X-Message-Number: 25506 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:35:44 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #25484 - #25487 A late and brief reply to Mathew Sullivan: You've recently spoken several times of "wetware" as if its obviously inferior to -- what? "dryware"? First, as someone who has spent some time studying how brains work, I'll point out that growth and self repair are presently a defect of anything which isn't "wetware". Sure, computer designers have made attempts in that direction, but they've hardly equalled our present wetware. And then, on top of that, one need only read about the use of molecular biology to design nano- technological devices (solar cells, computer parts, etc) than it becomes at least reasonable to wonder whether "dryware" will continue to reign supreme in computing and perhaps in many other areas, too. And if you wish to argue the opposite, I must ask: why does it really matter? We want to improve ourselves, and whether or not a change is an improvement constitutes the crucial question. If, for instance, our understanding and control of "wetware" grows enough that we can clearly make wetware far in advance of silicon, why not improve yourself with that wetware and consider all the hard, dry devices we have now as those of a primitive technology now surpassed. Best wishes and long long life to all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25506