X-Message-Number: 13301
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:30:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Quick Reply to Steve Jackson

Steve Jackson is a very reasonable guy, and he's right that I may have
overstated my feelings in response to the "Don't worry, be happy"
Extropian mindset. The trouble is, Steve, one feels a bit desperate after
a while. If this were the first or even the tenth time I had seen someone
proclaim with a voice of authority that "nanotechnology will take care of
it," I'm sure I would reply in a very calm and measured manner. If the
nanotechnology true-believers would show any familiarity with the evidence
which is easily available in the form of photographs of damaged brain
tissue, and would concoct some kind of explanation as to the processes by
which such tissue might be reconstructed, I would be placated. (I refer
interested parties to Photo 8, for instance, at
http://www.jps.net/cryonics/21cm/p3.htm --the web site maintained by the
American Cryonics Society.) Note that while nanotechnology assumes
progress in the ability to build very small devices, it does not, so far
as I am aware, assume a very high level of onboard computing power in
these devices; and while remote computing power presumably will be very
powerful indeed, it will be forced to communicate with the assemblers via
relatively low-bandwidth connections. Therefore, the
nanotechnologists should be able to provide some ideas about
reconstruction techniques right now. I have never seen ANY serious attempt
in this direction, beyond vague statements that are not much different
from, "The knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, and that's what it's
all about." Of course we do have Ralph Merkle's rather wonderful paper
describing total disassembly and reassembly of the brain, but even he
admits that this would entail some formidable challenges; and even here
there is no attempt to discuss, for instance, the algorithms that will
guide 3D construction work. So far as I am aware, such algorithms do not
exist. At the Institute for Robotics at Carnegie Mellon, Hans Moravec--for
whom I have immense respect--is still working on the relatively simple
problem of getting a robot to roll around a house cluttered with everyday
objects. Since Hans now feels that really significant onboard computer
power is needed to accomplish this basic task without error (which is the
functional equivalent of a single assembler moving through the body
without actually doing anything), I would be very interested to learn how
the assembler is supposed to recognize and reconnected randomly scattered
biological fragments, using less onboard computing power than our current
desktop systems. There is a serious credibility gap, here.

Consequently, when I read breezy assurances that nanotechnology will save
us if we get a "halfway decent suspension," which in turn is presented as
a fait-accompli; and when the writer shows little if any awareness of the
daily problems associated with maintaining a cryonics organization and its
capabilities using volunteer labor...well, I get a bit impatient.

And getting back to Steve's letter, I don't see any virtue in suffering. I
just feel that the people who pay annual dues and assume they have bought
a ticket to the future are fooling themselves--and anyone else who is
naive enough to believe them.

--Charles Platt

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13301