<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anders wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Brett Paatsch wrote:<BR>>><I> Do you know of anyone that is not also
a believer in cryonics that thinks<BR></I>><I> >machine-phase chemistry is
(a) credible at all thermodynamically,<BR></I><BR>> I wouldn't call me a
cryonics disbeliever, but I definitely think machine<BR>> phase chemistry is
thermodynamically credible. Whether it is efficient<BR>> enough to be useful
is another matter.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay, let me ask you straight then. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Saying you wouldn't </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>call yourself a disbeliever doesn't amount to a positive</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>asserting of belief</FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>. You could be a sceptic or agnostic on the matter. Let
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>me invite you off the fence. W<FONT face=Arial
size=2>ould you classify yourself as a believer in</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2>cryonics? </FONT>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My point about the caveat against believers btw is
that believers reason</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>differently and argue differently - by differently
I mean fundamentally </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>dishonestly and evasively. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On what basis do you </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>think machine phase chemistry is "definately" </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thermodynamically credible? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm assuming you are aware of Smalleys </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>fat and sticky fingers criticisms of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Drexler. Life </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>molecules like proteins </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>assemble in
compartments containing</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>water. </FONT> <FONT face=Arial
size=2>Machine </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>phase chemistry </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>as I </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>understand it </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>is essentially </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>watery-solution free chemistry. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>Without a watery solution </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>how do you see</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>machine phase chemistry </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>managing the folding of proteins? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR>><I> > and<BR></I>><I> > (b) can construct a cell
even in principle?<BR></I>> ><I><BR></I>><I> >Cell[s] grow from the
inside out, not the outside in. I think the fatal flaw<BR></I>><I> >in the
whole nano-medicine thing is that you can't assemble the
components<BR></I>><I> >of a cell - lipids, proteins, *ions* placed
to drive ion pumps, from the<BR></I>><I> >outside at any temperature no
matter how cold. Cells being made of<BR></I>><I> >biological stuff only
behave as cells within the engineering constraints<BR></I>><I> >of their
biological stuff. ie. Temperature matters. Temperature
affects<BR></I>>><I> the properties of the materials.<BR></I><BR>>Given
that frozen cells can be thawed with viability intact,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've frozen and thawed cells. Have you?
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've not personally frozen embryos but that can be
done too, also not reliably</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in the case of a single embryo, as I understand -
but that we (people, scientists)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>can do it at all speaks to the robustness of
life in *simple* forms and yet says</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>nothing </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>at all about
the freezing of organs like brains. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>We
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>can't </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>do organs. I
think</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I recall </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eugen
saying Greg Fahy is interested in that (perhaps kidneys). </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>It is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>important to get that the brain </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>is an organ of a multicellular life form. It </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>grows as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a result of the actions of cells </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>but it isn't just a big lump of cells. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>I know you </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>know</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>that as a neuroscience guy </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>but I don't know how well you </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>know that and I don't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>accept expertise on the part </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>of others until I see </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>evidence
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>of it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't think its (organs like kidneys have been
done). I'd want to see a peer </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>reviewed journal to give it </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>(say a kidney thawing) </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>credit as having
been really</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>been done because </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>scientists too are excellent at kidding </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>themselves. Thats</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>why peer review matters it helps take out the
garbage. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> it seems that<BR>> first building a frozen cell and then
warming it would be a feasible way<BR>> of doing it. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Though we can grow </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>cells in quantity in </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>E.coli, we can't
build as opposed to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>growing a just a single frozen </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>cell. A growing cell can preserve the
integrity</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of mitochondrial membranes. You can't do that
working from the outside</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to built the membrane. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We can produce in vitro cell free systems to do
research on. We can create</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>liposomes - lipid enclosed spheres that aren't
cells. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>But we can't create a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>living cell as a manufacturing
process. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At this stage, we, science, don't know how for
instance the first </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>cell that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>was the progenitor of all life on earth formed. Not
exactly. We don't </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>even</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>know that much in principle yet. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Cells are pretty robust (otherwise they wouldn't survive,
and<BR>> temperature changes and thermal noise would instantly kill them), so
you<BR>> only need to get close enough to the attractor state(s) that
correspond to<BR>> a working cell to get it to spontaneously do the final
pieces of<BR>> selforganisation.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"only" "attractor state(s) that
correspond to a working cell" :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So talk to me like a cell biologist. Tell me your
protocol or point me to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a peer reviewed paper. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"attractor state(s) that correspond to a working
cell" sounds like </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>believer psuedo-explanation handwaving to me.
</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>That you need a lot of information to
place the macromolecules right and<BR>> get the right concentrations of small
molecules is just messy brute force<BR>> issues. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You say that as though you have done it. But you
haven't actually done it</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>have you. Had you done it you'd have had a lead
paper in Science and </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nature. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I know something about in vitro cell free systems
but I don't </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>know what </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you know. Show me that you know something relevant.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That sort of handwaving is highly characteristic
of what </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>transhumanists </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>do when they prentend to actually discuss
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>technology. It works to give</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the illusion of knowledge without demonstrating
any. It poo poos whats</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>necessary to be done without either demonstrating
that it has been</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>done and without giving a protocol that
demonstrates that it can be</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>done even in principle.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Transhumanists talk about technology with the
same disrespect for the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>difference between actual and real <FONT
size=+0>as </FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>religious
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>people. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> See it as a ridiculously detailed form of 3D printing, where you
want</DIV>
<DIV>> to write prepared molecules into a matrix of frozen water. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Handwaving. Show me a paper or a protocol.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>To have a realistic chance of doing it right you first need to have
scanned</DIV>
<DIV>> a cell, </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With current technology, cryo EM one can't scan a
single cell. You scan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>lots </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>of them and get
an aggregated averaged out picture. Fair warning </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>handwaving about future </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>technology will prompt me to want to see what you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>know about the relevant </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>small scale physics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> picking it apart molecule by molecule and recording the locations
and<BR>> type. If that can be done piling them together seems to be equally
hard.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I disagree. I think it is much much harder. I even
think it is impossible. Because</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you have to get your manufacturing fingers around
the cell clusters whilst the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cells in the centre of the cluster have to be
at the right temperature to act like</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cells and bind to the other cells. And once they
are like that they will start to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>die faster than your manufacturing fingers can
build more cells onto the seed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cells. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Putting
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>together any old cell, (assembling</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it like a manufacturing process not growing it like
in cell culture) rebuilding </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>a </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>single celled </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>organism say that functions </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>like a single
celled organism, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>(eats,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>moves, divides to replicate) - that would
be </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the Science or Nature paper of
the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>year in which it was done. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You know something of neuroscience if I recall
correctly. What you know</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>though in practice </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
don't know. Please feel free to impress me. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Your brain and mine </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>would at one level be variations on the theme of homo</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>sapiens male brains. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>But what makes me me and you you is in the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>nanoscale </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>details.
Knowing how to build Bretts brain as a manufacturing </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>process wouldn't give you an </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>algorithm for building an Anders brain. At the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>nanoscale where the synapse make their connections
our individual brains</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>would be too different. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anders brain structure </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>isn't in a planned manufactured construction of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anders genes its far more </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>haphazard than that. Its the result of one-time</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>only environmental </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>interrelationships between the </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anders
genome and the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>environement the Anders genome found itself in as
the genome directed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anders cells to grow, divide and built organs
including Anders brain. </FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>
<DIV><BR>> Maybe it would be worthwhile doing a careful critique of
nanoscale<BR>> dissassemblers?</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Biological or theoretical? What nanoscale
dissassemblers are you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>talking about? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Scientists are doing basic discovery of the
machines that are part of </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>biological systems as part of contemporary
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>science. We are still trying</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to discover at the molecular level how the
machinery </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>of the cell works so</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>that we don't have to settle for handwaving
pretend knowledge. We haven't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>done it yet. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>><I> > In cryonics the emulation of the structure one would want to
resolve is<BR></I>><I> > the structure of ones own brain. Can't do that.
Thermodynamics and<BR></I>><I> > the requirement to work from outside in
won't allow it.<BR></I><BR>> What is the thermodynamical problem you are
refering to?<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Are you familiar with Smalleys fat and sticky
fingers objections to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Drexler? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Inside cells, biomolecules, proteins assemble
and fold into the right shapes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in water. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Proteins won't fold </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the way they do out of
water. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Change either the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>material</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> you
are working with, what you are using as proteins and RNAs
to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>construct your molecular machines, ribosomes,
spliceosomes, signal recognition</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>particles, various chaperones and enzymes or
the watery environment and you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>change </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the
physics and chemistry that is the only physics and chemistry that we
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>know </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>works because
not because we understand it at molecular detail yet. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2> </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We do know that you need working membrane bilayers
for cells to work. You</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>can't have working membrane bilayers if the
bilayers are breached and the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ions inside can get outside. This isn't a problem
when organisms grow as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>they start out as a few cells that do the
manufacturing of later cells working</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>from inside the membrane bilayers. The chemistry of
lipids doesn't allow you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to have working bilayers below normal temperatures
for life. Having to do</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>your manufacturing from the outside doesn't allow
you to have unbroken</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>lipid layers as its the lipid layers around
organelles that you are having to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>build in the first place because you are
manufacturing not growing the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cells. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>I can see a heat problem from lots of
nanosystems working, so they have to<BR>> be cooled and/or slowed down -
which may make the process very slow.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dunno what you mean. Only working
nanoSYSTEMS I know of are biological</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ones the others are purely speculative (fanciful
even). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Merkle's paper suggested a three year process of scanning and </DIV>
<DIV>> rebuilding.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>assuming you are
referring to the Molecular Repair of the Brain. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Merkle's </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>paper was gently worked over by Fahy who apparently
knows what a science</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>paper looks </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>like and
wasn't so frustrated with Merkle that he gave up on him.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The kindest </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thing I will </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>say about that paper is it
isn't good enough, it isn't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>structured enough, </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>to be </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>even usefully wrong. Fahy didn't
critique Merkles</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>mess </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>which would
have required him to rewrite it first - he just rewrote </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>better one. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Because folks like Robert and Eugen kept referring
to the Merkle paper I thought</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>before reading it that as a service to fellow
students or truth seekers I might read</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it and give a critique, but I gave it </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>up as a task that I'd have to be paid to do </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>because the Merkle paper was so poorly
structured and because I couldn't trust</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>that he'd been honest with his referencing. From
memory I think I discovered mistakes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in his referencing that looked to be not just
mistakes but blatant misrepresentations</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of the sort that lose scientists their credibility.
I've had the same experience</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>reading some of Freitas stuff - where he
misrepresents the views of his critics,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>but less so. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When one encounters works that look like
pseudoscience like say intelligent </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>design, one has to be careful about providing
criticism that can be used to make</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the pseudoscience stronger. Drexlerian nanotech and
cryonics are in my opinion</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in the same sort of pseudoscience camp as
intelligent design. The believers so</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>much want to believe that they only collect facts
and criticisms that help them</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>make the superstructures of their beliefs more
solid. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its like what is really going on is that a bunch of
tech savvy don't want to die</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>folk have gotten together into a sort of group
religion where they reinforce each</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>others rationalisations and shore up each others
hopes. But the science doesn't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>go anywhere it is pseudoscience in fact because
there isn't enough honest </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>criticism and honest </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>truthseeking </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>in the enterprise.
</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>The desire to find a technical</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>solution to death drives the psychology of the folk
involved. Its like a bunch of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>engineers got struck by the religion lightening
bolt, had too much engineering</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>savvy to fall for the conventional religions and so
had to invent one of their own.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That I think is ultimately what transhumanism is.
Its not the successor to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>humanism </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>its a
cultural support system for cryonicists and technological</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>religious types that </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>can't find salvation in the normal religions. Thats why</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>transhumanism doesn't produce </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>anything except writers and entertainers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- although individual </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>transhumanists do produce some things those things are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in their capacities as people not as
transhumanists. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The wheels came off the transhumanist movement when
transhumanists did</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>not </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>take a strong
enough stand when US political conservatives turned into</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>religious </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>regressives. But I am digressing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>That a lot of entropy is being pushed
around (making unordered atoms into<BR>> an ordered cell) adds a bit to the
heat problem, but can still be managed<BR>> by slowing things down or
dividing the workpieces so that radiating the<BR>> entropy into the
environment is easy.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No offense Anders but conversation needs a lot more
credibility established</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>before we can do the handwavey stuff. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Time and again Drextech folk point at biological
systems and say see biology</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is nanotech. If nature can do it we can do it only
better. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But scientists are still learning at the molecular
detail how nature does what</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it does. We are still in discovery phase with
respect to natures machinery.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is religious-like faith to presume that (a) we
know all we really need to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>know about how nature has made its biological
machines work and (b) that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>we can replace those organic machines which operate
within physiological</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>temperature ranges with non-organic machines which
don't and yet which</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>we want to do the same sort of things with.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>That molecules are dancing around isn't
an enormous problem at -170, </DIV>
<DIV>> since the cryonic brain is essentially a crystal lattice with thermal
</DIV>
<DIV>> vibrations are on the order of 0.01 nm.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The resolution of electron microscopes are about 2
nanometres from memory</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>perhaps 0.2. Its not the state of the brain when
frozen as a block of tissue</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thats the (or rather a) problem its that each brain
is so massively unique in </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>its arborial </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>structures to very low resolutions. Lipid bilayers are only
around</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>6 nanometres thick and if the bilayers are breached
the ions leak and the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>organelle will not work. You have to be able
to manufacture to place your</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>lipids to that degree of precision whilst keeping
the heat out that would change</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the chemistry of the lipids. It can't be
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>done not. Not at the scale of
something</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>as large as the brain which doesn't have room
within itself for accessing service</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>bots. Nature didn't do it like that. Nature
grows her brains as one-offers she </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>doesn't manufacture </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>them and she doesn't build in service
laneways for repair.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That we do know. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>><I> > The whole cryonic idea at its best can only amount to
producing a<BR></I>><I> > *likeness* of someone that is missed to a degree
of detail that at best<BR></I>><I> > satisfies the person who is doing the
emulating. Its there sentimentality<BR></I>><I> > and degree of
discrimination which will inevitably be the determinant<BR></I>><EM> > of
any emulation as the to-be-emulation has no say in it.<BR></EM><BR>> (this
might be an argument against the identity argument rather than the<BR>> exact
contents in your post)<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Granted. I ranted. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You ask other questions in your post which are fair
ones and I drafted answers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to them but </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
can't spend more time on this right now so I'll post this much.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm studying </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>cell
biology currently. Actually I should be writting up my
research</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>project. </FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>I
mostly interested in seeing what you have </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>under
the bonnet as a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>neuroscientist rather than as a ethical philosopher
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>anyway. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brett </FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>