X-Message-Number: 5268
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
From:  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Mind Uploading -> No revival of cryonics patients
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 10:59:57 GMT
Message-ID: <>

References: <46q9ef$> <> 
<> <>

In article <>, Brian Wowk <> wrote:
>	Even today I solve problems on my desktop that would have
>tied up the entire mathematical/scientific establishment of the 19th
>Century for decades.  Unfortunately (for my prestige:) these problems
>now fall into a class of problems that at the end 20th Century      
>are regarded as trivial.  So it will be with biomedical nanotech
>at the end of 22nd Century (in the unlikely event that it's not
>created sooner).  With increasing knowledge and information 
>processing power, ANY finite task will eventually require an 
>arbitrarily small amount of effort (compared to the total available)
>if you wait long enough.

Now I understand why when I explain cryonics to people they think the
cryonicists are extremely over optimistic.   There is a reason that
the problems you can solve today are regarded as trivial.  There are
still problems from the 19th century that we *don't* now how to solve
yet, or ones that our better minds just solved recently in complex
ways, such as Fermat's last theorem.   There will continue to be
problems from the 19th century they can't solve in the 24th.

We have no idea which of our modern day problems will be considered
trivial in 200 years.  Some will, some won't, that's about all we can
say.   About the only thing we do know is that long-distance futurists are,
by and large, wrong.   At least based on their track record.  We can only hope.

The hope is good, of course, but one thing I have noticed about many of
the famous "wrong" predictions was that they turned out to be wrong not
necessarily because of technology but because of economics.  The answer
is often not "we can't do that" but rather "it woudl be expensive to do that"
or "the market doesn't want that enough to pay for it."

I'm actually confident that, presuming we are preserving brains right today,
cryonics can happen *if* it uses technology that is in general demand.
I'm much less confident that it will happen if it needs super-specialized
technology.   That revival workers will be dedicated, of this I have no
doubt.   And it's even possible that this technology will reach a level
that one person in their virtual lab can put it all together because the
virtual labs are at such an astounding level that they make our modern
labs look like child's block sets.   I don't consider this likely, however.

I do consider the development of medical nanotechnology a probable event.
Indeed, short of governments banning it, I don't know if there's a technology
the world desires more, since it offers indefinite life and good health.
(And minor things like feeding the world and unlimited manufacturing capacity.)

In fact, the only things I can imagine stopping the world from pushing
for medical nanotechnology with all its might are the bans of the anti-nano
forces, the destruction of society or the world, or an end to biological
bodies.   Of course there are more things in Heavean and Earth than are
imagined in my philosophy.   Cryonicists actually like to tell people this
but they also forget it.
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	 
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper		     http://www.clari.net/brad/
		...Announcing 1 MILLION paid subscribers! (www.clari.net)

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5268