X-Message-Number: 33048 Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:15:04 -0800 Subject: Nanotechnological repair references From: Brian Wowk <> To further illuminate recent CryoNet discussions about nanotechnological repair of cryopatients, let me point on that in the Scientific Basis section of the Alcor's online Library http://www.alcor.org/Library/index.html#scientific there are a variety of articles about this subject, beginning with http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/MNTscenario.html which contains a bibliography at the end listing many articles about repair strategies for cryonics patients. The heat dissipation constraints in particular were worked out by Eric Drexler in a technical monograph that I saw in draft form about 25 years ago, although I'm not sure where or whether it was finally published. My recollection is that heat dissipation considerations limited the speed of comprehensive molecular repair of a brain to several months. Not coincidentally, this is the same order of magnitude as the time animals require to grow tissue masses of comparable size. This 1985 talk by Drexler http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/moleculartechnologycellrepairmachines.html in the excerpt below explicitly mentions that heat dissipation was quantitatively analyzed. Perhaps others can provide a technical reference. ---Brian >>>>>>>>> Let's return now to the more technical aspects of really thorough tissue repair. In the paper I've been working on, I go into a lot of detail regarding a more-or-less worst-case example of total-body cell repair. The assumption is that you have to rework all the molecular structures in every cell bit-by-bit, and that you aim to do this with systems that are entirely inside the cells. (I also discuss how to relax this second constraint.) In a cubic micron, you can construct the equivalent of a mainframe computer with a gigabyte of memory (I already mentioned that this is about as much information as the cell uses to construct itself in the first place). It turns out that you have enough computational cycles within the volume, time, and heat-dissipation constraints to identify all the macromolecules of the cell (even if they're moderately damaged), by using certain algorithms that can already be specified in fairly great detail. Since you can identify all the molecules, you can map the cell structures: the patterns that you recognize are type-tagged by the molecules they contain (i.e. if it contains tubulin, it's a microtubule). Since this tells us the type of structure, it makes it easier to know how to probe and further characterize the structure. You can get the machines into cells: white blood cells demonstrate that systems of molecular machinery can move through tissues. Viruses demonstrate that systems of molecular machinery can move through cell membranes to enter cells. The mobility of organelles inside cells demonstrates that systems of molecular machinery can move around inside the cell. The fact that cell biologists can stick needles into cells and do surgery on chromosomes and sometimes have the cells survive shows that things can enter cells and do even very crude manipulations without doing permanent damage in many cases. So you can get repair machines to the site of the damage. You can identify, take apart, and put back together molecular structures. Identification is demonstrated by molecular structures that can identify each other, as antibodies recognize proteins and so forth. For the "take apart" function, we have the direct analogy of digestive enzymes. As for assembling molecular structures -- well, these things were made by molecular machines in the first place, so again we have a direct analogy. So, again, and again, and again, you can go to a biological analogy and say, "We already know a process like this." If the overall process is orchestrated into a computer (which you can design to some degree of detail using direct calculations and scaling relationships) then it seems you have everything necessary to repair cells. I have, of course, only sketched the case here, but even these facts are enough to make the idea plausible. Eric Drexler, Lake Tahoe, 1985 Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33048