Cryogenics?

Flamed Diving

Not sure if I spelled that correctly, anyway! In the future, it may be possible to freeze your body after death, only to be resurrected afterwards due to the wonder of future medicine. If this science fiction scenario were to happen, what would be the implications for that persons soul?

Thoughts?

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Not sure if I spelled that correctly, anyway! In the future, it may be possible to freeze your body after death, only to be resurrected afterwards due to the wonder of future medicine. If this science fiction scenario were to happen, what would be the implications for that persons soul?

Thoughts?

There might be a possibility of restoring to health a man frozen before death - that the spirit remains with such an immobilised body. But not after death - if we define death as the departure of the spirit, which is the Christian definition.

anti-venom

Interesting question! This might be the very thing that would finally dispel this crazy idea of having a soul. It's a long shot. I really don't know how much serious research time and money is being invested in cryogenics, or if it could ever become a reality, but for now it seems to be a fool-proof and convenient way of distancing fools from their money.

Flamed Diving

It stems from this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055350168

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

There might be a possibility of restoring to health a man frozen before death - that the spirit remains with such an immobilised body. But not after death - if we define death as the departure of the spirit, which is the Christian definition.

Right, but say it were possible and that a dead person was to be frozen and later revived in the year 3000. What would be the implications there?

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

There might be a possibility of restoring to health a man frozen before death - that the spirit remains with such an immobilised body. But not after death - if we define death as the departure of the spirit, which is the Christian definition.

So when, exactly, does the soul depart?

MrP

Asiaprod

Interesting question. Purely for comparison, the Buddhist tradition holds that separation of body and consciousness can take a day or more to complete.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but say it were possible and that a dead person was to be frozen and later revived in the year 3000. What would be the implications there?

Revived in the year 3,000, you say? I figure they would make an amusing cartoon series out of it and probably show it on SKY non stop.

Undoubtedly if such a thing were ever to be successful it would make me reconsider the existence of God and of the soul. But I don't believe any of us will ever have to worry about such dilemmas. Assuming you agree to a marked distinction between hibernation and cryogenics*, I personally don't believe that the latter will ever be possible for us.

The reason for my position is two fold. Firstly, and from a purely physiological perspective, I very much doubt that such a thing is achievable in complex organisms such as humans, especially when you consider the delicate and intricately tangled nature of the brain. Secondly, and for a moment I'll pretend that I believe such a thing could be possible given enough time, I still don't don't believe that it would ever come to pass because it doesn't fit into God's plans.




*(Again, I'm assuming something here. And this is that we are talking about reviving someone weeks, months or years after they have been pronounced clinically dead and frozen.)

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The reason for my position is two fold. Firstly, and from a purely physiological perspective, I very much doubt that such a thing is achievable in complex organisms such as humans, especially when you consider the delicate and intricately tangled nature of the brain. Secondly, and for a moment I'll pretend that I believe such a thing could be possible given enough time, I still don't don't believe that it would ever come to pass because it doesn't fit into God's plans.

You know God's plan?

MrPudding

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You know God's plan?

Considering that he is supposed to be unknowable, there seem to be an awful lot of people that know what his plan is.....

MrP

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

Considering that he is supposed to be unknowable, there seem to be an awful lot of people that know what his plan is.....

MrP

I wish they'd tell me about this plan... Like when a loved one dies they turn to you and say "Don't worry, it's all part of god's plan". Gee thanks for the heads up guys :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You know God's plan?

It's a hypothetical question. I can give a hypothetical answer. Enough with the straw man rubbish.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question. I can give a hypothetical answer. Enough with the straw man rubbish.

You were saying that Flamed's hypothetical situation would not be possible. That's not hypothetical. One of the reasons you gave to support that was that it does not fit God's plan. That part isn't a hypothetical either. Have I misrepresented your position?

For what it's worth, your other reason sounds perfectly sound to me. Freezing a brain is unlikely to ever be a viable means of preservation. As well to scan it in detail and reconstruct it later. Far beyond our abilities at this time.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a hypothetical question. I can give a hypothetical answer. Enough with the straw man rubbish.

It's not immediately clear to me what's "straw man" about asking you if you really do believe that you know the plans of the creator of the universe, since you seem to imply that you do.

Seems a very reasonable question to me really.

Burial

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Revived in the year 3,000, you say? I figure they would make an amusing cartoon series out of it and probably show it on SKY non stop.

Undoubtedly if such a thing were ever to be successful it would make me reconsider the existence of God and of the soul. But I don't believe any of us will ever have to worry about such dilemmas. Assuming you agree to a marked distinction between hibernation and cryogenics*, I personally don't believe that the latter will ever be possible for us.

The reason for my position is two fold. Firstly, and from a purely physiological perspective, I very much doubt that such a thing is achievable in complex organisms such as humans, especially when you consider the delicate and intricately tangled nature of the brain. Secondly, and for a moment I'll pretend that I believe such a thing could be possible given enough time, I still don't don't believe that it would ever come to pass because it doesn't fit into God's plans.




*(Again, I'm assuming something here. And this is that we are talking about reviving someone weeks, months or years after they have been pronounced clinically dead and frozen.)

What are Gods plans? To bring an end to the world? Ok, enough with the joking. You don't know Gods plan. No-one does. Don't pretend one religion holds more knowledge then the other. It's simply not true. (Case in point, eating meat on a Friday. Part of God's plan is it? :P)

Anyway, back to the original question, YES it'll hopefully be possible in the future to freeze someone and bring them back. However, if they're brain dead when you freeze them, they'll still be brain-dead upon revival. Current technology isn't good enough, (IT WILL NEVER BE GOOD ENOUGH to revive a dead-brain) to complete the cyrogenics process yet. Some fish can be frozen and unfrozen and still live. (Some have to do it when their lake/river freezes)

The problem between humans vs fishes is we have a different dna. They're not sure which part of it's dna is responsible, and wouldn't be able to test on humans for ethics reasons. Anyway, the main problem (from what I remember) with cyrogenics is that organs still decompose and water freezing in the body is also another problem. Fish can do it, (Some not all), so I suppose it's only a matter of time before we discover how to do it. Though I don't understand why anyone would want to be frozen and wake up in a world in which they know no-one, know nothing, or know what is even going on.(Presuming it's to extend past old age) If it was a wound/disease, it would still be there upon awakening. May cure you in the end, but you'd have nothing waking up or know no-one.

*NOTE*

I can't stress this enough, cyrogenics is a stalling process. If your brain-dead before cyrogenics, your brain-dead after. You can't get your brain back. Wounds can be treated after as with diseases, because it's a stalling process. You'll be brain-dead no matter how long you stall. As it is now, your dead once you are cyogenicitally frozen. No matter what they say about in the future. It's like shooting yourself with a fully functional and loaded gun, in the hopes the bullet won't come out. You won't be revived, no matter what you hear. (ATM anyway.)

Biro

Galvasean wrote: »

I wish they'd tell me about this plan... Like when a loved one dies they turn to you and say "Don't worry, it's all part of god's plan". Gee thanks for the heads up guys :rolleyes:

Ya, that's an answer that annoys me too.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

It's not immediately clear to me what's "straw man" about asking you if you really do believe that you know the plans of the creator of the universe, since you seem to imply that you do.

Seems a very reasonable question to me really.

I've not implied anything intentionally. Maybe it's just a case of you lads reading between the lines a little too much.

Assuming such a thing as cryogenics were possible, I merely said that I believe it would not fit into God's plans. I didn't state that I had some unique and intimate knowledge of His plans regarding cryogenics. Like most Christians, I would say we know Gods plans only as far as He chosen to tell us. Therefore, robindch, what I find straw mannish about AH's post is that he/she overstates my position.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Therefore, robindch, what I find straw mannish about AH's post is that he/she overstates my position.

A straw man argument is one in which one person misrepresents his opponent's position to allow an easier attack. All I did was ask you a question. I asked if you knew God's plan. At the very most I merely implied that you cannot know God's plan with respect to some hypothetical piece of technology.

Perhaps the question or implication annoyed you. If so, I regret that. But I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of such underhand tactics.

JoeB-

I don't see the problem at all...

If a person was frozen and sucessfully thawed there are no implications... he continues to live as normal,,.. when he eventually dies he goes to hell most probably, like the rest of us.

People have ignored the simularity between freezing a living human.. and creating a conceived featus in the lab.. complete with a soul. How does God feel about such meddling in his 'plan'? What is the conceptual problem with creating a living egg in a lab, complete with soul (as Christians say) and then not allowing further development? So we could have a conceived egg, with soul, frozen in a freezer indefinitely.

So in this case we have a life with a soul, but no actual living or development.

Now, the most interesting question here is, what if the end of the world comes when there are many conceptuses, complete with soul... God may admit them into heaven.. but will a single celled human have a personality? Will they have likes and dislikes? Will they have language? Maybe they will come to hate God when they learn his nature, (paradox?)

Obviously they won't have likes or dislikes, language, or a personality as the height of their development was a single cell frozen in a lab somewhere.. but they did have a soul set by for them.

(Having dislikes in heaven is a paradox anyway... hardly perfect if so)

cheers

JoeB-

Hmmm...

I see now that the original OP said that the person actually died.... and was then frozen.

There are several possibilities...

one is that the person isn't actually dead and only appears so through our current ignorance... in which case he could (in principle) be revived through advanced technology.

a second possibility is that the person is in fact completely dead (according to our current definition of death, which is probably no brain or metabolic activity)... however it may still be possible to reverse death in the same way that we can fix a machine... in principle this is possible as far as I am concerned. So I can't see a reason, in principle, as to why a dead body may not be re-animated or resurected with sufficently advanced medical technology.

I can see major problems for the catholic church in explaining what happens to the soul while brain dead... (similar to the soul of a conceived feotus in a lab)... but I'm sure they can come up with something. I won't buy it but I reckon many believers will, as far as I am concerned they are prepared to believe most things anyway.

I suppose the central point of the argument is that the Catholics will say that God 'breathes' life into a person and it isn't posssible to 'build' a living human...

My position would be that life is like a machine... and that DNA contains the instructions... and that God isn't necessary for life. Conciousness is a difficult problem but not intractable, it may be very close to being intractable due to its subjective nature, but I reckon it would, in principle, be possible to create life from dead matter.. and for this life to display all the appearances of being concious, and so if we deny the label 'living' or 'concious' to such a man made creation we must also deny it to other humans..


Cheers
Joe

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A straw man argument is one in which one person misrepresents his opponent's position to allow an easier attack. All I did was ask you a question. I asked if you knew God's plan. At the very most I merely implied that you cannot know God's plan with respect to some hypothetical piece of technology.

Perhaps the question or implication annoyed you. If so, I regret that. But I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of such underhand tactics.

To my knowledge, a straw man argument can also be used to overstate a persons position. Though you posed a question, I still felt that it was rather straw mannish in the underlying implication. What annoyed me was that you didn't ask if I also had some fantastical insider knowledge of science - you merely accepted my position on this, whereas you implied otherwise in relation to why I felt it wouldn't fit into God's plans.

That aside... I may have been a mite tetchy in my response, and for that I do apologise, AH.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What annoyed me was that you didn't ask if I also had some fantastical insider knowledge of science - you merely accepted my position on this, whereas you implied otherwise in relation to why I felt it wouldn't fit into God's plans.

It does not require in-depth knowledge of science to know that ice and brains do not mix. I accepted that part because it fits in with what I know about biology. It's not necessarily correct, but it's hardly a wild or unconventional opinion. Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your statement regarding the brain required little justification in my eyes.

Jesus Juice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It does not require in-depth knowledge of science to know that ice and brains do not mix. I accepted that part because it fits in with what I know about biology. It's not necessarily correct, but it's hardly a wild or unconventional opinion. Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your statement regarding the brain required little justification in my eyes.

Man i cant get out!!!!!

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It does not require in-depth knowledge of science to know that ice and brains do not mix. I accepted that part because it fits in with what I know about biology. It's not necessarily correct, but it's hardly a wild or unconventional opinion. Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, your statement regarding the brain required little justification in my eyes.

And my statement about God not doing cryogenics was based upon what I believe to know about Him from the Bible. Fair enough?

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And my statement about God not doing cryogenics was based upon what I believe to know about Him from the Bible. Fair enough?

Sure, that'd be the answer to my original question about the plan. I think it's a leap, but then I would.

Pompey Magnus

I think I have entered the twilight zone here. The non-believers are arguing that resurrection from the dead may be possible whilst Christians arguing that it is impossible and doesn't fit into God's plan.

The world has gone mad.

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I think I have entered the twilight zone here. There are non-believers arguing that resurrection from the dead may be possible whilst Christians arguing that it is impossible and doesn't fit into God's plan.

If science does it, it's wrong. Playing God etc...

JoeB-

The original proposition may be (nearly) possible with todays technology!!!!

What about the people who drawn in cold lakes?... and have no brain activity?, and yet can be revived after as much as an hour? They are considered dead as far as I know and they are resurected!!!

So if such a body was quick frozen I believe the period may be increased from an hour upwards... with new technology most probably up to 1,000 years or more...

But god will most likely see through this... in any event souls don't immediately go to heaven do they?, they hang around (unconcious) until the day of judgement... any frozen bodies which are capable of being revived would be judged like the living and the dead on the day of judgement.... so no problem.

There would be a problem if catholic teachings said that souls immediately go to heaven... but even then God could simply arrange with his foresight for that persons soul to be treated differently.

Flamed Diving

Maybe their soul gets frozen too?

AtomicHorror

JoeBallantine wrote: »

The original proposition may be (nearly) possible with todays technology!!!!

What about the people who drawn in cold lakes?... and have no brain activity?, and yet can be revived after as much as an hour? They are considered dead as far as I know and they are resurected!!!

So if such a body was quick frozen I believe the period may be increased from an hour upwards... with new technology most probably up to 1,000 years or more...

I don't know about the specific cases you're talking about, but if a brain actually undergoes freezing (rather than merely being cooled down) it is dead and not recoverable with modern technology. As soon as you get ice crytals, the neurons are going to take damage.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but say it were possible and that a dead person was to be frozen and later revived in the year 3000. What would be the implications there?

The implication would be that it is likely there is no such thing as a spirit, just a complex reaction of body chemistry.

OR, that Man had attained to Deity, able to resurrect the dead.

For make no mistake, all the dead will be raised to life again. At the last Day, Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Jesus put it this way:
John 5:28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.