X-Message-Number: 2731
From:  (Thomas Donaldson)
Subject: CRYONICS Re: The role of Nanotechnology
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 11:57:35 -0700 (PDT)

Hi again!

For Ben's sake, here are my problems with Nanotechnology (but note carefully
that I have no problems with nanotechnology):

We know that suspensions carried out even with the best current technology do
damage the brain of the suspendee. Presently we have almost NO DATA on the
degree of that damage. If we seriously want to be suspended (as a matter of
science rather than simple faith) then we should be working hard to first,
find out what damage occurs, and second, find means to lessen it, at least
far enough that we can plausibly say that future technology will be able to
carry out the repair. 

And that last sentence is crucial. I have posted previously (and hope that it
will eventually appear in cryonics) a discussion of ONE of the problems 
required PRESENTLY for repair: to be able to take a brain shattered by 
freezing into lots of little bits and pieces, and find out how those bits and
pieces fit together. If we calculate the computer workload on this problem 
ASSUMING A TOTAL ABSENCE OF CLUES, then it ends up so vast that repair has
no possibility at all. But of course we know even now that there will be clues
to how that damaged brain fit together. Will those clues be enough? That is
the key question. 

And that question requires and admits work NOW to solve it, and also to find
out ways to make the whole problem go away (viz Greg Fahy's vitrification 
work). Despite the pseudoscientific gloss they put on their beliefs, what
bothers me most about Nanotechnologists is that they leave this issue as a 
simple matter of faith. As someone who has thought for a long time about
computer algorithms, I will say that given ANY computer of ANY finite size
it is not difficult to find a problem which will take it any arbitrary length
of time, up into trillions of years, or else simply be unworkable on it because
it is too small. There is no justification for the faith Nanotechnologists
show in the ability of nanotechnology. And in fact, a lot of the literature
written by Nanotechnologists smells as if it was brought over bodily from
Christianity with a few of the names changed.

If cryonics becomes a religion (which depends on faith alone) we are all lost.
Suspension is NOT a sacrament, it is a medical act carried out with the best
means we know how. And it behooves us to work out even better means, at least
until we know enough to be confident that the INFORMATION required for 
revival still remains. I note that few Nanotechnologists (again, note the
capitals) seem interested in supporting such work. They would much rather 
hear about the wonders of nanotechnology and the future it will produce.

I am a cryonicist not because I believe that my revival will NECESSARILY
happen but because I believe that cryonics is now my best chance at avoiding
death ... and the word "chance" here was deliberate. As someone with such a
belief, I am not at all happy with people who blithely behave as if they need
do nothing at all toward advancing present suspension methods. And yes, I
would agree with Paul Wakfer that such people are poisoning cryonics.

Finally, as for nanotechnology (not capitalized) I will say that so long as
I am revived, the means are irrelevant to me. The most advanced form of 
nanotechnology currently available comes from molecular biology; and I
even believe that this may turn out sufficient. If not, I would hope that
those who are working on developing other forms which do NOT directly
come from molecular biology will continue their efforts. However, I do
not see these efforts as bearing directly on the major scientific problems
of current cryonics. If I must choose, I would choose the latter ... and I
hope that I will not have to choose.

I hope that this screed explains my opinions and feelings about both 
nanotechnology the engineering science and Nanotechnology the incipient 
religion.
			Long long life,
				Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2731