X-Message-Number: 13334
From: 
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:03:10 +1000
Subject: Nanotech matters

Message #13327
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: Re: predictions of cryonics' future
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 100 11:12:52 +1100 (EST)

Hi everyone!

I note that at least one (and probably several) writers for this last
Cryonet have decided that we are totally ignorant and the notions that

1. Current research might greatly improve our suspensions
2. Research has gone much further than 15yrs ago in explaining just how
   brains work and thus we can use this information both for revival and
   (possibly) for choosing just what must be preserved

are both conjectures.
*Actually Thomas, it is not about ignorance it is about correct representation.
If something like this is presented as fact or in many instances it is not made
clear that this is merely a subjective opinion, then it is misrepresentation.
There has been a lot of very cleverly written posts here that very neatly avoid
presenting their case as fact but at the same time leave one with the feeling

that they are. Close examination and scrutiny will usually clear these posts but
a typical reader will not go through this process. You are assuming everyone
here including all newbies will ruthlessly root out the facts from opinions - I
don't!

Now if you were so bold as to post such conjectures about Nanotech, you would be

cut down in no time - you would be accused of religious fanaticism and summarily
dismissed. What about a balance where each side posts clearly showing what is
opinion and in return each side does not cut down the others posts.


Message #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.
*Oh dear, have we mere mortals awakened the G_ds from their slumber? Are you
rude just on Cryonet or is it a built in personality trait?

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.

*So if Drexler said it, it must be true. The top IC designers said they couldn't
fashion circuits any smaller than a certain threshold - physics and quantum
effects would cause this limit - today millions of IC are used with components
considerably smaller than this threshold  and getting smaller. Just how many
researches do you think Drexler had in his team dealing with this particular
problem and how many years and billions of dollars went into researching this
issue? Ever thought of using information from people such as Drexler as a guide
and based on all you own personal knowledge and understandings drawing your own
conclusions?

For similar reasons, the Mars rover was autonomous in many respects.
*The issue of the Mars rover was not about bandwidth at all, it was about the
time delay between here and Mars. Very poor analogy.

Personally, if I'm going to make that
kind of bet, I'd like to increase the odds in my favour. 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.
*Please explain what technology you are going to use to restore you bodily
structure from what will be slightly more coarse mush than it might have been.
If not Nanotech, please give me some indication about what area of technology
you are relying on.

Of course, Drexler's ideas may turn out to be unnecessarily conservative
(although I have never heard anyone suggest this).
*Because they keep quiet for fear of being brandished a religious fanatic. Most
work in this field is highly speculative including Drexlers but Drexlers words
as "Father of Nanotech" go unchallenged as speculation against speculation does
not usually change opinions.

Chris Benatar contributes this gem:
*I'm glad you value it.....

> So the fashion has come about that it is cool to bash Nanotechnology. It is
much
> more believable 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.
*I believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4, in fact I am so convinced that I am going to
stick with what I believe in and defend it. I guess that makes me a numeric

religious fanatic!! Now if someone can present me with INDISPUTABLE FACTS to the
contrary.....
If 2 people are presented with the same set of facts, and they both review them
consider them and draw conclusions from them, the one named Charles will be
correct and the one named Chris will be a religious fanatic - it's obvious!!

Charles was this really the best defence you could come up with against my whole
post? Does this mean you agree with my comments? Perhaps a couple of sighs and
you will be up to the job.

Regards to the list

Chris Benatar


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13334