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