X-Message-Number: 11742
From: Eugene Leitl <>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Kibitzers, Leitl, Crevier [Ettinger]
References: <>

CryoNet writes:

 > Message #11736
 > From: 

 > Either on the basis of historical analogy or on the basis of detailed 

 > analysis, a very good case can be made that--for example--Merkle's background
  > in nanotech theory and in cryptography are much more relevant than the 
 > background of any biologist.
 
I was speaking about _irreversible information loss_ due to scrambling of
the tissue. That there is severe information loss is obvious to any who
cares to take a look at the EM photographs -- a lot of the structure has been
altered in a non-backtrackable manner. Lacking detailed three-dimensional 
data it is difficult to define a metric, however the qualitative
statement itself is accurate enough for anyone who cares to look.
 
 > On the one hand, we have countless examples of experts who were wrong about 
 > near-term developments in their own fields--explosive experts who said a 
 > nuclear bomb couldn't work, engineers who said an airplane couldn't fly, 
 > surgeons who said anaesthesia could never work, ad nauseam. 
 
Do you think arguments from information theory are inapplicable?
Here's a bit vector large parts of which have been altered by a truly
stochastic process. Please show me a procedure which lets me retrieve
at least parts of the original vector. (Arguments like "we don't know
how large a fraction of the original information we need" and "the
process is not truly stochastic, with powerful enough computers we
backtrack that" do not apply because _qualitatively_ the alteration
looks bad enough to render them nilpotent).


 > On the other hand, both cryptography and nano-engineering are intimately tied
  > to the prospect of retrieving information and making repairs in any 
 > biological system--and it matters very little whether "biology" is prefixed 
 > by "cryo" or "neuro" or anything else.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume we have nanotechnology
which can make a molecular-resolution map of the original crypreserved
tissue, perform arbitrary calculations upon that dataset and build the 
result at room temperature or at least devitrify it quickly enough it
doesn't make a large difference. (Something like that may be indeed very
well possible).

How is this going to help if (amplified for the sake of argument) I
use the kitchen mixer to stir up your brains prior to suspension?

-- Eugene Leitl

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11742