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