<!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>From: "Anders Sandberg" <<A href="">asa@nada.kth.se</A>><BR><BR>Brett
Paatsch wrote:<BR></DIV>
<DIV>>> .. Would you classify yourself as a believer
in cryonics?<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT><BR>> I think that
cryonic suspension does preserve synaptic structure</DIV>
<DIV>> (when done right and fast enough) and that the frozen brain
contains</DIV>
<DIV>> enough information that it could in principle be
reconstructed. Given</DIV>
<DIV>> that the information loss is not total, that subcellular scanning
appears<BR>> physically feasible and a result of many development paths and
that </DIV>
<DIV>> there is a finite chance that a stored brain could end up in a
future</DIV>
<DIV>> where such scanning methods are present, I think that there is a
</DIV>
<DIV>> chance that at least some of current cryonics patients will end
up</DIV>
<DIV>> uploaded.<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT><BR>> Does that
make me a cryonics believer in your eyes?<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In my eyes, very probably. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In your first sentence above you <FONT
face=Arial size=2>didn't use the word believe or belief,</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2>you used
"think" implying actual r</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>eckoning. And I think your are sort</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of reckoning, (but largely intuiting),
however I</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2> am almost certain
that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you haven't </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>seen
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>for </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>a fact that
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>"cryonic suspension </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>preserves </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>synaptic</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>structures </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>when done
right </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>and fast enough" </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>because I am almost </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>certain that the </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>requisite </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>experiments
and </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>technology that would allow</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you to validly hold that </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>view, without allowing wishful thinking to sway</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you allocation of probabilities the unknowns,
don't exist </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>yet. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think you are doing a very typical human thing. I
think that when you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>are </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>confronted by a
complex matter with many aspects/variables in it</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>you are </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>allocating a
higher probability to those aspects/variables/unknowns</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>that </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>accord with
your desires </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>than is objectively warranted.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that if you and I continue to talk about
this that I will undermine</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>your faith/confidence in
cryonics. </FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>But that remains to be seen
;-) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>While I defend a lot of reconstruction
methods below, my heart is</DIV>
<DIV>> more in analysing scanning and emulation methods.<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT><BR>> > On what basis do you think machine phase
chemistry is</DIV>
<DIV>> >"definitely" thermodynamically credible?<BR>><BR>>
> I'm assuming you are aware of Smalleys fat and sticky fingers </DIV>
<DIV>> > criticisms of Drexler. Life molecules like proteins
assemble in</DIV>
<DIV>> > compartments containing water. Machine phase
chemistry as</DIV>
<DIV>> > I understand it is essentially watery-solution free
chemistry. </DIV>
<DIV>> > Without a watery solution how do you see machine phase
</DIV>
<DIV>> > chemistry managing the folding of proteins?<BR><BR>> You can
always build hybrids. One simple model would be to assemble<BR>> proteins in
a watery environment and then transfer them to a machine phase<BR>>
environment (with water around them, if needed) for assembly if you are<BR>>
(say) restoring a frozen brain.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would like to see you develop this line of
thinking but do it within a controlled</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>way where you can't handwave away known scientific
facts mostly facts about</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cell structure, function, size and shape that I
confront you </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>with. (ie. In
the other</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thread). You may use any creativity you can
get from anyone else but I propose</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to discuss this only with you because I won't have
time to deal with all the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>true believers. You have not yet lost my trust
unfortunately Robert who is </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>knowledgeable and whom I like has. So you can use
any of Roberts arguments</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>or references you like, but because I
have to manage my time as a limited </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>resource I ask that you only use stuff that
Robert or others give you that you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>understand well enough to endorse as
coming from you. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> Smalleys fat and sticky fingers
criticism seems to be disproven by DNA<BR>> repair enzymes, and they are
working in a liquid environment. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My view would be that (and Smalley recognized that)
the liquid environment </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is a very special case where </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>every water molecule acts like a finger. Water</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is the only molecule that </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>acts like water at physiological (ie.
living metabolising</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cell) temperatures. </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Outside of physiological temperature (say roughly 45C to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>40C in mammals </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>like
humans) water molecules don't even behave like water</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>molecules anymore, that is outside of the narrow
temperature range, the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>special </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>small and
sticky finger c</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>apacities of water molecules are
no longer</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>able to handle the </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>biomolecules in the necessary ways. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Even if general atomic assembly is impossible or too inefficient
it </DIV>
<DIV>> is clearly possible to make more specialized forms of moiety
assembly,</DIV>
<DIV>> it would just make the systems messier and less easy to do
armchair</DIV>
<DIV>> design of.<BR><BR>>>> Given that frozen cells can be
thawed with viability intact,<BR>>><BR>> >I've frozen and thawed
cells. Have you?<BR><BR>> No. But if you are referring to the fact that quite
a lot of the cells die<BR>> in the process, I don't consider that to be any
form of counterargument to<BR>> my previous argument. I was merely showing
that there existed a method<BR>> that had a high likeliehood of assembling a
viable cell if implemented,<BR>> not the best possible such method.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I do grant there exists a method whereby there is a
high likelihood of frozen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(to -170c) </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>cells
(not organs, not tissues) surviving on thawing. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><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><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>When I took
mouse ES cells to -170C I did it in two stages, taking them to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>first -70C </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>for 24
hours - for the moment I can't recall why something to do</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>with DMSO </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>- I'll
have to check, b</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>ut </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>I'm pretty sure that </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>taking them
straight</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>to -170C, would have disrupted </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>their </FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>plasma membranes
and <FONT size=+0>killed them. </FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> > It is important to get that the brain is an organ of a
multicellular</DIV>
<DIV>> > life form. It grows as a result of the actions of
cells but it isn't</DIV>
<DIV>> > just a big lump of cells. I know you know that as
a neuroscience </DIV>
<DIV>> > guy but I don't know how well you know that and
I don't<BR>> > accept expertise on the part of others until I see
evidence of it.<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT><BR>> Well, you can
always call me a theoretical neuroscientist. I know about<BR>> the brain
structure, but the closest I get is looking over the shoulders<BR>> of
experimenters doing rat brain slice work.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay. Theoretical neuroscientist it is.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> Brain tissue is terribly complex and
labyrinthine, and I think standard<BR>> cryo suspensions do nasty things to
it. That is why I'm not so much of a<BR>> believer of bodily cryonic revival
but rather in uploading - I can see how<BR>> that could in principle be done,
and it is even possible to get down to<BR>> gritty details already to
callibrate our predictions. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>(actually, I really ought to be working on that paper right
now)<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can imagine Eugen and Robert nodding furiously.
But we each have to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>prioritize as we see best. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[snip]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></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>
<DIV><BR>> > Though we can grow cells in quantity in E.coli, </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[or yeast might have been a better example for me
to have used]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>> we can't build as</DIV>
<DIV>> > opposed to growing just a single frozen cell.
A growing cell can </DIV>
<DIV>> > preserve the integrity of mitochondrial
membranes. You can't do</DIV>
<DIV>> > that working from the outside to built the
membrane.<BR></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><BR>> Hmm, suppose you were putting down phospholipids in a
matrix</DIV>
<DIV>> of vitrified water, starting from the bottom and adding layer
after</DIV>
<DIV>> layer. Why couldn't you just print the inner membrane? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here's where we should switch over to the other
thread. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its a three dimensional container, that can't leak
in any dimension at</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>physiological conditions because its got to
keep its inside separate</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>from its outside for the ATP pumps etc to
work just to give one of many</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>reasons. The membrane proteins
</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>embedded in it mean that it
wouldn't</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>be smooth </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>like a sphere even at </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the scale of a
couple of </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>nanometres</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it would be rough with the embedded proteins.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not sure what picture you have in you minds eye
but the picture</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I image *you* have involves an extruding device
laying down molecules</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of water and other molecules onto a grid that
represents planes in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a 3D volume. Is that right?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>I mean do you think that
individual water molecules are going to drop</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>or be fired </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>out of the extruding device as if they were
little frozen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>lego blocks made of one </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>oxygen </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>between two hydrogens so
that you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>could place precisely each individual
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>water molecule and also place</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>each individual hydrogen ion so you have
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the difference in concentration</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of hydrogen ions on the inside and </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>the outside. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Is that essentially what you are </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>thinking?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[Aside: </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I
want you to do for the purpose of our discussion/exploration</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is visualise the brain as a volume (1450
ml) containing matter </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>that </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>can be </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>arbitrarily broken down into smaller cubic volumes.
(other </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>thread - then I</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>can impose cell physiologic facts into those
volumes </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>showing you the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>scales of whatever we are talking about).
This will get rid of a lot of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>handwaving I suspect.]</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> It would</DIV>
<DIV>> be just like the 3d printing of the nested spheres in the middle
of</DIV>
<DIV>> this page: <A
href="http://www.georgehart.com/rp/rp.html">http://www.georgehart.com/rp/rp.html</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I looked but I can't see it what you mean. Could be
I can see coz</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't get it but I think its I cant see because I
have a different</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>picture/representation of what a mitochondrial
membrane looks like</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>at the </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nanoscale than you do. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> > We can produce in vitro cell free systems to do research on.
</DIV>
<DIV>> > We can create liposomes - lipid enclosed spheres that
aren't</DIV>
<DIV>> > cells. But we can't create a living cell as a
manufacturing process.<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT><BR>> No, not
yet. But unless you believe in vitalism, you would agree </DIV>
<DIV>> that iF *somehow* the molecules making up a cell were just </DIV>
<DIV>> placed in the right pattern it would become a living cell,
right?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If *somehow* then yes. I'm
not a believer in vitalism. I'm a hard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>core materialist. </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><BR>> Now it is just up to us
arguing that it can be done to show that</DIV>
<DIV>> it is possible to achieve this using a physical system, and
for</DIV>
<DIV>> the people arguing that it is likely to be done to show why</DIV>
<DIV>> such a system is likely.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well that would be a first step to pursuading me
sure. But we</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>need to proceed with some discipline.
</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>
<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><BR>> > At this stage, we,
science, don't know how for instance the first cell<BR>> > that was
the progenitor of all life on earth formed. Not exactly. </DIV>
<DIV>> > We don't even know that much in principle yet.<BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> </FONT><BR>> Or even that it was a cell. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Right. Not a cell as we know cells today.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>I'm pretty convinced that it was more akin to a
ribozyme.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It can't have been just a
ribozyme. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>The replicative machinery
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>needed to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>be constrained in space to </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>concentrate its </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>raw
materials </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>for </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>self
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>assembly. Membranes with "filters" play a
vital role in helping to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>concentrate </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>raw
input materials. There have to be enough molecules</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of substrate around that the enzyme can encounter
them as they hit</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>it through brownian motion fast enough.
</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><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> >> 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<BR>>> > to<BR>>> > a working cell to get it to
spontaneously do the final pieces of<BR>>> >
selforganisation.<BR>>> <BR>> > "only" "attractor
state(s) that correspond to a working cell" :-)<BR>> ><BR>> > So
talk to me like a cell biologist. Tell me your protocol or point me to<BR>>
> a peer reviewed paper.<BR>> ><BR>> > "attractor state(s) that
correspond to a working cell" sounds like<BR>> > believer
psuedo-explanation handwaving to me.<BR><BR>> I am a computational biologist.
At best I can explain my thinking</DIV>
<DIV>> and results to you, but I dont do "protocols" and attractor
states </DIV>
<DIV>> are my bread and butter.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay. Lets not get hung up on the word
protocol. If you can outline</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a series of steps each one of which makes sense and
is intelligible</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>in its own right taking us from state a to f
through b c d and e then</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thats good enough for me in terms of you being able
to "do" a </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>protocol for our purposes. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I've offered you a model (other thread, brain as
volume containing</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>matter) into which you can propose a series of
steps either for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>scanning or for rebuilding the brain. I'm more
interested in the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>rebuilding side myself but both are problematic for
cryonics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>A bilayer is an attractor state in the
configuration space of phospholipid<BR>> molecules in water (e.g. see S.J.
Marrink, E. Lindahl, O. Edholm, and A.<BR>> Mark. Simulation of the
spontaneous aggregation of phospholipids into<BR>> bilayers. J. Am. Chem.
Soc., 123:8638-8639, 2001. )<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Okay. You found a paper and built
trust. Thanks I looked at it. I still don't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>know what the </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>words
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>attractor </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>state
means exactly but it probably doesn't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>matter I can find </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>out if I need to to understand you if its important.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But for our purposes a flat bilayer in a plane like
say fat might form on top of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a sink full of water isn't enough the bilayer of an
organelle </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>or a plasma </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>membrane or even vesciles are all three dimensional
bilayers like balloons</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>with </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>insides and
outsides. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its this capacity to keep whats inside
separate </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>from whats outside so there can </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>be concentration differences etc that </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>is </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>critical to cellular life and cell function. Break
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>the 3D integrity when the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cellular machinery is doing its thing and your
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>concentrations are gone and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>your cell dies. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> Membrane biophysics is not my field, but I'm pretty certain there
are<BR>> characterizations of how far lipids can be displaced before the
structure<BR>> breaks. And I know there are molecular dynamics
simulations of</DIV>
<DIV>> membranes (such as the one above) that would allow you to
experiment</DIV>
<DIV>> with jittering their positions. So unless it has already been
done, there is</DIV>
<DIV>> a nice paper in characterizing the probability of reforming
properly from</DIV>
<DIV>> different levels of positional (and rotational) uncertainty. In
fact, one </DIV>
<DIV>> could also try changing the simulation temperature to see if there is
any </DIV>
<DIV>> phase transitions or other troubles if one starts with a vitrified ice
state</DIV>
<DIV>> and move up to physiological temperature (I'd love to do that
paper if </DIV>
<DIV>> I had the time, simulator and some more expertise).<BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>[In fact, given results such as
the animation at the bottom of<BR>> <A
href="">http://www.memphys.sdu.dk/~besold/research.html</A> a more
proper<BR>> characterization would be: does this organisation happen fast
enough to<BR>> not cause significant leaks or topological defects of the
membrane. ]<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cute animation. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The issue though is spherical bilayers which can
contain a volume within</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a larger volume without leaking.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> Locations of biomolecules is an interesting
chapter. Given the rapid<BR>> diffusion of most small molecules and proteins
not bound to anything, they<BR>> can essentially be put in the right
compartment and they will extremely<BR>> quickly spread out.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> More care is needed for membrane-bound</DIV>
<DIV>> molecules that have to be placed on the right membranes and
</DIV>
<DIV>> macromolecular structures such as microtubuli.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>They aren't placed on though they are embedded in.
The amino acid</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>sequences of the proteins that are intended to be
membrane proteins</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>itself interacts with translocation machinery of
the cell (in liquid </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>conditions) to place the proteins into the
membrane. When cells (and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of course the tissues and organs made of them) are
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>growing all this</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>protein trafficing into and through membranes can
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>take place</FONT> <FONT face=Arial size=2>at
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>physiological conditions with the water molecules
acting as fingers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> My guess is that it is</DIV>
<DIV>> the later that are going to be the most troublesome objects to
</DIV>
<DIV>> reconstruct. Again, if it has not been done yet it is not a terribly
hard</DIV>
<DIV>> research project to characterize how much noise in position
these</DIV>
<DIV>> structures can handle, and how quickly they relax into correct
</DIV>
<DIV>> (or incorrect) configurations.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm only tangentially interested in the attractor
state stuff your are</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>So long as we are clear we are talking about 3D
volumes not flat</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>bilayers like the ones in your links. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>>
Cells are stable to thermal noise and other minor distortions due</DIV>
<DIV>> to e.g. mild sound waves. Most of this I would expect is
because</DIV>
<DIV>> of the bilayers. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> To me it makes sense to regard a living cell as a </DIV>
<DIV>> particular set of points in the configuration space of all its
molecules.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Whatever floats your boat. But please consider it
in the context of the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>brain volume of 1450 ml in the other thread.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>> We know small deviations from this set like an indentation of
the</DIV>
<DIV>> membrane will relax away, so it is an attracting set. What needs
to</DIV>
<DIV>> be characterized is the distance to the boundaries of the basin
of </DIV>
<DIV>> attraction for this set: if an intervention or recreation manages to
</DIV>
<DIV>> stay within that distance from the "true" cell it will converge
back</DIV>
<DIV>> to the proper state.<BR><BR><BR>> > You say that as though
you have done it. But you haven't actually</DIV>
<DIV>> > done it have you. Had you done it you'd have had a lead
paper </DIV>
<DIV>> > in Science and Nature.<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT><BR>> Them's fighting words. Let's race you to the cover?
:-)<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>:--)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Recognizing that you haven't done it doesn't mean
that I think I can.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But who knows maybe we'll amble in that direction
together. </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><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> > </FONT> That sort of
handwaving is highly characteristic of what </DIV>
<DIV>> > transhumanists do when they prentend to actually
discuss</DIV>
<DIV>> > technology. It works to give the illusion of knowledge
without</DIV>
<DIV>> > demonstrating any. It poo poos whats necessary to be
done</DIV>
<DIV>> > without either demonstrating that it has been done and
without </DIV>
<DIV>> > giving a protocol that demonstrates that it can be done even
in</DIV>
<DIV>> > principle.<BR><BR>> Have you seen Nick Szabo's essay on
falsifiable designs?<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT><A
href="">http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/02/falsifiable-design-methodology-for.html</A><BR>>
I think he has a good idea for an antidote.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I hadn't. I just skimmed the first bit then. At
present I'm not feeling the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>need for assistance in falsifying designs. I'm
feeling I can falsify other</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>people unsound designs </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>already. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Maybe later. </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>I wouldn't agree that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Drexler and Kurzweil are "<FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>widely esteemed </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>scientists and engineers"
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>though. I
certainly don't widely esteem them </FONT></FONT>as such and
transhumanists</DIV>
<DIV>are the only folk that I know of that do.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do esteem them both as creative and intelligent individuals.
</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><BR>>>> To have a
realistic chance of doing it right you first need to have<BR>>>>
scanned a cell,<BR>><BR>> > With current technology, cryo EM
one can't scan a single cell. You</DIV>
<DIV>> > scan lots of them and get an aggregated averaged out
picture. </DIV>
<DIV>> > Fair warning handwaving about future technology will prompt
me to</DIV>
<DIV>> > want to see what you know about the relevant small
scale physics.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Actually, I mispoke there. You wouldn't scan a
whole several micron scale</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>cell with cryo EM its used for much smaller
structures. </FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>> I think cryo EM is changing quite rapidly, and
given some of the<BR>> references I'm adding to my paper it seems that making
pretty good 3D<BR>> models of single cells is within the near future. The
biggest problem is<BR>> that EM cannot distinguish protein types, and that is
of course what we<BR>> really want. Would you think Raman spectroscopy would
enable that?<BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>"within the near future" :-)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think cryo EM is only about 5 years or so old
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm not an expert I only just</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>started learning about it recently. We had to
review a Nature paper from </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>November 2006 that made use of it in a third
year subject called molecular</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>aspects of cell biology I'm currently doing.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You switch from talking about cryo EM to EM. With
traditional EM the sample</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>is fixed. With cryo EM its in solution so the
protein or particle (rnas may be</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>part of it) can still have close to its
natural </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>shape rather than being
squashed</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>flat. cryo EM helps seen the shape of cellular
machinery made of proteins and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>rnas like translocons </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>and signal recognition particles bound to nascent chains</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>on ribosomes etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do I think Raman spectroscopy would enable the
distinguishing of protein </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>types? Not on the surface of whole cells, whole
cells are too large. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If your testing my knowledge of Raman spectrosopy I
don't have much. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can get it if I need it but I don't need it right
now, not yet, for my current </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>purpose. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I try to be a hardcore rationalist. This means I
don't have to know everything</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>but I have to know what I know and what I
don't. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am not an expert in cell biology, I'm a
student. But even as a student</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>its my conviction that I already know enough cell
biology to know that cryonics</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>can't work which is really the point of this
discussion whether or not I am </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>an expert in anything is irrelevant. </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><BR>>> 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>><BR>><BR>> I disagree. I think it is much much harder. I even
think it is impossible.<BR>> Because you have to get your manufacturing
fingers around the cell</DIV>
<DIV>> clusters whilst the cells in the centre of the cluster
have to be at the</DIV>
<DIV>> right temperature to act like cells and bind to the
other cells.<BR><BR>> My assumption was -170 C. It seems that your view is
that cells at this<BR>> temperature do not correspond to viable cells at
all?<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yes. That is my view. In order to take
cells down to - 170 you take them</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>down to say - 70 for 24 hours or so
first. You can't just plung them into</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> - 170. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You can do that slow stepped freezing with cells
that are just cells, like</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>the mouse ES cells I've worked with (or pretty much
any cells, that aren't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>still in tissue form) because </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>they have a small </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>surface
to volume ratio. </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>
<DIV><BR>> Your brain and mine would at one level be variations on the theme
of homo<BR>> sapiens male brains. But what makes me me and you you is in
the<BR>> nanoscale details. Knowing how to build Bretts brain as a
manufacturing<BR>> process wouldn't give you an algorithm for building an
Anders brain. At<BR>> the nanoscale where the synapse make their
connections our individual </DIV>
<DIV>> brains would be too different.<BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT><BR>> Sure. The differences are actually far larger than
nanoscale, you can see<BR>> different folding patterns even in twin
brains.<BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>They are ALSO far larger than nanoscale,
but that they are different at the big</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>scales i</FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>s really beside the point. The point is that they are different at
the small</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>scales where memories are made. In the 1450 ml
volume of your brain and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>my brain are lots of 50 nm cubic volumes. Our
brains differ to the 50 nm scale</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>from each others and from what they would have been
if our respective</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>genomes had developed and grown us in different
enviroments so that we</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>had different experiences and learned different
things. Our neural nets are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>what they are in part because of our experience. To
recreate the structure</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>we need to go down to the 50 nm scale where the
smallest parts of cells</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>reach out and touch other cells to make new
connections like memories.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>> Maybe it would be worthwhile doing a careful critique of
nanoscale<BR>>> dissassemblers?<BR>>><BR>> >Biological or
theoretical? What nanoscale dissassemblers are you<BR>>> talking
about?<BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT><BR>> Theoretical. Since many of
the wilder projects discussed here tend</DIV>
<DIV>> to be based on the assumption that they can work, clearly
analysing</DIV>
<DIV>> the underlying assumptions and constraints would help constrain
the<BR>> handwaving.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Indeed. </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><BR>> > That I think is ultimately what transhumanism is.
Its not the </DIV>
<DIV>> > successor to humanism its a cultural support system for
cryonicists</DIV>
<DIV>> > and technological religious types that can't find
salvation in the normal</DIV>
<DIV>> > religions. Thats why transhumanism doesn't
produce anything except</DIV>
<DIV>> > writers and entertainers - although individual
transhumanists do </DIV>
<DIV>> > produce some things those things are in their
capacities as people</DIV>
<DIV>> > not as transhumanists.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> </FONT>That is an interesting criticism.
And one that I actually agree with to<BR>> some extent. However, I'm much
more hopeful about the usefulness of<BR>> transhumanism.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Clearly. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>> The wheels came off the transhumanist movement when
transhumanists</DIV>
<DIV>>> did not take a strong enough stand when US political
conservatives</DIV>
<DIV>>> turned into religious regressives.<BR><BR>> Actually,
that might have been the breakthrough. Because it made </DIV>
<DIV>> bioethicists much more transhumanist, and that will make a major
</DIV>
<DIV>> change in policy and funding in the long run.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No, I completely reject that silver lining
interpretation. But that's another</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>topic. Arguably a more important topic, but I
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>want to have that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>conversation </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>with
others, because I want to have this </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>one with
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><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>><BR>>> That a lot of
entropy is being pushed around (making unordered atoms<BR>>> into an
ordered cell) adds a bit to the heat problem, but can still be<BR>>>
managed by slowing things down or dividing the workpieces so that </DIV>
<DIV>> >radiating the entropy into the environment is
easy.<BR>><BR>> No offense Anders but conversation needs a lot more
credibility<BR>> established before we can do the handwavey
stuff.<BR><BR>> Excuse me, but where is the handwaving *here*? You
might slap </DIV>
<DIV>> my fingers on cell biology, but it seems pretty strange that you
find</DIV>
<DIV>> *these* statements handwaving.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My bad. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When I post to Exi-chat on cryonics </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>I expect to be beset by true</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>believers </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>right and
left and so I feel like I have to make very </FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2>clear that</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>I am </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=2>not </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>going to waste my
time or mince words.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You are perfectly right to call me on handwaving
when you think I</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>am. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>>> > That molecules are dancing around isn't an enormous
problem at -170,<BR>>> > since the cryonic brain is essentially a
crystal lattice with thermal<BR>>> > vibrations are on the order
of 0.01 nm.<BR>>> <BR>>> The resolution of electron microscopes are
about 2 nanometres from</DIV>
<DIV>>> memory perhaps 0.2. Its not the state of the brain when
frozen as a block of<BR>> >tissue thats the (or rather a) problem its
that each brain is so massively unique<BR>> >in its arborial
structures to very low resolutions. Lipid bilayers are only<BR>> >
around 6 nanometres thick and if the bilayers are breached the ions leak
and the<BR>> > organelle will not work. You have to be able to manufacture
to place your<BR>> > lipids to that degree of precision whilst keeping the
heat out that would<BR>> > change the chemistry of the lipids. It
can't be done not.<BR><BR>> Hmm, and why shouldn't I start to accuse you of
handwaving and asking</DIV>
<DIV>> you to refer to peer reviewed papers here? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You could, that would be fair enough. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But scientists are hardly climbing over themselves
to critique cryonics most</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of them dismiss it out of hand. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm giving you a shot at making a case for it and
of making a convert that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>would have the skills to make lots of other
converts. But there is risk in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>this for you because I may end up depriving
you or a belief that you</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>would prefer not to be deprived of.
</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Brett Paatsch</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PS : I sent an attachment to the list but it seems
folk don't want that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>if you haven't got it and you want to pursue this
then let me know</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and I'll put it on a web site. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>