[extropy-chat] Cryonics is the only option?

Keith Henson hkhenson at rogers.com
Tue Apr 17 08:11:39 UTC 2007

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


>Okay, let me ask you straight then.


>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

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.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list