[extropy-chat] Alternative to Cryo wasTheAmazingCellularRepairdevice
eugen at leitl.org
Mon Oct 17 09:04:55 UTC 2005
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:54:08AM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
> >(Not that most of the above is just a gedanken exercise,
> >because nobody is going to do that in practice. There are
> >much easier ways to skin your cat).
> I agree Eugen. Why don't you outline your most likely scenario
> in an essay or a paper?
Hm, let me think... No. Because I'm not paid to do so, it would
cut into quality time, and because it wouldn't appear in a
peer-reviewed journal (I'd be willing to sacrifice maybe
a week otherwise). You should have asked about a decade ago.
> It really hard to engage with this subject in email as you'd
> appreciate. There is just too much material in it.
Sorry, email is all you're going to get. Email is much more
effective to address specific objections than a paper anyway, which
has to anticipate everything in advance. (And then some mystic starts
talking about qualia, or offer philosophical objections with a furrowed
brow, and you realize you needn't have bothered in the first place).
> I quite like the idea of engaging with a good cogent articulation of
> an approach to cryonics and the best I've found is the one put
> together by Fahy.
> I posted links to pages of the Fahy paper earlier in this thread
> if you want to check out which one I mean.
I'm pretty familiar with Fahy's stuff (in fact I worked with
him for a while). Destructive tissue mapping at cryogenic
conditions isn't well covered anywhere I'm aware of (which
isn't much). You could ask Robert Freitas, however.
> I know that you and Rafal and possibly some others like John
> do have a reasonable cogent idea of how things might work in
> your heads but so far as I know you haven't put your own
> scenarios down on paper in an essay or semi formal paper
> like Merkle did (too badly for me to work with) and Fahy did
> If you do I'd take a look. Otherwise it gets too hard to keep
> track of the various assumptions you might be making, or
> Robert might be, or John or Rafal as you all sort of jump in
> to defend an idea that I think is actually no one idea of how
> cryonics might work but a bunch of separate ideas.
There is no single scenario. There are several that could
work. To find out which one would have to try several.
> Because I'm studying, when I can concentrate on it, biochemistry,
> I enjoy the challenge of thinking about this stuff from a sciencey
> and engineering standpoint but its too time consuming to wade
> into too many disparate scenarios that aren't themselves structured
> into a particular framework or approach.
My favourite approach is destructive imaging of vitrified cephalon
at cryogenic conditions. Cryosection into specimens of adequate
size, image with adaptive step size (sampling specific voxels at
high resolution) with a MEMS pipeline, extract higher order
descriptors (shape and shape property) and assemble individual
mosaic pieces. Load this representation into a dedicated computing
engine (traced as a virtual machine in computronium, or a direct
representation in a suitable substrate).
I presume you're going to already object on the ground that
WBE is someone else (as most people would), not you, so we
don't have to bother discussing the rest, and can postpone
it until individually accurate uploads of small critters have
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the extropy-chat