X-Message-Number: 13324 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:03:27 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: nanopower > From: "Paul Michael" <> > It may not be a requirement that nano machines will require high > levels of "on board" computing power. They may simply need to be able > to communicate with such an entity. Sigh. As I pointed out in a previous message, Drexler himself has acknowledged in his books that the bandwidth for communication between the assemblers and any external computing engine is likely to be limited. This limits the ability of the outside computer to see what the assemblers see, and tell them precisely what to do. For similar reasons, the Mars rover was autonomous in many respects. To Robert Ettinger: How kind of you to remind us of your essay on probability theory. But no one has ever suggested there are any certainties in cryonics, so far as I am aware. The big question is whether the odds are good enough, right now, for you to bet your life on them. Personally, if I'm going to make that kind of bet, I'd like to increase the odds in my favor. Research is only one of many methods to achieve this goal. A well-qualified standby team is another option. Good monitoring equipment for terminal patients is another. Liquid ventilation to achieve rapid initial cooling is another. A properly controlled cryoprotective perfusion is another. And so on. During the past two decades, we have seen progress in all these areas--none of it coming from CI. Regarding nanotechnology, as usual you mischaracterize what has been said, before refuting it. I don't think anyone has been trying to "guess the future of nanotechnology," as you put it. In my own posts I have discussed published statements by Drexler regarding the onboard computing power that he believes is feasible. I debated whether the system outlined by Drexler would be adequate to make repairs if significant damage had occurred on the cellular level. Of course, Drexler's ideas may turn out to be unnecessarily conservative (although I have never heard anyone suggest this). Alternatively, some other technique, completely different from nanotechnology, may be developed to repair the brain. But the question remains: Are you happy to bet your life on it? Chris Benatar contributes this gem: > So the fashion has come about that it is cool to bash Nanotechnology. It is much > more believeable that we just need U$10 million and we will have reversible > Cryonics within 10 years - yeah sure!!! If everyone wants to sit and play > nodding dog with the "authorities" on this then that is their business but I am > still going to stick with what I believe in and defend it. I am not going to > fall for the Religion claims since it clearly works both ways. Indeed it does. "Stick with what I believe and defend it" is a mindset clearly closer to religion than science. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13324