States.Treatment for ARDS primarily involves hookingthe patient up to a mechanical ventilator andgiving them almost pure oxygen (95 percentoxygen and 5 percent carbon dioxide). However,recent studies in animals have shown thatprolonged exposure to an elevated level of oxygen,or hyperoxia, can cause long-term lunginjury that resembles ARDS.Science Daily1/20/07http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070118130002.htmScientists “Reverse” vCJD SignsSymptoms of prion diseases, such as thehuman form of mad cow disease, vCJD (variantCreutzfeldt-Jakob disease), can be reversedif treated early, a study of mice suggests. MedicalResearch Council experts found memoryand behavior problems could be tackled bystopping production of the proteins corruptedin such diseases. However, writing in Neuron,they warn the usefulness of the work forhumans depends on having a test for vCJD. AUK expert, Professor Roger Morris of King’sCollege, London, said it was “potentially veryimportant work.” vCJD, BSE in cattle (bovinespongiform encephalitis or “mad cow” disease)and scrapie in sheep are all caused by a buildupof abnormally shaped versions of proteinscalled prions in the brain.BBC News2/1/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6314877.stmGM Mosquito “Could FightMalaria”A genetically modified (GM) strain of malariaresistantmosquito has been created that is betterable to survive than disease-carrying insects.It gives new impetus to one strategy for controllingthe disease: introduce the GM insectsinto wild populations in the hope that they willtake over. The insect carries a gene that preventsinfection by the malaria parasite. Detailsof the work by a US team appear in ProceedingsA transgenic mosquito carrying a gene thatconfers resistance to the malaria parasite. TheGM mosquitoes could be identified by theirgreen fluorescent eyes.Image: Marrelli, M., et al. “Transgenic malaria-resistantmosquitoes have a fitness advantage whenfeeding on Plasmodium-infected blood.” PNAS2007 104: 5580-5583. Copyright 2007 NationalAcademy of Sciences, U.S.A.of the National Academy of Sciences journal. Theresearchers caution that their studies are still atan early stage, and that it could be 10 years ormore before engineered insects are releasedinto the environment. “What we did was a laboratory,proof-of-principle experiment; we’renot anywhere close to releasing them into thewild right now,” co-author Dr Jason Rasgonfrom Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore,Maryland, told BBC News.BBC News3/19/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6468381.stmHIV Protein Enlisted toHelp Kill Cancer CellsCancer cells are sick, but they keep growingbecause they don't react to internal signalsurging them to die. Now researchers at WashingtonUniversity School of Medicine in St.Louis have found an efficient way to get amessenger into cancer cells that forces themto respond to death signals. And they did itusing one of the most sinister pathogensaround — HIV. “HIV knows how to insertitself into many different types of cells,” sayssenior author William G. Hawkins, M.D.,assistant professor of surgery and a memberof the Siteman Cancer Center at the School ofMedicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital. “A por-www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 200721

tion of the HIV protein called TAT can transportbiologically active compounds into cells.TAT is small, but it can move massive molecules.”In an article published online in January2007 in the Annals of Surgical Oncology, theresearchers describe using TAT to pull a proteincalled Bim into cancer cells. TAT alonecannot cause AIDS and has no adverse healtheffects. Bim acts as a tumor suppressor andcauses cancer cells to die through apoptosis, aprocess by which cells “commit suicide.”Science Daily2/11/07http://www.sciencedaily.com/eleases/2007/02/070210173653.htmPrivate Rocket Rides into SpacePrivateer Elon Musk has launched his budgetrocket, Falcon-1, from the Kwajalein Atoll inthe South Pacific. The 21m-long vehicle liftedoff at 1810 California time Mar. 20 (0110GMT Mar. 21) and rose to an altitude of320km (200 miles). Mr. Musk, who co-foundedthe internet financial system PayPal, wantsto lower the cost of access to space. Theflight did not achieve all its goals, but he saidit demonstrated the vision of his SpaceExploration Technologies Corporation(SpaceX). The mission was the secondattempt to loft the rocket; the first, in March2006, ended when a fire fed by a fuel leak ledto the shutdown of the main-stage engine just29 seconds after lift-off. On the latest flight,the second stage did not achieve its full speed,again because of an early shut down of theengine, this time because the vehicle began anunexpected roll. Mr. Musk said he thoughtthis problem should be easy to fix however.An operational satellite launch is planned forlater this year.BBC News3/21/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6474021.stmRobotic Age PosesEthical DilemmaAn ethical code to prevent humans abusingrobots, and vice versa, is being drawn up bySouth Korea. The Robot Ethics Charter willcover standards for users and manufacturersand will be released later in 2007. It is beingput together by a five member team ofexperts that includes futurists and a scienceAn ethical code to prevent humans fromabusing robots, and vice versa, is beingdrawn up by South Korea.fiction writer. The South Korean governmenthas identified robotics as a key economic driverand is pumping millions of dollars intoresearch. “The government plans to set ethicalguidelines concerning the roles and functionsof robots as robots are expected todevelop strong intelligence in the nearfuture,” the ministry of Commerce, Industryand Energy said. Other bodies are also thinkingabout the robotic future. Last year a UKgovernment study predicted that in the next50 years robots could demand the same rightsas human beings.BBC News3/7/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6425927.stmBlood Groups “Can BeConverted”Scientists have developed a way of convertingone blood group into another. The techniquepotentially enables blood from groups A, Band AB to be converted into group O negative,which can be safely transplanted into anypatient. The method, which makes use ofnewly discovered enzymes, may help relieveshortages of blood for transfusions. Thework, led by the University of Copenhagen, isreported in the journal Nature Biotechnology.Using incompatible blood during a transfusioncan put a patient's life in danger.BBC News4/2/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6517137.stmProgress toward Rabies CureVaccines against the rabies virus can preventdevelopment of the illness after a bite by aninfected animal. But until recently doctorscould hold out no hope for patients whofailed to get immunized soon after being bitten.Once the symptoms of rabiesappeared—normally within two months ofthe bite—death was inevitable, in a week orless. Promising new research by Drs. RodneyWilloughby, Jeanette Vasquez-Vivar, KeithHyland, and Charles Rupprecht offers newhope for a cure of rabies. The researchershave discovered a deficiency of a vitamin-likemolecule in rabies patients. The molecule,biopterin, can be supplemented and promisesto make rabies even more treatable than it wasin 2004 when 15-year-old Jeanna Giesebecame the first—and so far only—unvaccinatedpatient to survive after developingsymptoms.Science Daily3/26/07http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070326152603.htmHeart Valve Grown fromStem CellsBritish scientists have grown part of a humanheart from stem cells for the first time. Heartsurgeon Sir Magdi Yacoub, who led the team,said doctors could be using artificially grownheart components in transplants within threeyears. His researchers at Harefield hospitalmanaged to grow tissue that works in thesame way as human heart valves. Sir Magditold The Guardian newspaper a whole heartcould be produced from stem cells within 10years. The team which spent 10 years workingon the project included physicists, pharmacologists,clinicians and cellular scientists. Previously,scientists have grown tendons, cartilagesand bladders, which are all less complex.BBC News4/2/07http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6517645.stm22 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

MeetingsAbout the Alcor FoundationThe Alcor Life Extension Foundation is a nonprofit tax-exempt scientific and educationalorganization dedicated to advancing the science of cryopreservation and promotingit as a rational option. Being an Alcor member means knowing that—shouldthe worst happen—Alcor’s Emergency Response Team is ready to respond for you, 24hours a day, 365 days a year.Alcor’s Emergency Response capability includes specially trained technicians and customizedequipment in Arizona, northern California, southern California, and southFlorida, as well as many additional certified technicians on-call around the UnitedStates. Alcor’s Arizona facility includes a full-time staff, and the Patient Care Bay is personallymonitored 24 hours a day.ARIZONACALIFORNIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIALife Extension Society, Inc. is acryonics and life extension group withmembers from Washington, D.C.,Virginia, and Maryland. Meetings areheld monthly. Contact Secretary KeithLynch at kfl@keithlynch.net. Forinformation on LES, see our web site atwww.keithlynch.net/lesMASSACHUSETTSScottsdale:Alcor Board of Directors Meetings—Alcor business meetings are generallyheld on the first Saturday of every monthstarting at 11:00 am MST. Guests arewelcome. For more information, contactAlcor at (480) 905-1906 ext. 101.Scottsdale/Phoenix:Alcor ToursTours are held at Alcor at 2:00 pm everyTuesday and Friday.Call Alcor (877) 462-5267 ext. 101 to schedulean appointment or emaildbora@alcor.org.Los Angeles:Alcor Southern California Meetings—For information, call Peter Voss at(310) 822-4533 or e-mail him atpeter@optimal.org. Although monthlymeetings are not held regularly, you canmeet Los Angeles Alcor members by contactingPeter.San Francisco Bay:Alcor Northern California Meetings areheld quarterly in January, April, July, andOctober. A CryoFeast is held once a year.For information on Northern Californiameetings, call Marek (Mark) Galecki at(408)245-4928 or email Mark_galeck@pacbell.net.Boston:A cryonics discussion group meetsthe second Sunday of each month. Formore information, contact DavidGreenstein at (508) 879-3234, e-mail:davidsgreenstein@juno.com.TEXASDallas:North Texas Cryonauts, please sign up forour announcements list for meetings(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cryonauts-announce)or contact David WallaceCroft at (214) 636-3790 for details ofupcoming meetings.NEVADALas Vegas:There are many Alcor members inthe Las Vegas area. If you wish tomeet and socialize, contact Katie Karsat (702) 251-1975. This group wants toget to know you!WASHINGTONSeattle:For information on Northwestmeetings, call Richard Gillman at (425)641-5136 or join the e-mail groupCryonicsNW at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CryonicsNWUNITED KINGDOMThere is an Alcor chapter in England.Its members are working diligently to buildsolid emergency response, transport, andcryopreservation capability. For informationabout meetings, contact Andrew Clifford atandrew@banknotes.ws. See the web site atwww.alcor-uk.org.Host a Meeting in your area.If you are interested in hosting regular meetings in your area,contact Alcor at 877-462-5267 ext. 113. Meetings are a greatway to learn about cryonics, meet others with similar interests,and introduce your friends and family to Alcor members!www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007NEW ENGLANDA New England area group meets regularly. Formeeting dates and to be included in the groupemail list please contact either David Greensteinat 508-879-3234 or davegre2000@yahoo.comor Bret Kulakovich at 508-946-4626 (8am-8pmEST) or alcor@bonfireproductions.com.23

AdvertisementsFREE ONLINEBOOk &DOCUMENTARYIMMORTALITYINSTITUTEBe Part Of The Future.Join Today!24 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2007 www.alcor.org

CRYONICSCryonics What is Cryonics?is an attempt to preserve and protect the gift of human life, not reverse death. It is the speculativepractice of using extreme cold to preserve the life of a person who can no longer be supportedby today’s medicine. Will future medicine, including mature nanotechnology, have the ability to heal atthe cellular and molecular levels? Can cryonics successfully carry the cryopreserved person forwardthrough time, for however many decades or centuries might be necessary, until the cryopreservationprocess can be reversed and the person restored to full health? While cryonics may sound like sciencefiction, there is a basis for it in real science. The complete scientific story of cryonics is seldom told inmedia reports, leaving cryonics widely misunderstood. We invite you to reach your own conclusions.FIND OUT MOREThe How do I find out more?Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics research and technology. Alcoris a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in 1972. Our website is one ofthe best sources of detailed introductory information about Alcor and cryopreservation (www.alcor.org).We also invite you to request our FREE information package on the “Free Information” section of ourwebsite. It includes:•A 30-minute DVD documentary “The Limitless Future”•A fully illustrated color brochure•A sample of our magazine•An application for membership and brochure explaining how to join•And more!Your free package should arrive in 1-2 weeks.(The complete package will be sent free in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.)ENROLLSigning How do I enroll?up for a cryopreservation is easy!Step 1:Step 2:Step 3:Fill out an application and submit it with your $150 application fee.You will then be sent a set of contracts to review and sign.Fund your cryopreservation. While most people use life insurance tofund their cryopreservation, other forms of prepayment are alsoaccepted. Alcor’s Membership Coordinator can provide you with alist of insurance agents familiar with satisfying Alcor’s current fundingrequirements.Finally: After enrolling, you will wear emergency alert tags or carry a specialcard in your wallet. This is your confirmation that Alcor will respondimmediately to an emergency call on your behalf.Call toll-free today to start your application:877-462-5267 ext. 132info@alcor.orgwww.alcor.orgThe Limitless FutureGet your FREE copy of Alcor’s30-minute DVD documentary by visiting the“Free Information” section of our website