use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
(and 'dog' reddit:'aww' site:'imgur.com')
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!
Is resurrecting someone from being Cryogenically frozen plausible? (self.askscience)
submitted 7 months ago by mrmadagascar
[–]oldgreg88Water Resources|Eco-Hydraulics 13 points14 points15 points 7 months ago
Here's a TED talk related to this topic.
[–]32koala 144 points145 points146 points 7 months ago
Not with today's technology. But hypothetically? Yes. If a healthy person was "flash frozen" (like a piece of frozen fish), and flash-thawed, the main problems would be restarting the heart and getting breathing going—the same problems that modern technology (defibrillators, ventilators) try to solve.
But there's no viable way to flash-freeze or flash-thaw people, at this time. Not without creating massive cell damage and death. Also, note that freezing and thawing someone will not cure any previous ailments they had. If a person is sick when frozen, they will still be sick when thawed.
Also, if you're at all interested in cryogenics, you must listen to this: link. Amazing story about crypgenics.
[–]Obi_Kwiet 93 points94 points95 points 7 months ago
I would think that the main problems would be damage due to crystallization of things that are not supposed to be crystallized.
[–]32koala 38 points39 points40 points 7 months ago*
That's a good point. But I think flash freezing minimizes the impact of this damage: ...flash freezing is used in the food industry to quickly freeze perishable food items...items are subjected to temperatures well below water's melting/freezing point (32°F or 0°C), causing the water inside the foods to freeze in a very short period of time without forming large crystals, thus avoiding damage to cell membranes.
[–]arcrad 43 points44 points45 points 7 months ago
Minimizes, sure. However, damage to even just 5% of the cells in your body would surely be extremely detrimental.
[–]Canuck147Genetics|Cell Signalling|Plant Biology 63 points64 points65 points 7 months ago
I know working with cells you can flash freeze in liquid nitrogen and they recover just fine when thawed. The problem with the human body, I suspect, is that it's so large it wouldn't freeze throughout quickly enough.
[–]SquareRoot 10 points11 points12 points 7 months ago
Has this been tried with smaller animals, such as, say, fish or rats?
[–]Baeocystin 15 points16 points17 points 7 months ago*
There are insects that not only survive being frozen solid, but (more impressively, IMO) survive without apparent issue the transition, where part is frozen and part thawed.
[–]_delirium 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
This survey article (pdf) is an interesting overview of freezing-tolerant animals.
[–]Talaknor 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I work with Liquid nitrogen in a non-laboratory environment. I can say for certain that a few of the big black beetles common in Iraq/Qatar can be flash frozen, remain frozen for 10-15 minutes, thaw out in the sun, and walk away. I have no idea what long-term side effects they suffer though. (And no, I'm not some poor man's Mr. Freeze sadist)
[–]Robopuppy 9 points10 points11 points 7 months ago
When freezing cells, you have to add DMSO at toxic levels to stop ice crystals from tearing everything apart. It's easy enough to get rid of it when thawing cells samples. For entire bodies, not so much.
Also, I wouldn't really call frozen cells perfectly healthy. They tend to be a bit sluggish to get growing for a while once you revive them.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 months ago
How about cryopreserved embryos?
[–]Robopuppy 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
They're small enough that you can wash it out. A handful of cells is easier to clean than billions and billions in an entire body.
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Embryos that we thaw are often in the stage of development known as the "blastocyst", this stage has a small number of cells like Robopuppy says and it also has a large surface area to volume ratio, which allows the DMSO to be rinsed quickly.
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
PS-Have you considered getting a tag for your name? It sounds like you are qualified in some area of expertise in tissue culture at least.
[–]arcrad 15 points16 points17 points 7 months ago
Precisely.
[–][deleted] 7 months ago
[deleted]
[–]strayclown 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
Well that would be a goal to be worked towards, however simply imagining a problem precludes solving it, and this problem has long since been imagined.
[–]jabies 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
Is it possible to detach and reattach limbs? I mean, the smaller the surface are to mass ratio is, the more plausible it is to flash freeze whatever it is you're trying to freeze.
Would it be possible to just flash freeze a head? I know scientists have been trying to figure out how to do this for years, but with new suture techniques and such, I would find it much more plausible to flash freeze just a head, (possibly even cutting 'vents' if you will in the skull to allow the heat to be conducted faster), until the point at which the technology to perform a 'head transplant' is developed.
However, until we come up with a way to incrementally replace neurons, I have a feeling that you'll just be reviving people to experience dementia and Alzheimer's within thirty years.
[–]tatertosh 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
i have a buddy who had to get hip surgery and during it they completely removed his femur and reattached it on so i have to say that this is definitely possible but i would think that the torso and head would have to stay connected at least
[–]Murrabbit 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
I suspect, is that it's so large it wouldn't freeze throughout quickly enough.
Ah-ha so do just what I do whenever I re-heat a burrito in the microwave. Just cut the person in half along a long diagonal slant to maximize surface area. Problem solved. . . er. . . and you know they'll just have to be unthawed once we can stitch an entire human being back together.
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
True, but don't you freeze cells in 10% DMSO and 10% FBS? I don't know how the human body would be able to be infused with 10% DMSO and still remain viable considering DMSO at that concentration can be toxic to cells.
When we freeze cells and thaw them we are doing things that can only be done to individual cells, I think it would be much more difficult to scale that up to a large organism scale. Perhaps sometime in the future we'll see freezing of organs for transport (cold heart transport is already in existence).
[–]atrus6 8 points9 points10 points 7 months ago
Isn't it reasonable to assume that if they can cure whatever disease you had yourself frozen for that they should be able to compensate for the cell loss?
[–]master_of_none 22 points23 points24 points 7 months ago
I would think it's a bit more complicated when it comes to brain cells. Unless the process was perfected, it would be like playing Russian roulette with your memories/intelligence.
[–]Askol 10 points11 points12 points 7 months ago
I'd happily assume that risk if the alternative was death.
[–]captainhaddock 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
Would you accept being revived as a near-vegetable?
[–]AtheismFTW 7 points8 points9 points 7 months ago
Depends. I'm quite partial to tomatoes.
[–]giziti 10 points11 points12 points 7 months ago
Except tomatoes are fruit, so this is quickly getting more complicated...
[–]Askol 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Assuming I'm not in pain, why not.
However, my bet is that by the time humans are able to successfully unfreeze somebody, we'll be able to repair the unfrozen person's body as well.
[–]master_of_none 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago*
I'm not saying I'd rather be dead, but I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to restore corrupted memories no matter how medically advanced we become. You can't repair lost memories; once they're gone, they're gone. (This is different from amnesia, BTW. With amnesia, the memories are still there, just inaccessible.)
[–]samsari 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
It may be that even with their advanced medical technology, they might not be able to reanimate you if you weren't frozen in the right way. And since we don't know what that right way is, it's a bit of a gamble.
[–]MrSparkle666 8 points9 points10 points 7 months ago
Yes, the main problem is that crystallization damages the cells. However, I read an article a year or two ago where some scientists were making some huge advances in that department. They were able to freeze small organs with nearly zero crystallization and almost no damage. They were working up to larger and larger organs, which were feasible with the technology. Unfortunately, it was a very slow, complicated, expensive process to freeze the tissue this way, so it's unlikely that it will be viable any time in the near future. It would be cool if someone could dig up the article. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it.
[–]nshepperd 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
This technology is already in use.
[–]IrinotecanHCL 35 points36 points37 points 7 months ago
Cryogenics today don't flash freeze, they replace your blood / water with something inert (not formaldehyde as that damages DNA) and then freeze your body (or often times just your head) in liquid nitrogen.
[–]32koala 36 points37 points38 points 7 months ago
It seems like a very primitive technology, when you put it that way.
[–]IrinotecanHCL 55 points56 points57 points 7 months ago
It is. There is no guarantee of resuscitation. The hope is nanotechnology in the distant future will be able to repair any damage / regrow your body, but nobody really knows. Cryogenicists will only tell you, the odds of coming back if you are frozen are better than the odds if you aren't.
[–]adremeaux 28 points29 points30 points 7 months ago
One would think that, so long as your body is actually kept in storage, the odds get pretty damn good that you could be resuscitated.
Of course: why would they bother? In 200 years, when the technology is around, why bring random schmoes back? Everyone that knew them is dead, and the papers are long filed away and forgotten.
[–]Ryplinn 61 points62 points63 points 7 months ago
A lot of anthropologists and historians would jump at the chance to talk to someone from 1811.
[–]k113 20 points21 points22 points 7 months ago
Why a 2211 historian would wake up a guy from 2011 to talk if there are presently over 700,000,000 videos on youtube?
[–]yurigoul 35 points36 points37 points 7 months ago
How will these videos be stored? Are there still codecs around that will read these videos? Did you ever try to find that one website you thought was so cool in 2001 and your search came up empty? How do you think that will work out in 200 years?
There are cellars filled with tapes/disks/punchcards that nobody can read anymore because the the computers do not work anymore or because nobody understands the software anymore. We might be working towards open standards more and more, but we do not have the storage problem solved. There is no harddisk that will last 100s of years, let alone thousands - though I believe there is a solid metal DVD archival solution, but those things will be used as frisbees by future generations when they do not have the hardware to read these things or if they do not have the software.
You best bet is to go to the printer and make a book on high quality paper and store it in a good way. We know that will last 1000 years or more if needed - and if you need it to last longer chisel it in stone.
[–]k113 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago*
Well, first you forgot to add Moore's law to your equation, digital space to store data gets cheaper by the year and redundancy of information will be higher. The entire Geocities fits in a thumbdrive and probably the entire 2011's youtube will fit in someday either. Maybe some cataclysm hits Earth, but then our 21st frozen hero will melt faster than the Internet would disappear.
But my point was another, Internet is storing information about every single individual on earth, while 400 years ago books had to be handwritten to be copied. Did you know that there is no reliable war data preceding the 17th century because of it? The few recordings of wars were made by the winning party with the intent to not present it fairly, so you have to interpret this data and then would be very useful to have a early 19th century dude to tell his impressions of his time.
From now on we'll have our entire population creating books about themselves, youtube videos, countless photographs, facebook updates, they are creating billions of 'data sets' to be explored by historians, and the history of our time will be told by it, in the same fashion that WW2 was recorded on film that you can watch on youtube now. The amount of historical data will be so overwhelming that a frozen 21st century guy might become instead a curiosity, or even a celebrity in 200 years, or to be placed in a zoo as a living echo of something they can access from anywhere.
[–]sLayed 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
How does 'trolling' work into this future scenario? I think the reliability of future internet sources in relation to this phenomenon is something to consider.
[–]yurigoul 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I would buy that book!
Anyway: it is a very real possibility, but do not forget that the internet as we know it today is very young and it is not guaranteed it will develop the way it does today. It can also go in a totally different direction with a peak oil event (computers getting more expensive, internet access becomes less and less) or a religious event (technology is evil) a cultural change (why go online, meet people in real live, do things by hand) or a political event (total internet shutdown for non business means) or the internet could be lost to the spammers and botnets. Not that I want to win this argument at all costs, but the future is another world, anything can happen there and it is not certain people will continue to live the way they live today.
The computer was first thought of in the 19th century, something like the personal computer and sharing data was first envisioned in 1948 if I am not mistaken. But it's development is in constant flux and it has not reached an endpoint. 20 years ago it was floppies, 10 years ago it was CD roms, now it is ebook-readers and thumbdrives. And then I am skiping a whole lot of other technologies (zipp-drives, jazz-drives, other optical storage, etc, etc). And I am forgetting all the different computer systems that have been around, that were the future ... until the day they closed their doors. This development is not at an endpoint yet.
That is the main reason that every time someone asks slashdot how to create a time capsule to store something for a future generation the ultimate answer is 'print it on paper, chisel it in stone' Right now there is no technology that is guaranteed to last - not even when you also enclose the computer it can be read on because technology is not stable, it will all stop working some day even when not used.
A good archive should remain accessible for future generations, for me the computer is important but if I were to build an archive I would not rely on it as my main means of storage.
TL;DR: Future != progress, but sometimes it does
[–]NSNick 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Pedantic sidenote: Moore's law refers to transistor size; Kryder's law to digital storage space.
[–]jabies 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
He might even end up working for an interstellar delivery company in New York!
[–]otakucode 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
Because they're YouTube videos. If you were an alien, and you sat down to YouTube, you would be perplexed by the aggressive hatred we apparently harbor towards genitalia and nudity in general. You would be perplexed as to how we ever managed to actually survive, what with sex being almost completely absent.
YouTube videos would show you only what Google as a corporation had deemed acceptable culture, not what our society actually values. It would show you only what people are comfortable broadcasting globally, and tell you very little about the things people are not comfortable with broadcasting or which Google has decided they will not permit to become part of our culture. Google exerts an awful lot of pressure on our culture through their aggressive censorship of YouTube, Blogger, and their other services. Future archaeologists would get quite a warped image of humanity going simply by the content contained on large corporate sites with committee-driven censorship rules.
Certainly when the future looks back on us, they are going to be aghast at how primitive we were about many things. But if they assume the censorship of Google represents the standards society actually holds, we'll get slammed for a lot that isn't actually true. Our views on sex right now are very extreme and absurd, and I imagine in the future they'll be looking back on us as 'those people that were so neurotic about sex that its amazing they we survived'. So hopefully they'll know that they need to do a bit more work to get an accurate picture.
[–]Ryplinn 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago
For comparison. Also, watching a video is different from directly interacting with someone.
[–]Cyrius 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Yes, someone from 1811. Not everyone.
Suppose freezing people was routine in 1811. There were a billion people alive in 1811. After the initial rush of thawing out all the "important" people, how many people do you think historians would be interested in talking to? A thousand a year?
And what incentive does everyone who isn't a historian have to thaw these people out?
[–]DeanOfScience 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago
what incentive
Slaves.
[–]Ryplinn 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
Some of the most important information about the day-to-day lives of ancient peoples come from the artifacts left by "unimportant" people, so don't discount Joe Icicle.
Furthermore, I provided one example of why random schmoes would be thawed out. It was intended to be neither fully predictive nor all-encompassing.
[–]Cyrius -1 points0 points1 point 7 months ago
Which is why I didn't set the rate to zero.
I was attempting to illustrate why I think it's such a small factor as to be irrelevant. How many random schmoes do you need to interview to get a picture of the past?
Even if you can justify a full 1%, that still leaves us with no reason to thaw out the other 99%.
[–]Ryplinn 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I didn't try to give a reason to thaw out the other 99%, and just because I didn't give reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.
[–]TheMilkMang 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
future family would probably get you thawed out. I know if my great great great great grandpa was frozen I'd definitely want to get him thawed.
[–]Cyrius 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I know if my great great great great grandpa was frozen I'd definitely want to get him thawed.
Why? I'm not being flippant, I really don't understand why. You'd have nothing in common and almost no real connection to each other.
Because it'd be interesting to hear about the past. I'd also be curious about his personality and what we have in common. And because I'd want someone to do the same for me.
[–]econleech 17 points18 points19 points 7 months ago
If the company is still in business, they would have to bring people back. Otherwise they won't get new clients.
[–]Jumpy89 12 points13 points14 points 7 months ago
Wouldn't they be obsolete at that point anyway?
[–]fortune_cell 14 points15 points16 points 7 months ago
Not necessarily... just because they've mastered freezing and unfreezing people in the future doesn't mean they've cured ALL disease.
[–]bdunderscore 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
If they had the technology to repair whatever made you sick in the first place, why bother with the freezing thing?
[–]econleech 9 points10 points11 points 7 months ago
Just because they've cured my disease doesn't mean they've cured all disease. Plus some people may just want to use it to jump to the future.
[–]adremeaux 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
If it is time to bring people back, why would there be any new clients?
[–]econleech 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
People will want to go further into the future.
[–]earynspieir 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Or simply survive space travel. (Which in a way is travelling into the future)
[–]BurlyMayes 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Better hope that in 100 years that there isn't an accidental power outage and everyone that was frozen gets a little.... thawed.
But who cares, I'm sure by that time they will have insurance for all those frozen people, and if anyone is accidental killed off, they might get a slight increase in their premiums.
Ahhh, Cost-benefit Analyses are so heart warming. (Not literally of course... that would be bad.)
[–]econleech 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
A facility like that will have its only power generation and will have a backup power generation and a secondary backup power generation. Power outage will not be a problem.
[–]BurlyMayes 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago*
Perhaps, but I wouldn't assume that some company is going to be ever-vigilant for the next several hundred years. Maybe the future stock market crash of 2120 left them with a lot of debt, and they decide cut costs on the generator maintenance :P Heck maybe the country the company is in becomes a third world nation without electricity.
Don't get me wrong, I'd take a 1% of 1% chance of possibly living in the future with freezing myself, over a pretty much 0% chance of living in the future... by dying. (edit double post)
There's no guarantees in life. I am under no illusion something like this will definitely work. I was merely saying how I would do things if I were in charge.
[–]TheMilkMang 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
they stored them in liquid nitrogen replaced every few weeks if iirc.
[–]Kardlonoc 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
Transmetropolitan had a neat little sub plot about it. Basically, as I remeber it, they would do out of a sort of legal obligation to revive people since they couldn't do away with these bodies and brains without legally killing them. Or they would be handed off to a government agency like the DMV to revive them. There is so many and so common that the entire ordeal is anticlimatic and they are treated like homeless.
Also they could be revive ala cowbody bebop for money, debt they incurred while being frozen for lets say a thousand years. When a company is running low on money they revive you into basically debt and you need to work minimum wage jobs or become a bounty hunter to pay it off. Also frozen people with debts are likely going to be traded as valuable commodity in the future as it become more and more likely to get revive people.
[–]adremeaux 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Yeah I was thinking about the "revived into debt" scenario. Great stuff.
[–]gibs 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
I don't think cryo companies have any contractual obligation to bring you back. They just keep you frozen. As for why anyone would bother: think about if we could bring to life someone from 200 years ago, right now. Of course we would do it, it's like a portal to history. Future generations might not have quite those same motivations, but I think there are still likely to be reasons to try resuscitating.
[–]adremeaux 11 points12 points13 points 7 months ago
Yeah, that'd be really cool the first time. It'd be alright the 10th time. It'd be annoying the 100th time.
[–]puffybaba 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I don't think there are enough people for that to be viable. That is, unless robots have taken over at that point, and they can clone the revived people, and then wait and wait and wait...
[–]freedomgeek 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago*
Mortality, perhaps?
[–]murderofcrows 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
And the money spent.
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
the odds get pretty damn good that you could be resuscitated.
Not really. When you get frozen, the second ice starts to form, most of your cells will rupture and be beyond repair. You're dead the second you freeze unless, as IrinotecanHCL said, technology in the future can repair this damage.
[–]adremeaux 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Given enough time and the (expected) continuing explosive growth of technology we've had in the past 200 years, it in fact becomes damn-near guaranteed that restoration will be possible. The only things against it are the the demise of humanity, or global thermo-nuclear war that destroys all of the frozen bodies and makes research into resuscitation useless.
it in fact becomes damn-near guaranteed that restoration will be possible
Weasel words.
[–]Zyxil 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Not science, but science fiction: Larry Niven, The Defenseless Dead collected in The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton.
[–]BitRex 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Indeed: it's exactly how hams are home-cured. Find a large vein, inject it with brine so that it gets into all the little veins.
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Formaldehyde is about as far from inert within a biological system as you can get.
[–]legendairy 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
So are you alive or dead when they begin the process? If they are alive, is this a legal form of Youth-n-Asia (the great Ali G)?
[–]IrinotecanHCL 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago*
You have to be declared clinically dead before they can begin the procedure. It would be murder or assisted suicide otherwise.
Usually, if you sign a contract to get cryogenically frozen, when you are on your death bed the company assigns a team to wait for your death, then they immediately begin work. Not the best solution, obviously, but until there are changes to "youth in Asia" laws, not much can be done.
[–]nshepperd 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
M22 wouldn't really be accurately described as "something inert". It's a cryoprotectant. Its whole purpose is to lower the freezing point of water to allow vitrification to happen, without any freezing at all. So, no, they don't usually freeze you, and there are no ice crystals. (In the head at least, which is the most important part. They probably tolerate some ice in the rest of the body, since it can more easily be repaired.)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
They may do that but they can't pull all of the water out of your body so the water in your cells will freeze, crystallize, puncture the cell and when you thaw them out you'll get a nice mushy mess.
[–]nuclear_cheese 17 points18 points19 points 7 months ago
But there's no viable way to flash-freeze or flash-thaw people, at this time. Not without creating massive cell damage and death.
Yes, yes there is. The CAS, Cells Alive System invented by the Japanese freezes cells without the damaging effect of crystallization. It uses magnetic fields to prevent this and supercools the piece of meat in question.
It's currently being tested for the food industry and holds much promise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3PvdKDRCwY
[–]J0ltLaser Cooling and Trapping 8 points9 points10 points 7 months ago
The 'Mistakes Were Made' story is the reason that every modern cryonics company requires payment in full before taking on any patient, no exceptions.
[–]panda-est-iciAgricultural Science 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Off topic but can you link me too some good sources of information on laser cooling. It seems fascinating to me.
[–]koreth 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
An open question is whether any of the current techniques for freezing people while minimizing (or trying to) cell damage will be reversible in the future, or if future revival techniques will depend on freezing techniques we haven't developed yet.
Though I suppose if one is considering doing this, there's always the perspective that today's freezing techniques will certainly not make you any less likely to be revived in the distant future than not being frozen at all, so the potential downside is pretty much limited to the cost.
[–]lolocoster 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
Just to make sure I understand, the cell damage and death is a result of the liquid (water specifically I think) in our bodies expanding and "spiking" as it freezes, causing damage to nearby tissue, which is especially bad in areas like the brain and heart right?
[–]Ontheroadtonowhere 11 points12 points13 points 7 months ago
When the water crystallizes in our cells, it ruptures the cell membranes. Bad everywhere. Kills the cells.
[–]fungasmonkey 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
This is similar to how frostbite works, no?
Or is that just crystallisation of blood?
[–]expreshion 9 points10 points11 points 7 months ago
I can't speak for frostbite, but a good analogy would be if you've ever eaten lettuce (or any fruit/vegetable) that was previously frozen. It (lettuce) comes out flimsy/rubbery and does not crunch at all when you bite it since the cells have been ruptured and aren't held together as tightly.
[–]Antebios 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Then shouldn't there be something that transmits something (like some sort of sound frequency) to break up or prevent these crystals from forming?
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
It is true that water does that, but because we haven't spent any effort seriously researching this field, there are likely a whole host of other hurdles to work out too. As anyone who has done research can tell you, the hurdles you don't anticipate can sometimes present the greatest challenge.
Actually, that's true across many fields, but science always has the most hardcore hurdles, no doubt.
[–]32koala 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
You are right, as far as I know. Here's some info about the flash freezing technique: ...flash freezing is used... causing the water inside the foods to freeze in a very short period of time without forming large crystals, thus avoiding damage to cell membranes.
[–]Robopuppy 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago
Flash freezing minimizes it, it doesn't entirely remove it. You also have to add some nasty solvents to keep the crystals down.
If you're curious, it's easy enough to try at home. You can flash freeze things with dry ice pretty cheaply and easily. Get 3 pieces of meat and do the following:
1st piece: Just throw it in the freezer for a while, then thaw it normally.
2nd piece: Flash freeze with dry ice. Depending on the size, you can do this by directly applying the dry ice, or by throwing it in some water then adding the meat. There will be obvious problems with large portions. Thaw it quickly in warm water (not scalding hot).
3rd piece: Don't freeze at all.
Compare the squishiness of the meat, and the juices each throws off after thawing.
[–]telStatistics|Machine Learning|Acoustic Modeling|Language Modeling 16 points17 points18 points 7 months ago
Citations please? Your hypothetical claim is very strong.
[–]32koala 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago
When I say, "hypothetically," I'm assuming very advanced technologies. I don't know how it could be done. I don't think anybody knows (hence no citations).
But I think the "hypothetically" equates this to, "can we recreate a person far in the future, using material/information from the past"? And that is theoretically possible.
[–]telStatistics|Machine Learning|Acoustic Modeling|Language Modeling 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
That's just nonsense. Stating something is possible without any qualification or reduction is equivalent to mysticism. It could be valuable mysticism, a betting man's mysticism, but it's not science.
Really, we just don't know. It's basically unethical to test it out.
[–]antonivs 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago*
that is theoretically possible
That hasn't been established. "Theoretically possible" doesn't mean "can we imagine it", it means it's within the bounds of known or theorized physical possibility, where again, "theorized" means something stronger than "imagined."
tl;dr: this is not asksciencefiction.
[–]_delirium 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I'd distinguish "possible to actually do", as an engineering matter from "possible in principle", in the sense of not violating the laws of physics, but not necessarily practical to actually pull off. I think many physicists (but not all philosophers) would agree that it's possible in principle to recreate a person in the future by recreating their identical atomic configuration, if there were a practical way of making that happen. If philosophical zombies are possible, though, that might not be the case.
[–]mrmadagascar[S] 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
So would being flash frozen result in the brain not requiring oxygen?
Thanks for the link, listening to it right now!
[–]32koala 12 points13 points14 points 7 months ago
Being flash-frozen would stop all biological processes. Making things cold stops the atoms and molecules in the things from moving. So, if you make something cold enough, fast enough, you will freeze it in place.
And then the problem is just re-heating quickly, and getting everything moving again.
[–]fungasmonkey 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
stops the atoms and molecules in the things from moving
Doesn't this mean it'd have to be absolute zero?
[–]32koala 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
Sorry, that was hyperbole. I should have said that it mostly stops them from moving. They still vibrate.
[–]krangksh 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
I think the point of cryogenically freezing a sick person is so that the cure can be developed before they are thawed.
[–]85_B_Low 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
Why would you "flash thaw" them instead of just doing it slowly?
[–]32koala 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Because then apoptosis would occur, in a large number of cells.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
Have people tried flash freezing animals?
[–]ForLackOfPayment 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
I'll just point out that defibrillators do NOT restart the heart. They actually stop the heart. The whole point of a defibrillator is that it stops fibrillation (random, uncoordinated, unproductive electrical activity in the heart--sort of a heart seizure) in hope that by stopping these, the heart will then restart itself with normal, healthy electrical activity. When an EKG shows a flatline, indicating no electrical activity in the heart (as we would presumably see in someone who has been frozen for some time) real-life health care workers do NOT use a defibrillator, despite every medical TV show/movie.
TIL.
[–]reddelicious77 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago*
It is interesting to note that many people who for all intents and purposes drowned in (icy) waters and were found to be clinically dead did indeed "come back to life." There are reports of cases of people lasting 25 min, even up to 45 mins under water w/ out any supplemental air supply. (I could take the time to Google it, but frankly too lazy right now.) This has largely to due w/ the cold minimizing the brain's need for oxygen. The human body is an amazing thing.
edit: ok, quick 10 second search results in this (man was under water for 60 minutes, as in, no air at all - and his body temp was down to 74) and he survived w/ no side-effects whatsoever. In fact, the Guinness World Book of Records recognizes him as living the longest person to have been submerged underwater and survived.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=_-AYeuuB6wUC&pg=PT119&lpg=PT119&dq=drowns+clinically+dead+frozen&source=bl&ots=D6A5c7czZq&sig=Do1DHN9sSOS2P3ZNWb9S18_8dng&hl=en&ei=2c2LTuC2KsLl0QHor4nIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
[–]reddelicious77 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
True - still quite remarkable I think.
[–]BusStation16 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
That is a great TAL...well, they are all great, but that one was very interesting/terrible.
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 62 points63 points64 points 7 months ago*
Define "resurrect". I'd say that if you take a sufficiently materialistic view of the mind, and a sufficiently optimistic view of future technology/intelligence (intelligence amplification, AGI, etc.), then the answer is that there doesn't seem to be a theoretical reason why it can't work.
Disclaimer: I have a number of friends signed up with Alcor or the Cryonics Institute, and intend to sign up myself. Not because I think it will work, but because I think it might, and that it's certainly more likely to result in positive net utility for me than e.g. cremation or rotting in a wooden box.
[–]OnVeryThinIce 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I am an alcor member and recently did an AMA about being signed up for a neurosuspension. Here is the link: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/kvd06/i_am_signed_up_to_have_my_head_cryogenically/
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Thanks - most of my questions are logistical (how to sign over the right amount of my life insurance in the right way, etc). I'll PM you. :)
[–]SkepticalMartian 16 points17 points18 points 7 months ago
What an incredible scam. The money left behind after I pass is better suited to helping my children or a charity organization.
It amazes me that any intelligent person would buy in to this given the knowledge that the method doesn't work right now.
[–]letsRACEturtles 26 points27 points28 points 7 months ago
hmm, well it depends on your purpose in life, if you consider your continued existence important enough, it's your money, and an intelligent person has the right to make that choice knowing the risks...
on the other hand, if you have kids, or don't have enough disposable income so that the cost of cryogenation would be negligible (to you), then it's probably not the best option...
in terms of opportunity costs, you could be spending the money to make the immediate future for yourself or your kids better (or even the rest of the world), not necessarily worth it unless money inconsequential to you... in terms of expected return, the probability of being revived someday (close to 0) times the benefit of being revived (unpredictable, immeasurable) is greater than money required for some people, depending on how much they value the money versus life (speaking from a purely selfish pov)
[–]Quarkster 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
(close to 0)
If you consider having your brain scanned and your identity and personage transferred to a computer a revival, then many would argue with you on this point.
[–]Theon 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Would that still be me though?
(Given enough time, every debate turns into a philosophical debate.)
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I relate to future versions of myself - if I didn't, I'd end up with a pretty useless decision theory. I am somewhat, pardon the pun, attached to my physical body...but I'd rather exist in a different form (software or a badass robot or whatever) than not at all.
[–]SkepticalMartian -1 points0 points1 point 7 months ago
I do value life. Which is why I would make an attempt to enrich the lives of a future generation rather than take a near 0% chance on trying to save my own. The only thing I'd wind up doing by buying in to cryonics is lining the pockets of people selling a broken product.
[–]zBard 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
Surely you mean selfless - ie; you are amazed that any selfless person would buy in to this ... You can argue that doing this is selfish, but stupid ? A non zero probability of life vs a zero probability ?
Of course, if we are talking about a "selfless" person - then why on earth does he have substantial money saved up at the time of his death ? Also, giving ALL the money to your kids sounds like a very selfish thing to do - not to mention, possibly counter productive to their development ...
[–]SkepticalMartian 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I didn't call anyone selfish, nor did I call anyone stupid. I think even smart people can make bad decisions. If this were scientifically proven to work my stance would be different.
Also, ensuring your child's future is selfish? I don't mean to be rude, but that's just silly. Call me again once you've got children of your own.
I think you got the selfishness thing backwards. He was saying you could call me selfish for spending some of my life insurance policy on possibly not dying rather than paying a single grandchild's college tuition or whatever, just not stupid.
[–]zBard 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago*
"It amazes me that any intelligent person would buy in to ... " You do see how that can be taken as meaning "stupid".
Keyword to focus on is "your" child's future. Hence the selfish label - you can argue that the degree matters, but it doesn't. And there you go again ; calling people stupid (hint - silly is a synonym). I have kids - and I am openly "selfish", will try to get them opportunities instead of famine stricken kids in Africa. Hyperbole yes, but true.
Also, it is a pretty inane and stupid argument that "Call me once you have kids". Please keep it out of logical discussions.
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 3 points4 points5 points 7 months ago*
Right now I'm 25 with no dependents. And the vast majority of the cost of Alcor is covered by the life insurance policy I get for free from my job (which is cheap to make bigger, when I have kids)...someone else might pay $50/month for some extra TV stations, and I'll just watch stuff on Hulu and put that $50 towards possibly not dying instead.
Edit: Also, while I certainly consider myself to have obligations to any children I have, I don't have any obligation to any charities. So talking about where my money is "better suited" in that sense is, as far as I'm concerned, paternalistic nonsense. I'll do what I want with the money I earn, thank you very much. (I think you'll find a lot of cryo people also happen to be somewhat libertarian. :) )
[–]SkepticalMartian 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I wouldn't base where life will go by what is happening at the age of 25. You've barely started.
Do I seem to be making assumptions about "where life will go", whatever that means?
You seemed to think your age was relevant. It just appears like you're basing everything off what you know now instead of letting things play out a little to see where they go.
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 2 points3 points4 points 7 months ago
The point of my age is that I don't have any dependents or real financial responsibilities, and also that I already have a sufficient life insurance policy quite early in life, which presumably is only going to get bigger as my financial responsibilities grow.
[–]M59Gar 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I bet the joke will be on us soon (as I like the idea of cryogenics as well): life insurance won't pay off if you get frozen. Another way for insurance companies to save money.
Not getting frozen? Payoff and you're dead. Getting frozen? No payoff and you're dead.
Alcor accepts transferred life insurance policies as payment/proof of funds, so I'm sure they've worked out that that won't be a problem.
[–]DeedTheInky 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
"Right now" being the key phrase. For somebody in their 20's who was interested in doing this it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to imagine living another 60+ years, and who knows what they'll be able to do with cryogenics then?
Of course, that raises the issue of being resurrected as an 80-year-old, which is a whole other thing...
Technology keeps advancing while you're frozen. So long as you're frozen in a way that preserves the relevant information in your brain (and we don't know exactly what that is yet), it seems reasonable to assume that technology will eventually exist to bring you back. Of course, the better freezing technology gets, the less time you may have to wait - that is, if you get iced today then it might be 200 years before we have the tech to bring you back, but if you get iced in 60 years then you might only have to wait 40 years (so 100 from now) before they can bring you back.
[–]DeedTheInky 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
And of course, there's nothing that says you have to commit to the idea right now. I'm 31 right now, so if I'm especially lucky I might be around 50 years from now. But I'm sure that in 20-30 years we'll have a much better idea of where this technology is headed.
[–]Anderkent 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Sure, but you do take a risk of being in an accident and needing freezing urgently.
So, since it's not very expensive, why not sign up now, and steer safe of the risk.
(that said, I'm not signed up yet either)
[–][deleted] 7 months ago*
I don't think they'll bring me back if they don't know how to get it right. I'm not going to volunteer to be a guinea pig.
In general, of course there's the possibility for massive negative utility, but that's true every time I step out the door. I haven't killed myself yet to avoid the risk of something bad happening, and I'm not opting out of cryo to avoid that risk either.
[–]lalib 6 points7 points8 points 7 months ago
This might interest you, cooling a patient to 10 C then performing surgery.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8024991/Patients-to-be-frozen-into-state-of-suspended-animation-for-surgery.html
Since I suspect you're looking for future-looking speculation rather than what we can do now, while I know this is a biased source, here's Alcor's library of articles about the science behind cryopreservation, complete with some rather interesting citations for research I didn't know about before I read this.
[–]IndianaTakes 13 points14 points15 points 7 months ago
Anna Bagenholm is about as close as we've come to my knowledge. Link
Which is interesting, but not terribly relevant. Actual freezing causes massive physical damage that doesn't happen in hypothermia.
[–]bokassa 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
The doctor that treated her is also quite interesting.
[–]joke-away 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
Here's a swath of literature on the subject.
[–]gathmoon 17 points18 points19 points 7 months ago
There are certain species of wood frog that do naturally already. If we could figure out how to take a page out of their biology who knows. This is just my opinion, but i don't think anything is impossible, we just have not figured it out yet.
[–]HyperAnthony 5 points6 points7 points 7 months ago
Could you elaborate on the Wood Frogs?
[–]cuginhamer 14 points15 points16 points 7 months ago
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/costanzo-cryobiology.html From that source: Q: Hi, Jon. I was wondering if the same mechanism is possible in human beings? I mean, we've all seen the movies where people are frozen and preserved, then allowed to "thaw" and carry on normally many years later. But is this possible? Is there something about the frog's anatomy that allows it to do this?
Thanks, Anonymous
Costanzo: Currently it's not possible to revive frozen humans, and the technical difficulties of adding and withdrawing cryoprotectants and of achieving controlled freezing and thawing of a large, intact body could be insurmountable. However, that's not to say that a greater variety of human tissues and organs couldn't be successfully cryopreserved. Cryomedical research has historically relied on mammalian models for experimentation, even though these tissues do not naturally experience cold. The wood frog and several other amphibians and reptiles obviously have "solved" not only the problem of freezing individual tissues and organs, but also that of simultaneously freezing all organ systems. Who knows what might be achieved if we learn more about natural mechanisms of freeze tolerance and use this information to guide efforts to cryopreserve human tissues and organs?
[–]gathmoon 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I actually have never seen this special. The topic was something we went over in my comparative animal physiology class. thanks for sharing :).
[–]legendairy -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 months ago
I just can't take a name like Costanzo serisouly, I mean the dude sleeps under his desk.
[–]spaceribs 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
So theoretically we could genetically alter ourselves to have the same natural cryoprotectants coursing through our blood?
[–]gathmoon 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Gene therapy has tons of potential so who knows
[–]elux 4 points5 points6 points 7 months ago
GMU economist Robin Hanson estimates the probability.
[–]MacEWork 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
That's one of the most arbitrary "analyses" I've ever seen. It makes the Drake Equation look precise.
[–]Anneal 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Cryonics: Hi, Frozen Body! from the Stuff You Should Know podcast from howstuffworks.com
[–]Kertelen 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Not yet.
Cave Johnson, we're done here.
[–]rob364 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
I don't think it's possible to have a rational conversation about future technologies. Imagine cavemen talking about iphones??? It's just plain ridiculous. So we have no idea either way.
Saying that, depending on how much money you have it seems like a no brainer to get frozen.
Not really. The process of freezing someone causes irreversible cell ruptures due to the way ice crystallized (tiny needles).
A lot of research is going into finding ways to reduce this (chemicals like cryoprotectants), and cause ice to form more amorphously, but it's still along way off from being applicable to an entire organism. I'm not an expert in this, but there was an excellent lecture I saw about a year ago that covered this kind of thing. If I can find the notes I'll dig them up for you.
[–]IvebeenstimulatedFermentation Chemistry|Green Chemistry 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
No. The problem is there is not just one type of ice
[–]SgtTechCom 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
You'd also need to know in great detail how the brain works too if you want to reanimate it right?
[–]e000 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
What about the nervous system/brain. How would those be restarted? It seems like all sorts of electrical energy would be gone. What exactly does that mean? How is it restarted?
[–]panda-est-iciAgricultural Science 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kaph2/what_is_the_science_behind_cryogenic_freezing_of/
[–]ElliotofHull 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
After you pay to be frozen how long do they keep you frozen for?
[–]mrmadagascar[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Presumably until your deposit runs out...or until your living family won't pay anymore?
[–]J0ltLaser Cooling and Trapping 1 point2 points3 points 7 months ago
Both of the big names, Alcor and CI, have a large trust funded by membership fees, donations, and of course, the price they charge when they take you on as a patient, and these trusts can be expected to last a very long time. Bulk LN2 is rather cheap.
[–]ThereOnceWasAMan 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
I think someone watches Castle.
[–]aazav 0 points1 point2 points 7 months ago
Fine. Downvote me, but I ask this, please offer one example where it HAS been shown to work.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]oldgreg88Water Resources|Eco-Hydraulics 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]32koala 144 points145 points146 points ago
[–]Obi_Kwiet 93 points94 points95 points ago
[–]32koala 38 points39 points40 points ago*
[–]arcrad 43 points44 points45 points ago
[–]Canuck147Genetics|Cell Signalling|Plant Biology 63 points64 points65 points ago
[–]SquareRoot 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]Baeocystin 15 points16 points17 points ago*
[–]_delirium 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Talaknor 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Robopuppy 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]Robopuppy 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]arcrad 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]strayclown 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]jabies 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]tatertosh 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Murrabbit 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]TwystedWebCell Biology|Stem Cell Biology|Molecular Pathogenesis 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atrus6 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]master_of_none 22 points23 points24 points ago
[–]Askol 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]captainhaddock 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]AtheismFTW 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]giziti 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]Askol 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]master_of_none 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]samsari 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MrSparkle666 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]nshepperd 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IrinotecanHCL 35 points36 points37 points ago
[–]32koala 36 points37 points38 points ago
[–]IrinotecanHCL 55 points56 points57 points ago
[–]adremeaux 28 points29 points30 points ago
[–]Ryplinn 61 points62 points63 points ago
[–]k113 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]yurigoul 35 points36 points37 points ago
[–]k113 5 points6 points7 points ago*
[–]sLayed 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]yurigoul 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NSNick 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]jabies 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]otakucode 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Ryplinn 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Cyrius 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]DeanOfScience 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Ryplinn 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Cyrius -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Ryplinn 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheMilkMang 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Cyrius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TheMilkMang 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]econleech 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]Jumpy89 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]fortune_cell 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]bdunderscore 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]econleech 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]adremeaux 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]econleech 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]earynspieir 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BurlyMayes 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]econleech 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BurlyMayes 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]econleech 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]TheMilkMang 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Kardlonoc 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]adremeaux 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]gibs 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]adremeaux 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]puffybaba 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]freedomgeek 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]murderofcrows 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]adremeaux 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Zyxil 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BitRex 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]legendairy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IrinotecanHCL 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]nshepperd 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]nuclear_cheese 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]J0ltLaser Cooling and Trapping 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]panda-est-iciAgricultural Science 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]koreth 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]lolocoster 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Ontheroadtonowhere 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]fungasmonkey 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]expreshion 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Antebios 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]puffybaba 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]32koala 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Robopuppy 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]telStatistics|Machine Learning|Acoustic Modeling|Language Modeling 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]32koala 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]telStatistics|Machine Learning|Acoustic Modeling|Language Modeling 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]antonivs 6 points7 points8 points ago*
[–]_delirium 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mrmadagascar[S] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]32koala 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]fungasmonkey 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]32koala 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]krangksh 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]85_B_Low 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]32koala 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ForLackOfPayment 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]32koala 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]reddelicious77 6 points7 points8 points ago*
[–][deleted] ago
[–]reddelicious77 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]BusStation16 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 62 points63 points64 points ago*
[–]OnVeryThinIce 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SkepticalMartian 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]letsRACEturtles 26 points27 points28 points ago
[–]Quarkster 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Theon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SkepticalMartian -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]zBard 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]SkepticalMartian 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]zBard 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–]SkepticalMartian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SkepticalMartian 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]M59Gar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DeedTheInky 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DeedTheInky 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Anderkent 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago*
[–]endtimeRobotics|Artificial Intelligence 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]lalib 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]J0ltLaser Cooling and Trapping 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]IndianaTakes 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]Cyrius 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bokassa 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]joke-away 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]gathmoon 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]HyperAnthony 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]cuginhamer 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]gathmoon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]legendairy -5 points-4 points-3 points ago
[–]spaceribs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gathmoon 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]elux 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]MacEWork 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Anneal 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Kertelen 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]rob364 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SuperSoggyCerealOrganic Chemistry|Multicomponent Reactions|Green Chemistry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]IvebeenstimulatedFermentation Chemistry|Green Chemistry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SgtTechCom 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]e000 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]panda-est-iciAgricultural Science 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ElliotofHull 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]mrmadagascar[S] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]J0ltLaser Cooling and Trapping 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ThereOnceWasAMan 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]aazav 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–][deleted] ago