X-Message-Number: 11729
From: Eugene Leitl <>
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: On Certain Irrelevant Posts [Davpascal]
References: <>

CryoNet writes:

 > what it is  till the patents are sorted out is perhaps not so fine.  Even
 > less fine is  what sounded to me like the implication in his post that
 > current ischemic  damage is so extensive that it can't be repaired.  Says
 > who?  Other  scientists who have examined the issue - most notably Ralph

Perhaps you should actually go out and have a look at actual typical EM
photographs of cryopreserved neurotissue. There is no question that
some of damage can't be repaired -- the question is rather 'how much
structural information do we need for reconstruction of a person with
sufficient fidelity'. With possible exception of certain rabbits what
I've seen so far is not exactly encouraging. Nanotechnology is not
magick. If the information is not there, all it can do is invent a
plausible fake. However, cryonics isn't supposed to be about
construction of vaguely similiar personalities, but reproduction of
the true thing.

 > Merkle and Eric  Drexler - believe that it can. Darwin is perhaps failing

Ralph Merkle and Eric Drexler are very bright men with many talents,
however, I don't happen to think that their background in cryobiology and
molecular neuroscience is very extensive.

 > to make a  distinction between the avoidance of ischemic damage (his
 > specialty), and the  repair of ischemic damage - the latter being
 > (admittedly) a topic very few  people indeed have worked on, Mike Darwin
 > not I think being one of them.  

What amazes me most on CryoNet is 1) the perpetual flagellation of greasy 
spots where, once upon a time, there happened to lie a dead horse and 2)
adamant conviction in the face of a severe dearth of data.

Your mileage may vary, but I find it, what? Frustrating? Yes, but
mostly boring.

Regards,
Eugene Leitl

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11729