X-Message-Number: 13301 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:30:35 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Quick Reply to Steve Jackson Steve Jackson is a very reasonable guy, and he's right that I may have overstated my feelings in response to the "Don't worry, be happy" Extropian mindset. The trouble is, Steve, one feels a bit desperate after a while. If this were the first or even the tenth time I had seen someone proclaim with a voice of authority that "nanotechnology will take care of it," I'm sure I would reply in a very calm and measured manner. If the nanotechnology true-believers would show any familiarity with the evidence which is easily available in the form of photographs of damaged brain tissue, and would concoct some kind of explanation as to the processes by which such tissue might be reconstructed, I would be placated. (I refer interested parties to Photo 8, for instance, at http://www.jps.net/cryonics/21cm/p3.htm --the web site maintained by the American Cryonics Society.) Note that while nanotechnology assumes progress in the ability to build very small devices, it does not, so far as I am aware, assume a very high level of onboard computing power in these devices; and while remote computing power presumably will be very powerful indeed, it will be forced to communicate with the assemblers via relatively low-bandwidth connections. Therefore, the nanotechnologists should be able to provide some ideas about reconstruction techniques right now. I have never seen ANY serious attempt in this direction, beyond vague statements that are not much different from, "The knee bone's connected to the thigh bone, and that's what it's all about." Of course we do have Ralph Merkle's rather wonderful paper describing total disassembly and reassembly of the brain, but even he admits that this would entail some formidable challenges; and even here there is no attempt to discuss, for instance, the algorithms that will guide 3D construction work. So far as I am aware, such algorithms do not exist. At the Institute for Robotics at Carnegie Mellon, Hans Moravec--for whom I have immense respect--is still working on the relatively simple problem of getting a robot to roll around a house cluttered with everyday objects. Since Hans now feels that really significant onboard computer power is needed to accomplish this basic task without error (which is the functional equivalent of a single assembler moving through the body without actually doing anything), I would be very interested to learn how the assembler is supposed to recognize and reconnected randomly scattered biological fragments, using less onboard computing power than our current desktop systems. There is a serious credibility gap, here. Consequently, when I read breezy assurances that nanotechnology will save us if we get a "halfway decent suspension," which in turn is presented as a fait-accompli; and when the writer shows little if any awareness of the daily problems associated with maintaining a cryonics organization and its capabilities using volunteer labor...well, I get a bit impatient. And getting back to Steve's letter, I don't see any virtue in suffering. I just feel that the people who pay annual dues and assume they have bought a ticket to the future are fooling themselves--and anyone else who is naive enough to believe them. --Charles Platt Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13301