[extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?

[Keith Henson]

At 11:50 AM 4/17/2007 +1000, Brett wrote:

snip

>Okay, let me ask you straight then.

snip

>On what basis do you think machine phase chemistry is "definately"
>thermodynamically credible?

Better than 50 years of studying chemistry.  I studied organic (still have 
the textbook) when I was in the 9th grade.

>I'm assuming you are aware of Smalleys fat and sticky fingers criticisms of
>Drexler.

It took Drexler years, but Smalley came out second best in the December 
2003 Chemical and Engineering News which carried a 4 part debate exchanges. 
They are linked from Drexler's Wikipedia page.

>Life molecules like proteins assemble in compartments containing
>water.  Machine phase chemistry as I understand it is essentially
>watery-solution free chemistry.  Without a watery solution how do you see
>machine phase chemistry managing the folding of proteins?

Straw man.  It is unlikely you would build and fold proteins in a machine 
phase system.

You might note that I came to cryonics only *after* Drexler's work 
convinced me that machine phase chemistry, i.e., nanotechnology, was a very 
reasonable bet in the long run.

Keith